J. S15045/17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

RICARDO DONTE GRIFFIN, : No. 1478 EDA 2016

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, April 13, 2016,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County

Criminal Division at No. CP-46-CR-0000784-2015

BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J. AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. 

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 15, 2017

Ricardo Donte Griffin appeals the judgment of sentence in which the 

Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, following an open guilty plea, 

sentenced him to serve a term of 111⁄2 to 23 months’ imprisonment for thirddegree felony retail theft1

followed by 2 years’ probation. Appellant was also 

ordered to pay restitution of $4,300. We affirm.

At appellant’s plea hearing, Richard H. Bradbury, Esq., Assistant 

District Attorney for the Commonwealth, provided the factual basis for the 

charge of retail theft:

The facts that support the plea, Your Honor, are that 

between December 16th of 2014 and January 15 of 

2015, [appellant] was employed at T.J. Maxx, a store 

located in Abington, Montgomery County. As a 

cashier, he was responsible for ringing transactions. 

 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3929(a)(4).
J. S15045/17

- 2 -

He under-rang several transactions to the tune of 

$4,300.

Notes of testimony, 4/29/15 at 6. The Commonwealth did not prosecute 

appellant on charges of theft by deception-false impression, retail theft, 

unlawful use of a computer, and three counts of criminal conspiracy related 

to these other charges.2

At the sentencing hearing on April 13, 2016, the trial court denied 

appellant’s request for work release. On April 21, 2016, appellant moved for 

reconsideration of his sentence and requested work release so that he could 

support his two children and help provide financial support for his 

90-year-old grandfather. By order dated May 9, 2016, the trial court denied 

appellant’s motion.

Appellant raises the following issue for this court’s review: “Whether 

the trial court erred in denying appellant’s challenge to the discretionary 

aspects of sentencing in failing to make him eligible to participate in the 

work release program[?]” (Appellant’s brief at 7 (capitalization omitted).)

[T]he proper standard of review when considering 

whether to affirm the sentencing court’s 

determination is an abuse of discretion. . . . [A]n 

abuse of discretion is more than a mere error of 

judgment; thus, a sentencing court will not have 

abused its discretion unless the record discloses that 

the judgment exercised was manifestly 

unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, 

bias or ill-will. In more expansive terms, our Court 

recently offered: An abuse of discretion may not be 

 

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3922(a)(1), 3929(a)(1), 7611(a)(1), and 903(c), 

respectively.
J. S15045/17

- 3 -

found merely because an appellate court might have 

reached a different conclusion, but requires a result 

of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, 

prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so 

as to be clearly erroneous.

The rationale behind such broad discretion and the 

concomitantly deferential standard of appellate 

review is that the sentencing court is in the best 

position to determine the proper penalty for a 

particular offense based upon an evaluation of the 

individual circumstances before it.

Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 169-170 (Pa.Super. 2010) 

(citation omitted).

Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing 

do not entitle an appellant to review as of right. 

Commonwealth v. Sierra, [752 A.2d 910, 912 

(Pa.Super. 2000)]. An appellant challenging the 

discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke 

this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:

[W]e conduct a four-part analysis to 

determine: (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.A. 

§ 9781(b).

Moury, 992 A.2d at 170 (citation omitted).

Here, we begin our analysis by determining whether appellant has 

complied with the procedural requirements of challenging the discretionary 
J. S15045/17

- 4 -

aspects of his sentence. First, appellant timely filed his notice of appeal 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903. Second, a review of the record reveals 

that appellant raised, at both his sentencing hearing and in his motion for 

reconsideration, the issue of whether he could participate in a work release 

program. Third, appellant’s brief includes a concise statement of the 

reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary 

aspects of his sentence in conformance with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). Accordingly, 

we must determine whether appellant has raised a substantial question.

“The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 

932, 935 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 76 A.3d 538 (Pa. 2013) 

(citation omitted). “A substantial question exists only when the appellant 

advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were 

either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or 

(2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing 

process.” Commonwealth v. Glass, 50 A.3d 720, 727 (Pa.Super. 2012), 

appeal denied, 63 A.3d 774 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).

Appellant argues that he raises a substantial question in that the trial

court declined to give reasons for denying his request for work release. This 

court has previously held that a trial court’s failure to state adequate 

reasons on the record for the sentence presents a substantial question for 
J. S15045/17

- 5 -

this court’s review. Commonwealth v. Booze, 953 A.2d 1263, 1268 

(Pa.Super. 2008). 

Turning to the merits of appellant’s claim that the trial court did not 

state its reasons for the denial of the request for work release, this court 

does not agree with appellant’s characterization of the trial court’s decision. 

The record belies appellant’s claim that the trial court failed to state its 

reasons for denying appellant work release. When appellant requested work 

release, the trial court responded:

Not a chance. You don’t deserve it in my 

mind. That you don’t deserve.

. . . . [B]y the way, I have to say one other thing. 

Do you who know who else you are impacting upon? 

This is what happens -- why the price of everything 

goes up. Because in the scheme of things, you look 

at an under-ringing crime and a lot of people go, 

well, what is the big deal, so he stole the stuff, he is 

going to pay it back. Yeah, right. But you got 

restitution you got to pay. And I am going to make 

sure that you pay it. That is going to be one of the 

conditions in this courtroom. But everybody kind of 

says, well, in the scheme of things, what is a little 

stealing.

You got your kids to worry about, you got your 

grandfather, who was very honest and 

straightforward in here today. But you are hurting 

society. You can’t keep coming back, coming back, 

coming back, and skating. It is not happening. The 

buck stops here.

All right. Sir, based upon your present case, I 

have considered your age, the information that you 

have given me. And there is no dispute except for 

the sentencing guidelines there. And there has been 

a stipulation to what they really are. The facts as to 
J. S15045/17

- 6 -

your personal background and circumstances, they 

are not in dispute. You have admitted your offense. 

You have pled guilty.

And after considering these factors, there is 

an undue risk that during the period of 

probation or partial confinement you will 

commit another crime. You are in need of 

correctional treatment, as I have stated. You 

have got to go to -- have commitment to an 

institution for that. A lesser sentence would 

depreciate the seriousness of your crime. I, 

therefore, find that a sentence to total 

confinement is proper. 

Notes of testimony, 4/13/16 at 21-22 (emphasis added).

The trial court clearly and emphatically explained why it denied 

appellant’s request for work release. The trial court listed in detail its 

reasons why a sentence of total confinement was proper. Appellant’s 

contention has no merit.

Appellant also contends that he has raised a substantial question 

regarding the trial court’s decision to impose a sentence without adequately 

considering rehabilitation and mitigating circumstances. Here, the trial court 

imposed a standard range sentence after hearing testimony at the 

sentencing hearing, reviewing the record, and reviewing the pre-sentence 

investigation report. “[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of 

the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under 

the Sentencing Code.” Moury, 992 A.2d at 171. Therefore, appellant does 

not raise a substantial question with respect to whether the trial court 
J. S15045/17

- 7 -

adequately considered mitigating factors when it imposed a standard range 

sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/15/2017