J-A05014-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

WILLIAM MCFIELD 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 818 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 26, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0000449-2022

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KING, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MAY 24, 2024

Appellant William McField appeals from the Judgment of Sentence of five 

to ten years’ incarceration entered following his open guilty plea to one count 

of aggravated assault.1 He challenges the discretionary aspect of his 

sentence. After careful review, we affirm.

A.

We glean the underlying facts from the certified record. During the 

morning rush hour on January 10, 2022, in a stairwell of the 30th Street 

Market/Frankford El SEPTA train line in Philadelphia, Appellant grabbed the 

purse strap of Ms. Kristin Galli, a 68-year-old woman then on her way to work, 

and pulled her backwards, causing her to fall and hit her head on the ground. 

Appellant then punched and kicked her as she screamed for help. Ms. Galli 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1). 
J-A05014-24

- 2 -

suffered a concussion and other injuries that caused long-term physical and 

emotional injuries.

The Commonwealth charged Appellant with aggravated assault, 

robbery, criminal attempt, and simple assault. On June 23, 2022, Appellant 

entered an open guilty plea to aggravated assault; in exchange, the 

Commonwealth discontinued prosecution on the remaining charges. The court 

ordered a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”) and mental health evaluation.

On September 26, 2022, the court opened Appellant’s sentencing 

hearing by noting that it had reviewed the PSI and mental health evaluation 

reports. Appellant’s counsel then argued vigorously for a sentence that took 

into consideration Appellant’s age, his significant mental health issues, 

including dementia and rapidly declining cognitive abilities, his diabetes, and 

asthma. The Commonwealth noted Appellant’s prior record score of RFEL,

2

an offense gravity score of 10, and the standard range minimum sentence of 

72 to 84 months’ incarceration, plus or minus 12, before it reviewed

Appellant’s history of violent criminal activity dating back to the 1970’s, his 

history of crack cocaine abuse, his sixth-grade education, his significant 

medical needs, and his then-68 years of age. The Commonwealth then

requested a sentence of 4 to 12 years’ incarceration in SCI Laurel Highlands 

____________________________________________

2 “RFEL” is the category into which the Sentencing Guidelines classify 

“[o]ffenders who have previous convictions or adjudications for Felony 1 

and/or Felony 2 offenses which total 6 or more points in the prior record, and 

who do not fall within the Repeat Violent Offender Category[.]” 204 Pa. Code 

§ 303.4(a)(2).
J-A05014-24

- 3 -

where his diabetes and geriatric needs could be addressed during his 

confinement. 

After Ms. Galli read a victim impact statement to the court, and 

Appellant acknowledged that he was sorry that he attempted to steal Ms. 

Galli’s purse, the court sentenced Appellant to a term of five to ten years’ 

incarceration in SCI Laurel Highland as “best suited for [Appellant’s] care, 

treatment, and needs.” N.T. Sent’g, 9/26/22, at 31. The court acknowledged 

that it considered the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it 

relates to the impact on Ms. Galli, and the rehabilitative needs of Appellant

and concluded that “[g]iven [Appellant’s] age, . . . incarceration to state 

sentence is best for him and the protection of the community.” Id. The court 

further ordered that Appellant receive treatment for his current medical 

issues, which included “dementia, diabetes, glaucoma, asthma, and 

hypertension.” Id. at 32.

Appellant filed a post-sentence motion seeking reconsideration of the 

sentence on October 1, 2022, which the court denied without a hearing three 

days later. 

Following a PCRA proceeding, the court reinstated Appellant’s appellate 

rights and he timely appealed. Appellant and the trial court complied with 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

B.

Appellant provides the following issue for our review:
J-A05014-24

- 4 -

Did not the lower court err and abuse its discretion by sentencing 

Mr. William McField to an unreasonable sentence by failing to give 

proper consideration to Mr. McField’s deteriorating mental and

physical health and mitigating factors, and as a result was not the 

sentence contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the 

sentencing process, manifestly unreasonable, and excessive?

Appellant’s Br. at 5.

C.

Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentence are not appealable 

as of right. Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73, 83 (Pa. Super. 

2015). Rather, an appellant challenging the sentencing court’s discretion 

must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by (1) filing a timely notice of appeal; (2) 

properly preserving the issue at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and 

modify the sentence; (3) complying with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), which requires a 

separate section of the brief setting forth “a concise statement of the reasons 

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

of a sentence[;]” and (4) presenting a substantial question “that the sentence 

appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Id. (citation 

omitted).

Appellant preserved the issue in a post-sentence motion, timely 

appealed, and included a Rule 2119(f) Statement in his brief. We, thus, 

proceed to consider whether Appellant has raised a substantial question for 

our review. 

