J-S77041-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 30, 2017

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division 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) appeals 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 the 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. 

Appellant 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 years 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 probationary sentence for the 

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

30, 2017, the revocation court held a Gagnon II1 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 postsentence 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. First, Appellant 

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

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

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

PSI or mental 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 Court’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 preserved 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 appropriate under the 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. 2010) (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