J-A16017-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CHARLES PAUL ETLING 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1258 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 18, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-65-CR-0001469-2020

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., MURRAY, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED: JULY 23, 2024

Charles Paul Etling (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed after a jury convicted him of one count each of aggravated assault, 

strangulation, and recklessly endangering another person (REAP).

1

 We affirm.

The trial court summarized the Commonwealth’s evidence at trial:

On the morning of June 12, 2020, [Debbie] Scott [(Scott)] looked 

out of the living room window of her home on Meadowbrook Lane 

in rural Mount Pleasant Township, Westmoreland County. ([N.T., 

1/18/23, at] 39:5-6). She became concerned when she saw her 

eighty-year-old uncle trying to climb down from a moving lawn 

tractor. (Id. at 39:17-18.) She grabbed her phone and ran 

outside. (Id. at 40:3.) Her uncle screamed at her to call 911, 

and she did. (Id. at 40:1.) From her porch, Scott saw a woman 

“dragging herself across the front lawn.” (Id. at 40:4-5.) Her 

uncle helped the woman, ... Amber Kachmarek [(Kachmarek)], 

onto the porch. (Id. at 40:16.) Scott reported that the woman’s 

lips were parched and swollen; her hair was matted with briars,

twigs, blood and mud; her eyes were swollen shut; and her face 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1), 2718(a)(1), 2705.
J-A16017-24

- 2 -

was covered with mud and blood from a large gash on the left side 

of her face. (Id. at 40:20-24.) Wearing only a muscle shirt, the 

woman asked Scott if she knew who had stolen her pants. (Id.

at 41:6-7.) The police arrived soon thereafter. (Id. at 43:20.) ... 

[T]he Commonwealth introduced a photograph into evidence that 

corroborated [Scott’s] description of the woman’s facial injuries.... 

[Kachmarek] testified that she started dating [Appellant] 

soon after they met on July 4, 2018. (Id. at 48:8-10, 17-18).

They moved in together in November 2018. (Id. at 48:20-21). 

At some point during their relationship, [Appellant] and 

Kachmarek began using methamphetamine. (Id. at 50:20-23). 

She testified that as a result, their formerly “great” relationship 

turned abusive. (Id. at 48:24, 50:24). Kachmarek testified about 

multiple incidents of domestic violence that occurred in the 

months prior to the incident on June 11, 2020. (See [id. at]

54:12-25, 58:1-25, 59:1-25, 61:10-25, 62:2-3). After the third 

incident that occurred on March 30, 2020, she left [Appellant] and 

moved into a local women’s shelter. (Id. at 61:1-2). However, 

she returned to [Appellant] after only one week [at the shelter]. 

(Id.)

On June 11, 2020, in an effort to save their relationship by 

moving away from the area, [Appellant] and Kachmarek drove to 

West Virginia to put a deposit down on a rental home. (Id. at 

63:13-18). On their way back to M[ount] Pleasant, Kachmarek 

noticed a change in [Appellant’s] mood. (Id. at 65:20). He 

accused her of exposing his daughter to drug dealers and sex and 

then began hitting her. (Id. at 58:1-3). He pulled his truck to 

the side of the road and, using both hands, began to strangle her. 

(Id. at 69:1-2). As she tried to fend him off, [Appellant] grabbed 

her hair and pulled her out of the driver’s side door of the truck. 

(Id. at 69:3-5). She recalled falling onto the ground on her knees. 

(Id. at 69:8-11). She attempted to get up and run, but 

[Appellant] grabbed her by the throat and raised her off the 

ground. (Id. at 70:4-11). With his hands around her neck, 

[Appellant] held her above his head and cried, “Why are you

making me do this to you?” (Id.) Eventually, she felt everything 

become “black and quiet.” (Id. at 70:11-12). As her head fell 

backward and her feet stopped kicking, she said she felt “at 

peace.” (Id.) She lost consciousness, woke up sometime 

afterwards, and started running. (Id. at 77:13-14). Because it 

was dark, she did not know where she was—only that she was

running in a creek bed. (Id. at 78:6-7). She eventually crawled 
J-A16017-24

- 3 -

out, lay down in the tall grass, and fell asleep. (Id. at 78:10-14). 

