J-S37037-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. JAMES GLENN TARTAL Appellant No. 1791 WDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 21, 20 15 In the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-33-CR-0000024-2009,

CP-33-CR-0000025-2009
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and LAZARUS, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MAY 16, 2016 James Glenn Tartal appeals from his probation revo cation sentences (docket numbers CR-24-2009 & CR-25-2009) entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County. After careful re view, we affirm. On June 17, 2009, Tartal pled guilty to one count of burglary 1 (CR-24- 2009) and was sentenced to two years of intermediat e punishment (IP), followed by five years of probation. On the same d ate, Tartal pled guilty to one count of delivery of a controlled substance (he roin) 2 (CR-25-2009) and was sentenced to five years of probation to run con currently with the

____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a).

2 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).J-S37037-16

- 2 -

sentence imposed at CR-24-2009. On August 15, 2012 , the court heard evidence that Tartal had committed technical violat ions of his sentences at CR-24-2009 and CR-25-2009. The court ordered that Tartal remain in the Jefferson County jail until August 20, 2012, when h e would be released to report to the Jefferson County Adult Probation Offi ce to finish his probation. On October 9, 2015, Tartal was convicted of manufa cturing methamphetamine (docket number CR-298-2015). As a result of his new conviction, the court revoked Tartal’s probation at CR-25-2009 and resentenced him to 71⁄2-15 years’ imprisonment, with c redit for time served. The court also revoked Tartal’s sentence at CR-24-2 009 and resentenced him to 21⁄2-5 years in prison. The sentence at CR-25- 2009 was ordered to run consecutively to the sentence imposed at CR-298 -2015. The sentence at CR-24-2009 was ordered to run consecutively to t he sentence at CR-25- 2009. 3 On November 2, 2015, Tartal filed a motion for re consideration of sentence which was denied. This timely appeal foll ows. On appeal, Tartal presents the following issue for our consideration: Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked [Tartal’s] probation and resentenced him to serve a sentence o f incarceration in a

____________________________________________ 3 Thus, the aggregate of Tartal’s probation revocati on sentences is 10-20 years of incarceration, which runs consecutively to the sentence at CR-298- 2015.J-S37037-16

- 3 -

State Correctional Institution aggregating to a min imum of ten (10) years to a maximum of twenty (20) years for [Tartal’s] viola tion of probation/parole. When reviewing the outcome of a revocation proceed ing, this Court is limited to determining the validity of the proceedi ng and the legality of the judgment of sentence imposed. Commonwealth v. Heilman , 876 A.2d 1021, 1026 (Pa. Super. 2005). Notwithstanding the stated scope of review suggesting that only the legality of a sentence is reviewable, an appellant may also challenge the discretionary aspects of a s entence imposed following revocation. Commonwealth v. Sierra , 752 A.2d 910, 912 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2000). See also Commonwealth v. Cartrette , 83 A.3d 1030, 1034 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (scope of review f ollowing revocation proceedings includes discretionary sentencing claim s). Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentenci ng do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right. Sierra , supra . An appellant is not entitled to review of the discretionary aspects of sentencing unless he or she satisfies a four-part test: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was pr operly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconside r and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. [720]; 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 fro m is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code. Commonwealth v. Caldwell , 117 A.3d 763, 768 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (quoting Commonwealth v. Allen , 24 A.3d 1058, 1064 (Pa. Super. 2011)).J-S37037-16

- 4 -

Instantly, Tartal filed a timely notice of appeal, and he preserved his challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sente nce by raising the issue in a motion for reconsideration of his sentence. Tart al’s brief includes a statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal regarding the discretionary aspects of his sentence pursuant to P a.R.A.P. 2119(f). Accordingly, we must determine whether Tartal prese nts a substantial question that the sentence from which he appeals is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code. The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Commonwealth v. Anderson , 830 A.2d 1013 (Pa. Super. 2003)

. A substantial question exists “only when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the se ntencing judge’s actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific prov ision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms whic h underlie the sentencing process.” Sierra , supra at 912–13. In his Rule 2119(f) statement, Tartal asserts that his probation revocation sentences are “manifestly unreasonable i n that they constitute too severe of a punishment under the circumstances of the case and the probation/parole violations, and the Court’s reason s for the sentences do not justify the severity.” Appellant’s Brief, at 7. T his claim presents a substantial question invoking our appellate review. Commonwealth v. Philipp , 709 A.2d 920 (Pa. Super. 1998).J-S37037-16

