J-S46044- 14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : CHARLEY RICHARD BACON, : : Appellant : No. 36 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on Nove mber 25, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Tioga County, Criminal Division, No. CP- 59

- CR -0000378-2013 BEFORE: SHOGAN, LAZARUS and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED AUGUST 20, 2014 Charley Richard Bacon (“Bacon”) appeals fr om the judgment of sentence entered following his guilty plea to driving under the influence of

alcohol- general impairment (“DUI”). 1 We affirm. On October 14, 2013, Bacon pled guilty to violating Section 3802(a)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Code. Upon the en try of Bacon’s guilty plea, the trial court directed the preparation of a pre-sentence investi gation report. On November 25, 2013, after a hearing, the trial court sentenced Bacon to two to five years in prison. Bacon filed a Petition for M odification of Sentence, which the trial court denied. Thereafter, Bacon filed the instant timely appeal, followed by a court-ordered Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) Concise Statement of Matters Complain ed of on Appeal.

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1).J-S46044- 14

- 2 -

On appeal, Bacon presents the following issues for our r eview:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by improp erly basing the aggravated range sentence[] on the number o f prior DUI offenses and in denying [Bacon’s Petition] to Modify Sentence based on the error?

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failin g to state on the record sufficient reasons for imposing aggr avated range sentence[]? Brief of Appellant at 5. Bacon’s issues implicate discretionary aspects of his sentence.

“ Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do no t entitle an appellant to review as of right.” Commonwealth v. Allen , 24 A.3d 1058, 1064 (Pa. Super. 2011). An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test: (1) whether [the] appellant has file d 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 [t he] appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial questio n that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Se ntencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). Commonwealth v. Evans , ... 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa. Super. 2006).

Allen , 24 A.3d at 1064. Here, our review of the record discloses that Bacon time ly filed his Notice of Appeal. Our review further discloses that Baco n filed a postsentence Petition for Modification of Sentence. In his Petition, however, Bacon did not raise the issues he now raises on appeal.J-S46044- 14

- 3 -

Bacon’s Petition for Modification of Sentence averred, in relevant part, the following:

4. [Bacon] is an employee of MedPlast in Knoxville, Pennsylvania[,] and his employer really needs him as a n employee, as they have not trained anyone to take hi s place. 5. [Bacon] desires his sentence to be modified so he ca n serve his incarceration at the Tioga County Prison and b e eligible for work release. Petition for Modification of Sentence at ¶¶ 4- 5. Bacon’s Petition did not raise any of the issues he presently asserts on appeal. Because Bacon failed to raise these issues before the trial court, he cannot inv oke this Court’s jurisdiction to review the discretionary aspects of his sent ence. 2 See Allen , 24 A.3d at 1064 (stating that, to invoke this Court’ s jurisdiction to review a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing, the appellant must preserve the issue(s) in a post-sentence motion); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (providing that an issue cannot be raised for the fi rst time on appeal). Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 8/20/2014

2 Even if Bacon had properly preserved his issues, we woul d affirm based upon the reasons stated in the trial court’s Opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/19/14, at 1-2.