Kachmarek testified that when she awoke, she was wearing only 

a bra, underwear, and a tank top. (Id. at 78:17-19). Through 

her swollen eyes, she was able to see the outline of a man on a 

tractor. (Id. at 79:8-9). She waved her hands to get his attention 

and then asked him to take her to the hospital. (Id. at 79:21-

22). After the police arrived, she was taken to Westmoreland 

Hospital. (Id.)

Trial Court Opinion, 9/25/23, at 2-3.

The trial court described the evidence of Kachmarek’s injuries:

After undergoing multiple tests and receiving stitches for her 

facial lacerations, Kachmarek was discharged [from the hospital]. 

([N.T., 1/18/23,] at 80:21). While in the hospital, she complained 

mostly about her painful tongue, which she had bitten in multiple 

places. (Id. at 80:24-25). The next morning, her entire face 

hurt, especially the area around the sutured wound above her eye. 

(Id. at 81:8-9, 82:15-18). [Kachmarek’s] sister had to help her 

shower, brush her hair, and take her medicine. (Id. at 81:14-

16). Her legs and arms were covered in scratches from crawling 

over brush. (Id. at 83:9-10). Two weeks later, the facial swelling 

and bruising was still noticeable. (Id. at 84:24-25). Her eye 

remained tender “for a long time.” (Id. at 84:25, 85:1-2). She 

underwent elective surgery on her fac[e] to cover the scar above 

her eye. (Id. at 127:24-25). At the time of the trial, [Kachmarek] 

was still receiving mental health therapy to cope with the trauma. 

(Id. at 85:15-19)....

[Dr. Susan Caslow, M.D., testified she] was on duty on June 

12, 2020[,] when Kachmarek was brought into Westmoreland 

Hospital’s Emergency Room. (Id. at 147:18-19). [Dr.] Caslow 

noted that [Kachmarek] was covered in caked mud, dirt and other 

debris. (Id. at 150:12-13). Her face was swollen and bloody from 

a laceration to the side of her face. (Id. at 150:20-21). Even the 

whites of her eyes were bloody. (Id. at 150:22-23). All of her 

extremities were covered in scratches. (Id. at 151:7-8).

Trial Court Opinion, 9/25/23, at 4.

The Commonwealth presented testimony from two Pennsylvania 

State Police Troopers regarding their investigation:
J-A16017-24

- 4 -

Trooper Michael Thompson testified ... [that, i]n the early 

morning hours of June 12, prior to Kachmarek having been 

discovered ..., [Trooper] Thompson received information that 

Kachmarek was missing and that [Appellant] might know what 

happened to her. ([N.T., 1/18/23,] at 157:20-25). [Appellant]

came to the State Police barracks and admitted that he had 

assaulted and, to his knowledge at the time, possibly killed 

Kachmarek. He then disposed of her body in the woods. (Id. at 

156:10-13, 157:15-25, 158:1). With no objection from 

[Appellant], the Commonwealth offered into evidence ... [Trooper] 

Thompson’s taped interview with [Appellant]. (Id. at 159:23-

24)....

Trooper Evan Terek testified that[, before Kachmarek’s 

discovery,] he had also been assigned to Kachmarek’s missing 

person investigation. ([N.T., 1/19/23, at] 5:14-16). After 

performing a general neighborhood canvas to locate her, he 

received a radio dispatch that she had emerged from the woods 

on Meadowbrook Lane, severely injured. (Id. at 9:3-8). He and 

Trooper Troy Falk traveled to the Scott residence to meet with 

Kachmarek. (Id. at 9:7-8). When he arrived, he observed that 

[Kachmarek] could barely keep her eyes open. (Id. at 10:7-8). 

Her facial injuries were significant. (Id. at 10:11-12). She was 

partially nude and covered in scratches and blood. (Id. at 10:18-

19). Her hair was matted and full of mud. (Id. at 10:21). She 

appeared to be dazed and confused. (Id. at 11:1).

Trial Court Opinion, 9/25/23, at 4-5.

