J-A15016-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

SAGE SKYLER IFILL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1433 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 12, 2023

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

No(s): CP-22-CR-0006633-2017

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

SAGE IFILL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1434 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 12, 2023

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

No(s): CP-22-CR-0000242-2019

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED: JULY 18, 2024

Sage Skyler Ifill (“Ifill”) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed 

by the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas (“trial court”) following a 

resentencing hearing. On appeal, Ifill challenges the discretionary aspects of 

his sentence. Finding the claim waived, we affirm. 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A15016-24

- 2 -

This Court previously set forth an extensive recitation of the underlying 

facts. Commonwealth v. Ifill, 1657 MDA 2021, 1658 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. 

filed Jun. 7, 2023) (non-precedential decision). Briefly, Ifill was arrested and 

charged with three counts of rape of an unconscious victim and sexual 

assault,

1 arising out of incidents involving three different women.

On October 5, 2021, the trial court sentenced Ifill to three consecutive

prison terms of seven and one-half years to fifteen years for the rape 

convictions, which were in the aggravated range, for an aggregate sentence 

of twenty-two and one-half years to forty-five years of imprisonment. On 

appeal, this Court affirmed Ifill’s convictions, but vacated the sentence, finding 

that the trial court improperly relied on a statement of a fourth alleged victim

of crimes for which Ifill had not been convicted, and remanded for 

resentencing. Id. Following a resentencing hearing held on September 12, 

2023, the trial court imposed the same aggregate prison term of twenty-two 

and one-half years to forty-five years. Ifill filed a timely appeal.

On appeal, Ifill presents one issue for our review: “Whether the trial 

court’s aggregate sentence of 22.5 to 45 years of incarceration is manifestly 

excessive and unreasonable and violates the specific goals of the sentencing 

code, including protection of the public, [Ifill’s] age, gravity of the offense, 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3121(a)(3), 3124.1.
J-A15016-24

- 3 -

and rehabilitative needs[?]” Ifill’s Brief at 5 (unnecessary capitalization 

omitted).

Ifill challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. See 

Commonwealth v. Riggs, 63 A.3d 780, 786 (Pa. Super. 2012) (noting that 

a claim that a sentence is excessive and manifestly unreasonable because the 

trial court failed to consider all relevant sentencing factors is a challenge to 

the discretionary aspects of sentencing). “A challenge to the discretionary 

aspects of a sentence must be considered a petition for permission to appeal, 

as the right to pursue such a claim is not absolute.” Commonwealth v. 

Baker, 311 A.3d 12,18 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation omitted). To invoke this 

Court’s jurisdiction, an appellant must satisfy a four-part test:

(1) the appellant preserved the issue either by raising it at the 

time of sentencing or in a post-sentence motion; (2) the appellant 

filed a timely notice of appeal; (3) the appellant set forth a concise 

statement of reasons relied upon for the allowance of his appeal 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) the appellant raises a 

substantial question for our review.

Commonwealth v. Rivera, 312 A.3d 366, 376-77 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation 

and brackets omitted).

Here, Ifill did not properly preserve the issue at resentencing or in a new 

post-sentence motion. See Commonwealth v. Levy, 83 A.3d 457, 467 (Pa. 

Super. 2013) (concluding that appellant’s failure to file a post-sentence 

motion after resentencing or raise the claim at the sentencing hearing 

rendered his discretionary aspects of sentencing challenge waived). His claim 

is therefore waived. 
J-A15016-24

- 4 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/18/2024