J

- S77 041

- 18

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
,
Appellee

v.

VICTOR DICKERSON
,
Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 816 E DA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 30 , 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Div ision at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0002028

- 2010

BEFORE: OTT
, J., DUBOW , J. and STRASSBURGER
, J. *

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JANUARY 30 , 2019

Victor Dickerson (Appellant) appeal s from the judgment of sentence of

three to six years of incarceration imposed after the revocation of his

probation. We affirm.

The revocation court set forth t he following relevant procedural and

factual history of this case.

On February 3, 2010, at approximately 10:30 A.M., the complainant, Clarence West , who is 84 years of age and confined to a wheelchair, found Appellant in his home without permission. Appe llant claimed that complainant’s son, who was on deployment to Kuwait, gave him permission to enter the home. Appellant fled with approximately $5,000 ... worth of valuables.

***

Appellant entered into a non

- negotiated guilty plea on August 30, 2010 [,] admitting to the crime of burglary, a felony of

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S77041

- 18

- 2

-

the first degree. Sentencing was deferred for a presentence investigation [(PSI)] and mental health & psychiatric evaluation. On October 26, 2010, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate total of 2

– 4 year s of state incarceration followed by 3 years of probation.

Revocation Court Opinion, 5/21/2018 , at 1

- 2 (footnotes and unnecessary

capitalization omitted).

On August 29, 2016, while still serving his probation ary sentence for the

aforementioned burglary
, Appellant was convicted of two felonies. On January

30, 2017, the revocation court held a Gagnon II 1 hearing , revoked

Appellant’s probation, and sentenced him to three to six years of incarceration

to be served consecutively to his other sentences. Appellant did not file post

sentence motions, but did file a timely notice of appeal. Both Appellant and

the revocation court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

On appeal, Appellant raises two claims for our review. Fi rst, Appellant

argues the revocation court erred because it “did not take into consideration

[Appel lant’s] rehabilitative needs” when sentencing Appellant. Appellant’s

Brief at 3. Appellant also claims the revocation court erred by not ordering a

PSI or m ental health evaluation. Id

.
Appellant ’s claims implicate the discretionary aspects of his sentence.

See Commonwealth v. Derry , 150 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2016 ) (noting that

a claim that the sentencing court failed to or did not adequately consider

rehabilitative needs challenges the discretionary aspects of a sentence);

1 Gagnon v. Scarpelli , 411 U.S. 778 (1973).J

- S77041

- 18

- 3

-

Commonwealth v. Flowers , 950 A.2d 330, 331 (Pa. Super. 2008) (pointing

out that “ a claim that the court erred in failing to order a PSI report raises a

discretionary aspect of sentencing claim ”).

An appellant is not entitled to the review of challenges to the discretionary aspects of a sentence as of right. Rather, an appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Cou rt’s jurisdiction. We determine whether the appellant has invoked our jurisdiction by considering the following four factors:

(1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preser ved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriat e under t he Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 9781(b).

Commonwealth v. Samuel , 102 A.3d 1001, 1006

- 07 (Pa. Super. 2014)

(some citations omitted).

Here, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal . However, our review of

the record reveals that Appellant did not file a post

- sentence motion or raise

these issues at sentencing. See N.T., 1/30/2017. Accordingly, Appellant has

not preserved these issues for our review, and he is not entitled to relief. See

Commonwealth v. Rhoades , 8 A.3d 912, 915 (Pa. Super. 2 010) (stating

that an appellant waives for appeal issues challenging the discretionary

aspects of his sentence where he does not raise them at sentencing or in a

post

- sentence motion).

Judgment of sentence affirmed.J

- S77041

- 18

- 4

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 1/30/19