The trial court summarized Appellant’s testimony in his own defense:

[Appellant] testified that he had driven ... Kachmarek to 

West Virginia on June 11, 2020[,] to look at a farmhouse that was 

[available to rent]. ([N.T., 1/19/23,] at 113:9-13). They were 

having a good time, listening to music and talking. (Id. at 114:4-

5). On the way back to M[ount] Pleasant, they stopped at two 

bars. (Id. at 113:9, 114:10). ... [A]t the first bar, [Appellant]

had a few shots of liquor and some beer. (Id. at 114:12-13). At 

the second bar, ... Demarco’s, he drank more gin and beer. (Id.

at 115:13-14). While there, [Appellant] received a phone call 

from Josh Birrell, who told him that his suspicions that 

[Kachmarek] had involved [Appellant’s] daughter with drug 

dealers and sex were true. (Id. at 115:18-19). During their ride 

home from Demarco’s, [Appellant] confronted [Kachmarek] who, 
J-A16017-24

- 5 -

he claimed, laughed at him in response. (Id. at 116:13-20, 

138:1-2). Despite the fact that he was still driving, he began 

punching her. (Id. at 116:20-23). He was filled with rage when 

he pulled his truck to the side of the road, put his hands around 

her neck and choked her. (Id. at 117:16-18). 

Although [Appellant] claimed he did not intend to kill 

Kachmarek, he thought he had done so when he felt her body go 

limp. (Id. at 16-18). He panicked and pulled her body off of the 

road, so that no cars would hit her. (Id. at 119:20-21). He left 

her body there as he drove to Josh Birrell’s house. (Id. at 

119:24). He and Birrell returned to the scene. (Id. at 120:9-10). 

[Appellant] stayed in the truck while Birrell checked on

Kachmarek. (Id. at 121:3-4). When Birrell returned, he told 

[Appellant] that Kachmarek was dead. (Id. at 121:22). Birrell 

said that they needed to obtain a tarpaulin and dispose of her 

body. (Id. at 122:1). [Appellant] wanted to confess to his mother 

at that point, but Birrell convinced him not to. (Id. at 122:8-9). 

Instead, they smoked methamphetamine. (Id. at 122:12-14). 

After smoking three bowls of the substance, [Appellant] called 

four individuals ... and then his mother, whom he asked to call the 

police. (Id. at 122:19-24, 123:6-7, 124:1).

Trial Court Opinion, 9/25/23, at 6-7.

On January 20, 2023, a jury convicted Appellant of the above charges, 

and acquitted him of attempted homicide.2 The trial court ordered a 

presentence investigation (PSI) and mental health evaluation. On April 13, 

2023, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 91⁄2 to 25 years in 

prison. The trial court sentenced Appellant to 81⁄2 to 23 years for aggravated 

assault, with a concurrent sentence of 5 to 10 years for strangulation, and a 

consecutive sentence of 1 to 2 years for REAP. 

____________________________________________

2 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a) (attempt), 2501(a) (homicide).
J-A16017-24

- 6 -

Because the aggravated assault sentence exceeded the 20-year 

statutory maximum,3 on April 18, 2023, the trial court issued an amended 

sentencing order. The amended order imposed a sentence of 81⁄2 to 20 years

in prison for aggravated assault, a consecutive sentence of 1 to 5 years for 

strangulation, and a concurrent sentence of 1 to 2 years for REAP. The 

aggregate sentence, 91⁄2 to 25 years, remained the same. Each sentence was 

within the standard range of the sentencing guidelines. 

On April 23, 2023, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion,

challenging the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his conviction of 

aggravated assault. He also argued his sentence was excessive, and 

requested a modification. On September 25, 2023, the trial court denied the 

post-sentence motion. On October 19, 2023, Appellant filed a notice of 

appeal.4 Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

____________________________________________

3 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1103(1) (“a person who has been convicted of a felony 

[of the first degree] may be sentenced to imprisonment ... for a term which 

shall be fixed by the court at not more than 20 years.”)

4

If a trial court does not decide a post-sentence motion within 120 days, the 

motion is deemed denied by operation of law. Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(a). The 

clerk of courts must enter an order deeming the motion denied, and the 

defendant must appeal within 30 days of that order. Id.; see also id.

