J-S41037-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ARTHUR JOHN WEBB, III 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 637 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 29, 2022

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

No(s): CP-40-CR-0000596-2021

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: DECEMBER 15, 2022

Appellant Arthur John Webb, III, appeals the judgment of sentence 

entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County after Appellant pled 

guilty to two counts of corruption of minors. Appellant raises two challenges 

to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. We affirm.

On January 8, 2021, Appellant was charged with two counts each of 

indecent assault of a person less than sixteen years of age and corruption of 

minors. On September 20, 2021, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to two 

counts of corruption of minors and the indecent assault charges were 

withdrawn. After a pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report was prepared, the 

parties agreed Appellant’s prior record score was “0” and his offense gravity 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S41037-22

- 2 -

score was “4,” leading to a suggested standard range of RS-3 months to an 

aggravated range of up to 6 months.1

On March 29, 2022, the trial court imposed two consecutive terms of 6-

36 months’ imprisonment on the corruption of minors charges. As a result, 

Appellant received an aggregate sentence of 12-72 months’ imprisonment. 

Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion.

On April 27, 2022, Appellant filed a notice of appeal. Thereafter, 

Appellant subsequently complied with the trial court’s direction to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

Appellant raises the following issues for our review on appeal:

1. Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion in failing to 

consider the mitigating circumstances before imposing a 

sentence at the highest end of the aggravated range of the 

Pennsylvania Sentencing guidelines on each count?

2. Did the trial court fail to state sufficient reasons on the record 

to justify a sentence at the highest end of the aggravated 

range of the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines in light of the 

mitigating circumstances present?

Appellant’s Brief, at 3.

Both of these arguments implicate the discretionary aspects of 

sentence. In reviewing such challenges, we are mindful that:

Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not 

entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right. Prior to reaching the 

merits of a discretionary sentencing issue[, w]e conduct a fourpart analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a 

timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether 

____________________________________________

1 Appellant’s charges were first-degree misdemeanors, which have a 

maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 106(b)(6).
J-S41037-22

- 3 -

the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to 

reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) 

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 from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).

Commonwealth v. Manivannan, 186 A.3d 472, 489 (Pa.Super. 2018) 

(quotation marks, some citations, and emphasis omitted). 

While Appellant did file a timely appeal, Appellant did not raise his 

challenges to the discretionary aspects of his sentence before the trial court. 

It is well established that:

[t]o properly preserve an issue challenging the discretionary 

aspects of sentencing, a defendant must object and request a 

remedy at sentencing, or raise the challenge in a post-sentence 

motion. Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270, 275 

(Pa.Super. 2004). The Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure 

specifically caution defendants that, when filing post-sentence 

motions, “[a]ll requests for relief from the trial court shall be 

stated with specificity and particularity[.]” Pa.R.Crim.P. 

720(B)(1)(a). See Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d 788, 

798-99 (Pa.Super. 2015) (noting that the trial court must be given 

the opportunity to reconsider its sentence either at sentencing or 

in a post-sentence motion).

Commonwealth v. Clary, 226 A.3d 571, 579 (Pa.Super. 2020).

Our review of the record shows that Appellant did not raise the 

aforementioned claims in a timely objection after the trial court imposed its 

sentence. Further, Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion. As Appellant 

failed to preserve these arguments before the trial court, these claims are 

waived on appeal.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
J-S41037-22

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/15/2022