- 5 -

“In general, the imposition of sentence following t he revocation of probation is vested within the sound discretion of the trial court, which, absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be dis turbed on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Hoover , 909 A.2d 321, 322 (Pa. Super. 2006). A sentence should not be disturbed where it is eviden t the court was aware of the appropriate sentencing considerations and weigh ed them in a meaningful fashion. Commonwealth v. Fish , 752 A.2d 921, 923 (Pa. Super. 2000). We note that where the sentencing court has reviewe d a presentence investigation report, the court is considered to ha ve appropriately weighed the requisite sentencing factors. Commonwealth v. Naranjo , 53 A.3d 66, 72 (Pa. Super. 2012). “[U]pon sentencing following a revocation of probat ion, the trial court is limited only by the maximum sentence that it cou ld have imposed originally at the time of the probationary sentence .” Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh , 770 A.2d 788, 792 (Pa. Super. 2001). A court can sentence a defendant to total confinement after revoking proba tion if the defendant was convicted of another crime, the defendant’s conduct indicates it is likely that he will commit another crime if he is not imprisone d, or such a sentence is essential to vindicate the court’s authority. 42 P a.C.S.A. § 9771(c).J-S37037-16

- 6 -

The record reveals that the revocation court review ed the relevant presentence investigation report (PSI) prior to rev oking Tartal’s probation. 4 Moreover, the court provided ample support for its revocation sentence, stating the following: The defendant, having already completed the State I ntermediate Punishment [P]rogram, was still on probation for Bu rglary and Delivery of a Controlled Substance when he pled gui lty to Manufacture of a Controlled Substance for manufactu ring methamphetamine. Clearly, then, several months in jail, more than a year of substance abuse treatment, and the t hreat of reincarceration were ineffective deterrents for this particular defendant, whose new crime was for the same kind of conduct – participation in the drug trade – that had given th e [c]ourt jurisdiction over him in 2009. The defendant prove d, therefore, that he was not amenable to probation; that a lesse r prison term coupled with extensive substance abuse treatment wa s not the answer to rehabilitating him and protecting the com munity; and that he would, as he had already, likely commit add itional crimes if not physically precluded from doing so. The [c] ourt thus deemed a sentence of total confinement to be the mo st feasible alternative, not because it was biased against the defendant or bore him any ill-will, but because he had demonstra ted that he would not control his criminal inclinations otherwi se. Trial Court Opinion, 12/17/15, at 15. The record supports the court’s probation revocati on sentences. After reviewing the PSI, the court concluded that Tartal’ s repeated criminal transgressions, which occurred in multiple counties while he was on

____________________________________________
4 In fact, the Honorable John H. Foradora, who impos ed Tartal’s probation revocation sentences in the instant case, was very familiar with Tartal’s criminal history since he was the judge who sentenc ed Tartal in 2009 for burglary.J-S37037-16

- 7 -

probation, indicate that it is likely he will commi t another crime if he is not imprisoned. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9771(c); Naranjo , supra ; N.T. Gagnon
II 5 Hearing, 10/21/15, at 3. The fact that the court c hose to run the sentences consecutively, which is within its discre tion to do, is likewise justified where the court believed that the sentenc es were based on the minimum confinement consistent with the gravity of the offenses, the need for public protection, and Tartal’s need for rehabi litation. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b); see also Commonwealth v. Johnson , 961 A.2d 877, 880 (Pa. Super. 2008) (stating that imposition of consecutiv e as opposed to concurrent sentences is solely within sound discret ion of trial court). Judgment of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________
5 Gagnon v. Scarpelli , 411 U.S. 778 (1973). Although the transcript indicates that this was a Gagnon I hearing, it was actually a Gagnon II hearing where the court considered whether the circ umstances warranted revocation of probation and whether Tartal had, in fact, acted in violation of one or more conditions of his probation. At that h earing, the court noted that it had already taken judicial notice of Tartal ’s plea and sentence at CR298-2015, the offense triggering the revocation of his probation. See Gagnon Order, 2/18/15.J-S37037-16

- 8 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 5/16/2016