J-S07006-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

SALVADOR ROBERTS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1284 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 20, 2021

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

No(s): CP-45-CR-0000036-2018

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

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED APRIL 26, 2023

Appellant, Salvador Roberts, appeals from the Judgment of Sentence 

entered on December 20, 2021, after he pleaded guilty to Third-Degree 

Murder and Robbery.1 Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his 

sentence. Finding Appellant’s issues waived, we affirm. 

We derive the following factual and procedural history from the trial 

court opinion and certified record. On December 11, 2017, police arrested 

Appellant for his role as the getaway driver in the robbery and murder of a 

pizza delivery person. The Commonwealth charged him with, inter alia, 

Criminal Homicide and Robbery. On August 27, 2019, while Appellant was 

incarcerated pending disposition of these charges, the trial court sentenced 

him to 1 to 5 years’ incarceration for a prior, unrelated burglary conviction.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(c), 3701(a)(1)(i). 
J-S07006-23

- 2 -

On October 7, 2021, Appellant entered an open guilty plea in the instant 

case to Third Degree Murder and Robbery. On December 20, 2021, the court 

held a sentencing hearing where it imposed an aggregate 25-to-60-year 

incarceration sentence, comprised of consecutive sentences of 20 to 40 years

for Third-Degree Murder and 5 to 20 years for Robbery. The court granted 

Appellant a 625-day credit against his December 20, 2021 sentence, for the 

period from December 11, 2017, when police arrested him on the instant 

charges, to August 27, 2019, when the court sentenced him for the unrelated 

burglary. The court ordered Appellant to serve the December 20, 2021

sentence concurrently with the August 27, 2019 sentence.

On December 29, 2021, Appellant filed a post-sentence Motion for 

Reconsideration of Sentence, in which he “request[ed that his time] credit be 

reviewed to ensure he receives the full credit to which he was entitled.” Motion 

for Reconsideration of Sentence, 12/29/21, at ¶ 5. He also “request[ed that 

the court] consider amending his sentence” because he “believes, and 

therefore avers, that a combined sentence of [20] rather than [25] years is 

appropriate for his involvement in this case.” Id. ¶ 7-8.

On April 11, 2022, the trial court denied the motion. Appellant timely 

filed a Notice of Appeal and he and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 

1925. 

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

[1.] Whether the sentencing court erred and abused its discretion 

by giving [Appellant] an excessive total sentence of [25 to 60] 

years. 
J-S07006-23

- 3 -

[2.] Whether the sentencing court erred and abused its discretion 

by only giving [Appellant] a time credit for a total of [625] days 

rather than a credit from the date of his arrest on the underlying 

charges[, an additional 845 days]. 

Appellant’s Br. at 5 (reordered for ease of analysis)

A.

In his first issue, Appellant challenges the trial court’s exercise of 

sentencing discretion. Although he acknowledges that the sentencing court 

“did not exceed standard range sentences for either offense,” Appellant 

construes his aggregate sentence as an “aggravated” one because it 

“exceed[s] the mandatory maximum for a charge [of Third-Degree Murder] 

standing alone.” Id. at 11-12. He argues that the sentencing court abused its 

discretion because it did not give an adequate explanation on the record to 

justify its imposition of an allegedly aggravated-range sentence. Id.

2

Challenges to the discretionary aspects of a sentence do not entitle an 

appellant to review as of right. Rather, a challenge in this regard is properly 

viewed as a petition for allowance of appeal. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b); 

Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki, 522 A.2d 17, 18-19 (Pa. 1987). To invoke 

our review, the defendant must have (1) filed a timely notice of appeal; (2) 

preserved the issue at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion; (3) included 

in his or her brief a Rule 2119(f) statement; and (4) raise in the Rule 2119(f) 

____________________________________________

2 Unfortunately, Appellant does not cite even once to the notes of testimony 

in his brief, in violation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), 

(c). Our review of the record reveals that the sentencing court, aided by a 

presentence investigation report, provided an extensive on-the-record 

explanation for the sentence imposed. N.T. Sentencing, 12/20/21, at 54-65.
J-S07006-23

- 4 -

statement a substantial question that the sentence is inappropriate under the 

Sentencing Code or sentencing norms. Commonwealth v. Carrillo-Diaz, 

64 A.3d 722, 725 (Pa. Super. 2013). Where an appellant has failed to raise 

the discretionary sentencing claim at the sentencing hearing or in a postsentence motion, we will find the issue waived. Commonwealth v. Griffin, 

65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa. Super. 2013). See also Commonwealth v. Mann, 

820 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. Super. 2003) (finding waiver where “Appellant failed 

to raise the specific claim” in the trial court). 

In the present case, Appellant failed to preserve his discretionary 

sentencing claim in the trial court. He did not argue in his post-sentence 

motion that his sentence is excessive or that the court failed to place adequate 

reasons for the sentence on the record. He likewise failed to raise any such 

claim at sentencing. Consequently, this issue is waived.

B.

In his second issue, Appellant purports to argue that the court erred by 

failing to award him an additional 845 days of time credit. Id. at 11. Appellant 

does not, however, argue that he was entitled to any additional time credit. 

Instead, he asserts that the court abused its sentencing discretion by failing 

to order that his December 20, 2021 sentence begin retroactively as of August 

27, 2019. Id. at 11-12. He alleges that the court had the power to do so 
J-S07006-23

- 5 -

pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 705(b).3 Id. He concludes that “the imposition of a 

concurrent sentence that does not run from [August 27, 2019] is hardly 

concurrent at all.” Id. at 12. 

Unfortunately, Appellant did not raise this issue at sentencing or in a 

post-sentence motion. He likewise failed to include it in his Rule 1925(b) 

Statement or Statement of Questions Involved. As a result, the issue is 

waived. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a), 1925(b)(4)(vii), 2116(a).4

C.

In summation, we conclude that Appellant failed to preserve his 

discretionary sentencing claims for this Court’s review. Consequently, we 

affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

____________________________________________

3 Rule 705(b) states that if a court orders a sentence to run concurrently with 

another sentence, “the sentence shall commence from the date of imposition 

unless otherwise ordered by the judge.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 705(b). Appellant cites 

no legal authority to support his argument that Rule 705 would have permitted 

the court to order the retroactive commencement of his sentence.

4 Moreover, even if he had properly preserved this issue, we would conclude 

that it is meritless. Appellant seeks to receive an additional 845 days of time 

credit for the period from April 27, 2019, to December 20, 2021, while he was

serving an incarceration sentence for the unrelated burglary conviction. It is 

axiomatic, however, that a defendant is not entitled to credit against a 

sentence for time served on another sentence. See Commonwealth v. 

Infante, 63 A.3d 358, 367 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“A defendant shall be given 

credit for any days spent in custody prior to the imposition of sentence, but 

only if such commitment is on the offense for which sentence is imposed.” 

(citation omitted)). See also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760.
J-S07006-23

- 6 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/26/2023