J-S58035-14

_________________________

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ROBERT WILLIAM DIXON, JR.

Appellant No. 490 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 11, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0000364-2013

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 10, 2014

Appellant, Robert William Dixon, Jr., appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, following his 

open guilty plea to criminal conspiracy, aggravated assault, and recklessly 

endangering another person (“REAP”).1 We affirm. 

The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows. 

On October 28, 2012, the victim was delivering pizza to a residence on West 

11th Street in Erie. When the victim exited his vehicle, Appellant and an 

unidentified female approached. Appellant struck the victim in the head with 

the firearm and demanded money. The victim wrestled with Appellant, and 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903, 2702, 2705. 
J-S58035-14

- 2 -

the firearm fell to the ground. Appellant ordered his companion to retrieve 

the firearm and shoot the victim. Appellant’s companion picked up the 

weapon, but she did not open fire. Instead, Appellant’s companion fled. 

Appellant fled shortly thereafter. 

On March 20, 2013, the Commonwealth filed a criminal information 

charging Appellant with conspiracy, robbery, aggravated assault, terroristic 

threats, possessing instruments of crime, and REAP. Appellant subsequently 

filed a motion to suppress evidence, which the court denied.2 Following trial, 

a jury could not reach a verdict on any of the charges, and the court 

declared a mistrial. 

On December 17, 2013, Appellant pled guilty to conspiracy, 

aggravated assault, and REAP. In exchange, the Commonwealth agreed to 

withdraw the remaining charges. The parties also agreed that the court 

would apply the deadly weapon “used” sentencing matrix. The plea 

agreement did not include a negotiated sentence. Following an oral 

colloquy, the court accepted Appellant’s plea. 

With the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”) report, the 

court conducted Appellant’s sentencing hearing on February 11, 2014. At 

the conclusion of the hearing, the court sentenced Appellant to sixty-six (66) 

to one hundred thirty-two (132) months’ imprisonment for the conspiracy 

____________________________________________

2 The suppression motion, suppression hearing transcripts and exhibits, and 

order disposing of the suppression motion are not in the certified record. 
J-S58035-14

- 3 -

conviction. The court ordered the sentence to run consecutive to another 

sentence at an unrelated docket number. For the aggravated assault 

conviction, the court sentenced Appellant to twenty-seven (27) to fifty-four 

(54) months’ imprisonment, concurrent to the conspiracy sentence. 

Additionally, the court determined the REAP conviction merged for 

sentencing purposes with the aggravated assault conviction. 

On February 21, 2014, Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion 

to modify and/or reduce sentence. In it, Appellant claimed he had already 

received a minimum term of ten (10) years nine (9) months’ imprisonment 

for the conviction at the unrelated docket number. Further, Appellant 

indicated he had “another active case with Allegheny County” that could 

result in additional incarceration. (Post-Sentence Motion, filed 2/21/14, at 

2). Appellant explained he has “a long standing drug addiction problem,” 

and he committed the current offenses “while under the influence of illegal 

substances.” (Id.) Nevertheless, Appellant “graduated high school and has 

completed a fiber optics certification program and has a long life ahead of 

him at the current age of twenty-eight (28).” (Id.) Based upon the 

foregoing, Appellant asked the court to, inter alia, impose the instant 

sentences concurrent to the sentence at the unrelated docket number. The 

court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion on February 24, 2014. 

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on March 26, 2014. On April 

2, 2014, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors 
J-S58035-14

- 4 -

complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant timely 

filed a Rule 1925(b) statement on April 23, 2014. 

Appellant now raises two issues for our review:

THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING [APPELLANT’S] PRETRIAL 

MOTIONS WHEN IT RULED THAT THE POLICE DID NOT 

VIOLATE [APPELLANT’S] CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHEN 

ITS INVESTIGATION AND PHOTO LINEUP WAS NOT BASED 

ON REASONABLE SUSPICION AND/OR PROBABLE CAUSE 

AND THAT THE ARREST WHICH FOLLOWED THUS WAS 

NOT BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE[.] 

THE SENTENCE IN THIS CASE WAS MANIFESTLY 

EXCESSIVE AND CLEARLY UNREASONABLE, AS [CERTAIN 

FACTORS] WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN FASHIONING 

[APPELLANT’S] SENTENCE. 

(Appellant’s Brief at 2) (internal footnote omitted). 

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Ernest J. 

DiSantis, Jr., we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court’s 

opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions 

presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed May 5, 2014, at 3-7) (finding: 1)

Appellant’s decision to enter guilty plea resulted in waiver of suppression 

claim; 2) record belies Appellant’s claim that court failed to consider 

mitigating factors; court considered PSI report, Sentencing Code, guidelines, 

Appellant’s remorse, and statements made by Appellant and counsel; court 

tailored sentence to Appellant’s individual situation, and court provided onthe-record statement of reasons for sentence; court appropriately decided to 

impose sentences consecutive to sentence at unrelated docket number; 
J-S58035-14

- 5 -

Appellant was not entitled to “volume discount” for multiple convictions). 

Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/10/2014