720(A)(2)(b). Here, the 120-day decision period expired on August 21, 2023. 

However, the clerk of courts failed to enter an order deeming the motion 

denied. Instead, the trial court entered an order denying the motion on 

September 25, 2023, and Appellant appealed within 30 days of that order. 

We have held that a court breakdown occurs when the clerk of courts fails to 

enter an order deeming a motion denied by operation of law. See 

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493, 498-99 (Pa. Super. 2007). 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A16017-24

- 7 -

Appellant presents two issues for review:

1. Was sufficient evidence presented at trial to establish the 

crime of Aggravated Assault as charged?

2. Did the sentencing court abuse [its] discretion in 

rendering an excessive, illegal[,] and inappropriate sentence 

which ignored the recommendations of a mental health expert and 

failed to address the rehabilitative needs of [Appellant]?

Appellant’s Brief at 4 (issues reordered).

In his first issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence 

underlying his conviction for aggravated assault. Id. at 18-21. He argues the 

Commonwealth failed to establish that he caused or attempted to cause 

serious bodily injury. Id. Appellant maintains Kachmarek did not suffer 

serious bodily injury, asserting she “left the ER after four hours with no 

fractures and no follow up treatment.” Id. at 20. Appellant also argues he 

had access to weapons at the time of the incident, and the fact he did not use 

them demonstrates his lack of intent to cause serious bodily injury. Id. (citing 

N.T., 1/19/23, at 126 (Appellant’s testimony that he had “all kinds of 

weapons” in his truck, including baseball bats and hammers)). He concedes 

the evidence established the charge of strangulation, but argues the 

Commonwealth “pil[ed] on” by charging him with aggravated assault for the 

same conduct. Id. at 20-21.

When reviewing a sufficiency claim, this Court

____________________________________________

Under the circumstances, we decline to consider Appellant’s appeal untimely, 

and will proceed to consider his substantive issues.
J-A16017-24

- 8 -

must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial and 

all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light 

most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, 

is sufficient to prove every element of the offense beyond a 

reasonable doubt. As an appellate court, we may not re-weigh

the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. Any question of doubt is for the fact-finder unless the

evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no

probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.

Commonwealth v. Peralta, 311 A.3d 1, 4 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation

omitted).

A person is guilty of aggravated assault under Section 2702(a)(1) if he

attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such

injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances

manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.... 

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1). “Serious bodily injury” is defined as

[b]odily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which

causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or

impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

Id. § 2301. “For aggravated assault purposes, an ‘attempt’ is found where

the accused, with the required specific intent, acts in a manner which

constitutes a substantial step toward perpetrating a serious bodily injury upon

another.” Commonwealth v. Gruff, 822 A.2d 773, 776 (Pa. Super. 2003). 

“The intent to cause serious bodily injury may be proven by direct or

circumstantial evidence.” Commonwealth v. Matthew, 909 A.2d 1254,

1257 (Pa. 2006) (citation omitted).

The trial court rejected Appellant’s sufficiency claim, reasoning in its

opinion as follows:
J-A16017-24

- 9 -

While choking alone is insufficient to prove specific intent, choking

a victim with two hands until she is rendered unconscious, causing

bruises and red marks upon her neck, has been found to be

sufficient to establish intent to cause serious bodily injury. See

[Commonwealth v. Allen, 281 A.3d 1064, 1107 MDA 2021 (Pa.

Super. 2022) (unpublished memorandum at 4)].

5

 See also

Commonwealth v. Watson, 431 A.2d 949, 952 (Pa. 1981) (“[i]t

is beyond question that manual strangulation can result in serious

injury, if not death.”).

Fortunately, [Appellant’s] actions did not cause Kachmarek

more serious injur[ies]; however, the manner in which he caused

them could easily have had serious or fatal results. Like the

[d]efendant in Allen, [Appellant] acted with rage when he struck

Kachmarek in the face and pulled her from the truck by her hair. 