We determine on a case-by-case basis whether an appellant has raised 

a substantial question regarding discretionary sentencing. Commonwealth 

v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010). “A substantial question 
J-A05014-24

- 5 -

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.” Id. (citation omitted).

In his Rule 2119(f) Statement, Appellant asserts that the court violated 

the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process by failing to 

consider the sentencing factors provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) and imposing 

a sentence with an “extraordinary length” that “under the circumstances was 

manifestly unreasonable, excessive[,] and not individualized.” Appellant’s Br. 

at 12. We conclude he has raised a substantial question. See

Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 627 (Pa. 2002) (providing that 

an appellant raises a substantial question where his Rule 2119(f) statement 

“sufficiently articulates the manner in which the sentence violates either a 

specific provision of the sentencing scheme set forth in the Sentencing Code 

or a particular fundamental norm underlying the sentencing process”).

D.

We consider the merits of Appellant’s claim mindful that sentencing is 

vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing court, and we shall not disturb 

a sentence absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. 

Summers, 245 A.3d 686, 692-93 (Pa. Super. 2021). 

In this context, an abuse of discretion is not shown merely by an 

error in judgment. Rather, the appellant must establish, by 

reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or 

misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of 
J-A05014-24

- 6 -

partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly 

unreasonable decision.

Id. at 693 (citation omitted); see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c), (d) (providing 

to appellate courts standards for reviewing sentences challenged as 

unreasonable). 

“Sentencing in Pennsylvania is individualized, and requires the trial court 

to fashion a sentence ‘that is consistent with the protection of the public, the 

gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and 

on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant[.]’” 

Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652, 663 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quoting 42 

Pa.C.S. § 9721(b)). Additionally, when sentencing to total confinement, the 

court must consider “the history, character, and condition of the defendant[.]” 

42 Pa.C.S. § 9725. 

When a sentencing court has reviewed a presentence investigation 

report, we “presume” that the court properly considered and weighed all 

relevant factors, including mitigating factors. Commonwealth v. Devers,

546 A.2d 12, 18 (Pa. 1988). 

In addressing Appellant’s issues raised in his Rule 1925(b) Statement, 

the trial court noted that it “considered the sentencing recommendations of 

both parties and carefully followed the sentencing guidelines” and, as detailed 

in the sentencing transcript, “offered sufficient, valid reasons for imposing its 

mitigated guideline sentence.” Trial Ct. Op., filed May 26, 2023, at 4. The 

court also observed that, “[c]ontrary to Appellant’s claim, the sentencing 

transcript demonstrates that the [c]ourt indicated an express consideration of 
J-A05014-24

- 7 -

the . . . standards [provided in 42 Pa. C.S. § 9721(d)] in fashioning Appellant’s 

sentence[.]” Id. at 5-6, quoting N.T. Sent’g, at 29-31 (emphasis in original). 

In his brief, Appellant argues that the “uncontradicted evidence of his 

deteriorating health, serious mental and physical disabilities, advanced age, 

and likely inability to reoffend, all . . . militated in favor of a sentence of strict 

supervision in a nursing home, not a prison.” Appellant’s Br. at 16. He 

emphasizes the recommendations of a social worker and psychiatrist, as 

provided to the court in his mitigation memorandum and the mental health 

evaluation report. Id. at 16-19. He contends that the court abused its 

discretion by “disregard[ing]” those recommendations, as well as the 

Commonwealth’s recommendation, and imposed a sentence which “appeared 

to rely almost entirely upon the nature of the offense . . . and ignored 

Appellant’s needs for rehabilitation in violation of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721.” We 

disagree.

Our careful review of the record reveals that the court reviewed the PSI 

and mental health evaluation reports before acknowledging not only the 

impact of the crime on Ms. Galli’s physical and mental health, but also 

Appellant’s significant health problems stemming from the circumstances of 

his then-68 years of life. In imposing a sentence within the mitigated range 

of the sentencing guidelines3 and recommending incarceration in SCI Laurel 

____________________________________________

3 See Pa.Code § 303.16(a) (providing, in relevant part, for a standard 

minimum sentence of 72 months and mitigated minimum of 60 months’ 

incarceration).
J-A05014-24

- 8 -

Highland, a facility known to provide appropriate care and supervision to an 

aging population suffering from the health challenges suffered by Appellant,

we conclude that the court properly considered the sentencing factors 

provided in Section 9721, particularly Appellant’s rehabilitation needs. 

Accordingly, pursuant to our standard of review, we conclude the court 

properly exercised its discretion in sentencing Appellant to a mitigated term 

of five to ten years’ incarceration. We, thus, affirm Appellant’s judgment of 

sentence.

Judgment of Sentence affirmed.

Date: 5/24/2024