J-S34014-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

MICHAEL D. WALLACE, JR.,

Appellant No. 2144 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 18, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-CR-0000073-2014

BEFORE: BOWES, OTT and STABILE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED JULY 28, 2015

Michael D. Wallace, Jr. appeals from the judgment of a sentence of 

eighteen to thirty-six months imprisonment entered after he pled guilty to 

possession with intent to deliver (“PWID”) (heroin) and possession of 

marijuana. We affirm. 

We glean the following undisputed facts from the affidavit of probable 

cause attached to the criminal complaint.1 On January 9, 2014, Williamsport 

Police Officer Justin Snyder was working nightshift when he observed an 

____________________________________________

1 As the notes of testimony from the guilty plea hearing were not included in 

the certified record transmitted to this Court on appeal, we do not have the 

benefit of the the Commonwealth’s recitation of the factual basis for 

Appellant’s guilty plea. However, since the only issue that Appellant levels 

on appeal relates to the discretionary aspects of sentencing, the omitted 

transcript is not critical to our review. 
J-S34014-15

- 2 -

Oldsmobile sedan with three occupants fail to obey a stop sign at the 

intersection of Seventh Avenue and Memorial Avenue in Williamsport. The 

vehicle proceeded down Memorial Avenue where Officer Snyder initiated a 

traffic stop. Upon approaching the automobile, Officer Snyder detected a 

strong odor of marijuana. Officer Snyder instructed Appellant, who was in 

the backseat, to place his hands on the back of the front seat headrest while 

the officer performed a weapons frisk on the passenger he removed from the 

front of the car. Appellant initially complied, but while Officer Snyder was 

distracted with the other passenger, Appellant made furtive movements and 

repeatedly concealed his hands near his waist. 

Police Officer Jonathan Deprenda arrived at the scene while officer 

Snyder was occupied with the front-seat passenger. Officer Deprenda 

removed Appellant from the rear of the car and frisked him for weapons. 

Appellant tried to break free from Officer Deprenda but was apprehended 

and detained. During the scuffle, Appellant either dropped or discarded a 

zip-lock bag containing marijuana. 

Appellant was arrested and the search incident to arrest revealed three 

cell phones, $367, and another zip-lock bag of marijuana packaged 

identically to the first one. Officer Snyder placed Appellant in his police 

cruiser for transport to police headquarters. He advised Appellant that the 

back of the police cruiser had been searched for contraband prior to the start 

of his shift and that anything discovered in the unit following Appellant’s 
J-S34014-15

- 3 -

removal would necessarily be from Appellant’s person. Upon transporting 

Appellant to police headquarters and removing him from the vehicle, Officer 

Snyder discovered several additional bundles of heroin on the floorboard and 

seat where Appellant had been seated. A subsequent strip search revealed 

fifteen more bundles of heroin, four bags of marijuana, and a marijuana 

blunt. In sum, Appellant possessed 210 individually packaged bags of 

heroin weighing approximately 8.4 grams, six bags of marijuana, a 

marijuana blunt, $367, and three cellular telephones. He was charged with 

one count of PWID between one and ten grams of heroin and one count of 

possession of marijuana. 

Appellant entered an open guilty plea to both charges and the trial 

court ordered a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”). N.T., Sentencing 

Hearing, 11/18/14, at 2. When Appellant appeared for sentencing, it was 

determined that his prior record score was two, in light of a prior felony drug 

offense. However, his offense gravity score was seven due to the large 

quantity of heroin that he possessed. Based upon Appellant’s scores, the 

standard range of the sentencing guidelines provided for a minimum 

sentence between twelve and eighteen months imprisonment. Id. at 15. 

Appellant was subsequently sentenced to incarceration at a state 

correctional institution for eighteen to thirty-six months, plus two years of 

probation after his release. Sentencing Order, 11/18/14, at 1. No further 

penalty was imposed for possession of marijuana. Id.
J-S34014-15

- 4 -

In imposing sentence, the trial court ruled that Appellant was eligible 

for entry into the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (“RRRI”) program, 

which could potentially reduce the time spent in prison to thirteen and onehalf months. N.T., Sentencing Hearing, 11/18/14, at 16. He was also given 

credit for time served in the county prison while awaiting sentencing. Id. at 

13. Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion. However, after the period 

for filing post-sentence motions elapsed, Appellant informed his counsel that 

he wished to file an appeal challenging the discretionary aspects of his 

sentence. 