Kachmarek, a woman who was five feet and four inches tall, tried

to fight [Appellant] but was no match for [his] over-powering six

feet and two inch frame. He did not stop choking her until he felt

her body go limp. When she lost consciousness, he hid her body

rather than take her to the hospital or call for help. In

Commonwealth v. Cassidy, 668 A.2d 1143 (Pa. Super. 1995),

the Superior Court held that an intent to inflict serious bodily

injuries can be deduced from a defendant’s violent conduct and

the surrounding circumstances. [Id. at 1145.] That conduct and

those circumstances certainly exist in this matter.

Trial Court Opinion, 9/25/23, at 12 (record citations omitted; footnote added).

We agree with the trial court’s analysis and conclusion. Viewed in the

light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence was sufficient to

prove Appellant attempted to cause serious bodily injury to Kachmarek. 

Accordingly, Appellant’s first issue merits no relief.

In his second issue, Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion

by imposing an excessive sentence. Appellant’s Brief at 13-18. There is no 

____________________________________________

5 Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 126(b), unpublished non-precedential decisions of the 

Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for persuasive value.
J-A16017-24

- 10 -

automatic right of appeal from the discretionary aspects of a sentence. 

Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581, 585 (Pa. Super. 2010). An 

appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence must invoke this 

Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:

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

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

and 903; (2) whether 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.

Commonwealth v. Glawinski, 310 A.3d 321, 325 (Pa. Super. 2024) 

(citation omitted). Here, Appellant filed a timely appeal, preserved the issue 

in his post-sentence motion, and included the required Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) 

statement in his brief. See Appellant’s Brief at 7-10. 

We next consider whether Appellant presents a substantial question. In 

determining whether a substantial question exists, we do not 

examine the merits of whether the sentence is actually excessive. 

Rather, we look to whether the appellant has forwarded a 

plausible argument that the sentence, when it is within the 

guideline ranges, is clearly unreasonable. Concomitantly, the 

substantial question determination does not require the court to 

decide the merits of whether the sentence is clearly unreasonable.

Glawinski, 310 A.3d at 325 (citation omitted). Appellant’s Rule 2119(f) 

statement asserts the trial court “ignored the mandates of the ... Sentencing 

Code at 42 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 9721(b), requiring the ... trial court to consider the 

mental health and rehabilitative needs of the [d]efendant when rendering a 
J-A16017-24

- 11 -

sentence.” Appellant’s Brief at 10. An appellant’s “claim that the sentencing 

court disregarded rehabilitation and the nature and circumstances of the 

offense in handing down its sentence presents a substantial question for our 

review.” Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1273 (Pa. Super. 2013) 

Accordingly, we will review the merits of Appellant’s claim.6

Appellant argues the trial court ignored an expert report recommending

that Appellant receive mental health and drug treatment. Id. at 14-15. He

also asserts the court ignored the testimony of his character witnesses, who

testified as to his “ability to be rehabilitated,” “the lack of danger he would

pose upon his release,” and “how he has changed....” Id. at 16. Finally,

Appellant maintains the court improperly “rendered a sentence based upon

the dramatic and passionate pleas for punishment from a victim[,] who

testified in a highly emotional fashion at sentencing....” Id. at 15. 

____________________________________________

6 Appellant’s Rule 2119(f) statement also asserts the trial court “overrode” the 

jury’s verdict by sentencing him “in excess of the plea offer on an attempted 

homicide charge,” where the jury had acquitted him of attempted homicide. 

Appellant’s Brief at 9; see also id. at 10 (describing Commonwealth’s pretrial 

plea offer of 8 to 20 years in prison). However, Appellant fails to cite any legal 

authority in support of this argument, either as to the substantial question 

determination or on the merits. See id. at 9-10, 15-18. Thus, we conclude 

this aspect of Appellant’s claim does not present a substantial question. 

Moreover, had we reached its merits, we would deem the argument waived 

for Appellant’s failure to cite legal authority. See Commonwealth v. Pi 

Delta Psi, Inc., 211 A.3d 875, 883 (Pa. Super. 2019) (when an appellant 

“cites no pertinent authority to substantiate [his] claim ... appellant’s issue is 

waived.”) (citing Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)). 
J-A16017-24

- 12 -

“The standard employed when reviewing the discretionary aspects of 

sentencing is very narrow.” Commonwealth v. King, 182 A.3d 449, 454 

(Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the 

sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal 

absent a manifest abuse of discretion. 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 partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, or 

arrived [at] a manifestly unreasonable decision.

