J-S41021-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

GREGORY AHSAN COMANS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1090 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 12, 2022

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

No(s): CP-02-CR-0007423-2017

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: JANUARY 8, 2024

Appellant, Gregory Ahsan Comans, appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered on April 12, 2022 in the Criminal Division of the Allegheny 

County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm.

The trial court ably summarized the relevant facts as follows.

[Appellant] was charged with one count each of criminal 

attempt – criminal homicide (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901(a)), aggravated 

assault (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1)), and, recklessly endangering 

another person (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705) at 

CP-02-CR-0007423-2017 in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The 

charges stemmed from a shooting incident where [Appellant]

discharged over a dozen shots from a handgun at the victim. The 

unarmed victim was struck, leaving him seriously injured and 

permanently disabled. After a non-jury trial, [Appellant] was 

found guilty [of aggravated assault] and sentenced on April 12, 

2022[. Appellant] received six to 12 years’ incarceration[.] 

Timely post-sentence motions were filed and the trial court denied 

relief [on Appellant’s request that the trial court exercise its 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S41021-23

- 2 -

discretion to reduce Appellant’s sentence given his extended

pretrial detention on home electronic monitoring]. [Appellant] 

appealed [and both the trial court and Appellant complied with 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925].

Trial Court Opinion, 1/12/23, at 2 (cleaned up).

At sentencing, and in his post-sentence motion, concise statement, and 

brief on appeal, Appellant raised a single claim. Specifically, Appellant 

asserted that “[g]iven the considerable length of time [he] spent on electronic 

home monitoring pending trial [(four years),] coupled with 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 9721(b)’s requirement that sentencing must take into account the facts and 

circumstances of the defendant’s case as well as his character and 

rehabilitative needs, the trial court abused its discretion in not giving 

[Appellant] any credit for the time he spent on home electronic monitoring.” 

Appellant’s Brief at 26. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Appellant 

is not entitled to relief.

Appellant claims that the trial court abused its discretion at sentencing. 

“[S]entencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing 

judge, whose judgment will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” 

Commonwealth v. Ritchey, 779 A.2d 1183, 1185 (Pa. Super. 2001). 

Pursuant to statute, Appellant does not have an automatic right to appeal the 

discretionary aspects of his sentence. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). Instead, 

Appellant must petition this Court for permission to appeal the discretionary 

aspects of his sentence. Id.
J-S41021-23

- 3 -

As this Court explained:

[t]o reach the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue, we 

conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether 

appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, Pa.R.A.P. 902, 

903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at 

sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, 

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. Cook, 941 A.2d 7, 11 (Pa. Super. 2007).

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, preserved his claim at 

sentencing and in a timely post-sentence motion, and included a statement 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) in his brief. Hence, we turn to whether 

Appellant raised a substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Faulk, 928 

A.2d 1061, 1071–1072 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“[t]o be reviewed on the merits, a 

challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence must raise a substantial 

question that the sentence imposed is not appropriate. A substantial question 

is raised when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentence 

was either inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code or 

contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process. 

This Court determines whether an appellant has raised a substantial question 

by examination of the appellant's concise statement of the reasons relied upon 

for allowance of appeal[.]”).

On appeal, Appellant claims that the trial court abused its discretion 

when it imposed an upper standard range sentence of six to 12 years’ 
J-S41021-23

- 4 -

incarceration for aggravated assault, without considering the extended period 

he spent on electronic home monitoring prior to trial. A claim which alleges 

merely that the trial court failed to consider (or adequately consider) a 

mitigating circumstance when imposing its sentence does not raise a 

substantial question that supports appellate review. See Commonwealth v. 

Crawford, 257 A.3d 75, 79 (Pa. Super. 2021); see also Commonwealth v. 

Velez, 273 A.3d 6, 10 (Pa. Super. 2022) (noting that the “weight accorded to 

the mitigating factors or aggravating factors presented to the sentencing court 

is within the [sentencing] court's exclusive domain.”); Commonwealth v. 

Ladamus, 896 A.2d 592, 595 (Pa. Super. 2006). This is particularly true 

where a challenged sentence falls within the standard range of the sentencing 

guidelines. See Commonwealth v. Maneval, 688 A.2d 1198, 1199-2000 

(Pa. Super. 1997). Hence, Appellant is not entitled to appellate review of his 

claim.

Further, even if we were to address the substance of Appellant’s claim, 

we would hold that the claim fails on its merits. It is well-established that 

“[w]hen imposing a sentence [of total confinement], a [trial] court must 

consider the factors set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b).” Commonwealth 

v. Feucht, 955 A.2d 377, 383 (Pa. Super. 2008), appeal denied, 963 A.2d 

467 (Pa. 2008). Section 9721(b) of the Sentencing Code, in pertinent part, 

states,

the [trial] court shall follow the general principle that the sentence 

imposed should call for total confinement that is consistent with 

[S]ection 9725 (relating to total confinement) and the protection 
J-S41021-23

- 5 -

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. The [trial] court shall also 

consider any guidelines for sentencing and resentencing adopted 

by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing and taking effect 

under [S]ection 2155 (relating to publication of guidelines for 

sentencing, resentencing and parole, risk assessment instrument 

and recommitment ranges following revocation).

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b). Appellate review of a trial court’s sentencing 

determination and application of the foregoing principles is governed by 

Section 9781(c) of the Sentencing Code.

Section 9781(c) specifically defines three instances in which the 

appellate courts should vacate a sentence and remand: (1) the 

[trial] court applied the guidelines erroneously; (2) the sentence 

falls within the guidelines, but is “clearly unreasonable” based on 

the circumstances of the case; and (3) the sentence falls outside 

of the guidelines and is “unreasonable.”

Commonwealth v. Bowen, 975 A.2d 1120, 1123 (Pa. Super. 2009), citing

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c).

We have carefully reviewed the certified record, the pertinent case law, 

and the submissions of the parties. Based upon our review, we agree with 

the trial court that Appellant would not be entitled to relief on his discretionary 

sentencing claim. At the outset of its analysis, the trial court observed that 

no defendant is entitled to credit for time served on pretrial electronic home 

monitoring. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/12/23, at 2, citing Commonwealth 

v. Kyle, 874 A.2d 12, 20-21 (Pa. 2005) (defendant is not in custody in such 

circumstances); see also Commonwealth v. Druce, 868 A.2d 1232 (Pa. 

Super. 2005). Moreover, as the sentencing transcript makes clear, the court 
J-S41021-23

- 6 -

imposed a reasonable punishment based upon its sensible assessment of the 

gravity of the offense, the need to protect the public, and the permanent 

nature of the injuries and disabilities suffered by the victim. Finally, the trial 

court was aware of and considered a pre-sentence investigation report, which 

raised a presumption that the court meaningfully weighed and assessed all of 

the factors relevant to sentencing. See Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 

A.2d 12, 18 (Pa. 1988). Hence, no relief is due.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

FILED: 1/8/2024