Appellant presents the following issue for our review:

Did the trial court abuse its discretion when imposing a minimum 

sentence at the top of the standard range of the sentencing guidelines, 

where the Appellant entered a guilty plea, accepted responsibility, and 

was in need of rehabilitation?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

Four requirements must be met before this Court will address the 

merits of an appeal concerning the discretionary aspects of sentencing. 

Commonwealth v. Lebarre, 961 A.2d 176, 178 (Pa. Super. 2008). These 

elements are as follows: (1) whether Appellant has filed a timely notice of 

appeal; (2) whether the issue was raised at sentencing or in a post-sentence 

motion and preserved in a Rule 1925(b) statement; (3) whether the brief 

contains a statement of the reasons relied upon for the appeal in compliance 

with Pa.R.A.P 2119(f), and; (4) whether there is a substantial question that 
J-S34014-15

- 5 -

the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the sentencing code. 

Id.

“Issues challenging the discretionary aspects of sentencing must be 

raised in a post-sentence motion or by raising the claim during sentencing 

proceedings. Absent such efforts, an objection to a discretionary aspect of a 

sentence is waived.” Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. 

Super. 2003) (citations omitted). Instantly, Appellant failed to level a 

challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence during the sentencing 

hearing or in a post-sentence motion. Although Appellant requested during 

the sentencing hearing that the trial court fashion a sentence at the lower 

end of the standard range of the sentencing guidelines, he failed to 

challenge the trial court’s imposition of a sentence at the top of the standard 

range or argue that the sentence imposed was unreasonable or manifestly 

excessive. N.T., Sentencing Hearing, 11/18/14, at 14-16. Hence, he did not 

raise this discretionary sentencing issue during the sentencing hearing. 

Since Appellant also failed to file a post-sentence motion asserting this issue, 

it is waived. 

Assuming, arguendo, that Appellant had successfully raised and 

preserved this issue for appeal, his sentencing claim is meritless. 

Appellant’s central argument is that the trial court abused its discretion by 

sentencing him to a “clearly unreasonable” period of incarceration. 

Appellant posits that a shorter sentence in the standard range would be 
J-S34014-15

- 6 -

more appropriate based upon a balanced consideration of the sentencing 

factors. Appellant’s brief at 9-10. This argument is legally unsupported. 

Herein, the trial court fashioned the sentence in accordance with the 

sentencing guidelines. 204 Pa.Code § 303.1. Applying Appellant’s prior 

record and offense gravity scores to the basic sentencing matrix, the court 

accurately determined that the standard range for minimum terms of 

confinement for PWID (between one and ten grams of heroin) fell between 

twelve and eighteen months. 204 Pa.Code § 303.16. As noted, the trial 

court’s sentence of eighteen to thirty-six months incarceration was at the 

top end of the sentencing guidelines’ standard range. 

In addition to imposing a standard range sentence, the trial court 

fashioned the sentence with the benefit of the PSI report. N.T, 11/18/14, at 

3. This Court has previously held that, absent more, the imposition of a 

standard range sentence in combination with the existence of a PSI report 

cannot be considered excessive or unreasonable. Commonwealth v. CruzCenteno, 668 A.2d 536, 546 (Pa.Super. 1995); see also Commonwealth 

v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 937 (Pa.Super. 2013); Commonwealth v. Moury, 

992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa.Super. 2010) (same). Herein, Appellant’s argument 

that a reduced sentence would reflect a more appropriate consideration of 

the appropriate sentencing factors is insufficient to overcome the 

presumption of reasonableness created by the combination of the trial 

court’s consideration of the PSI in conjunction with its imposition of a 
J-S34014-15

- 7 -

standard-range sentence. Thus, even if Appellant had leveled this claim 

properly and preserved it for our review, we would have rejected it. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/28/2015