Commonwealth v. Torres, 303 A.3d 1058, 1065 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citation 

omitted).

“In every case in which the court imposes a sentence for a felony ... the 

court shall make as a part of the record, and disclose in open court at the time 

of sentencing, a statement of the reason or reasons for the sentence 

imposed.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b); see also Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 

812 A.2d 617, 620-21 (Pa. 2002) (plurality). The Sentencing Code requires 

the trial court to 

follow the general principle that the sentence imposed should call 

for confinement 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. 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b); see also Commonwealth v. McClendon, 589 A.2d 

706, 712 (Pa. Super. 1991) (en banc) (stating “the court should refer to the 

defendant’s prior criminal record, age, personal characteristics and potential 

for rehabilitation.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). The trial 
J-A16017-24

- 13 -

court must also consider the sentencing guidelines. See id.; see also 

Commonwealth v. Sheller, 961 A.2d 187, 190 (Pa. Super. 2008) (stating 

that “[w]hen imposing a sentence, the [trial] court is required to consider the 

sentence ranges set forth in the Sentencing Guidelines....”). 

Appellant’s argument that the trial court ignored his rehabilitative needs

and the testimony of his character witnesses is belied by the record. The trial

court explained the factors underlying its sentencing decision:

Despite [Appellant’s] protestations, the [trial c]ourt did consider

his rehabilitative needs and the proposed mitigating factors before

imposing the sentence. However, after learning at trial, from the

PSI,7 and from the psychological report of [Appellant’s]

longstanding history of drug abuse and lack of impulse control, as

well as his criminal history and prior acts of domestic violence, the

[trial c]ourt concluded that the risk of recidivism with a light

sentence was too great. This conclusion was confirmed, not

refuted, by the testimony of [Appellant’s] own character

witnesses, who acknowledged his serious drug problems and

change in character when under the influence of drugs. In fact,

during his testimony, [Appellant’s brother] said that he told

[Kachmarek] “not to get with [Appellant]” because of his drug

problem.

Appellant argued he needs treatment to address his drug

and alcohol issues; however, prior treatments did not help. His

mother testified [at sentencing] that rehabilitation did not solve

[Appellant’s] problems, nor did the therapy offered him as a

juvenile. [She stated that during prior incarcerations, Appellant]

would mingle with the wrong crowd, meet other addicts, and start

using again. Based on all the information provided, the [trial

c]ourt had very little confidence that [Appellant] could be

rehabilitated. Given the interests of society and the needs of the

____________________________________________

7 “We have repeatedly held that where a sentencing court has the benefit of 

a PSI, the court is presumed to have weighed all relevant information

regarding the defendant’s character against any mitigating factors.” 

Commonwealth v. Mulkin, 228 A.3d 913, 917 (Pa. Super. 2020)
J-A16017-24

- 14 -

victim, who is still struggling with the horrific trauma she

endured,8the [trial c]ourt maintains that the sentence is

appropriate.

Trial Court Opinion, 9/25/23, at 14 (record citations omitted; footnotes

added); see also N.T., 4/13/23, at 59-64 (trial court stating the factors

informing its sentencing decision).

The trial court’s findings are supported by the record, and we discern no

abuse of discretion in its sentencing decision. Appellant’s sentences were

within the standard range, and our review confirms the trial court considered

all relevant sentencing factors. Accordingly, Appellant’s second issue merits

no relief.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

DATE: 07/23/2024

____________________________________________

8 Our review of the record discloses no support for Appellant’s argument that 

trial court improperly relied on the victim’s “highly emotional” testimony. 

Appellant’s Brief at 15. Though Appellant specifically denies arguing that 

Kachmarek’s “beating was justified,” he questions whether the trial court 

should have sympathized with a victim who “voluntarily participated in a toxic, 

drug[-]addicted relationship with [Appellant], and who exposed [Appellant’s] 

then 4-year-old daughter to sex videos made at crack houses, fueling the 

assault at issue.” Id. at 15-16.