J-S61037-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v.

TREVOR ELI RINGGOLD, 

 Appellant No. 743 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 13, 2013 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0000968-2012 

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., WECHT, and STRASSBURGER,*JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED OCTOBER 07, 2014 

 

Trevor Eli Ringgold (Appellant) appeals from the February 13, 2013 

judgment of sentence of 90 to 180 months of incarceration, followed by 

three years of probation, entered following his plea of guilty to aggravated 

assault and prohibited offensive weapons.1

 We affirm. 

On November 11, 2011, Appellant, an inmate at SCI Albion, assaulted 

another inmate by slashing his face with a razor blade and hitting him in the 

face with a combination lock swung in a sock. N.T., 2/13/2013, at 10. 

Appellant pled guilty to the counts listed above in exchange for the 

Commonwealth’s dismissal of other charges. Appellant requested to proceed 

____________________________________________ 

*

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 

1

 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702(a)(1) and 908(a), respectively. 
J-S61037-14

- 2 - 

immediately to sentencing. The sentencing court thereupon imposed the 

sentence detailed above, which fell in or below the mitigated range of the 

sentencing guidelines. The sentencing court did provide that the sentence 

run consecutively to the sentence Appellant had been serving at the time of 

the assault. 

Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion which was denied. No 

direct appeal was filed. Appellant’s direct appeal rights were reinstated 

following his timely filing of a PCRA petition. Accordingly, Appellant filed a 

notice of appeal, and both Appellant and the sentencing court complied with 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 

Appellant presents the following question for this Court’s 

consideration: “Whether the sentencing court committed legal error and 

abused its discretion in failing to impose the instant sentence concurrently to 

the sentence [Appellant] was then serving and in failing to afford 

consideration to the institutional penalties already imposed by the 

Department of Corrections as to mitigating the instant sanctions imposed?” 

Appellant’s Brief at 2. 

Appellant’s question challenges the discretionary aspects of his 

sentence.2

 Accordingly, we bear in mind the following. 

____________________________________________ 

2

 Because the plea agreement was open as to his sentence, Appellant is not 

precluded from challenging the discretionary aspects of sentencing. See 

Commonwealth v. Brown, 982 A.2d 1017, 1019 (Pa. Super. 2009). 
J-S61037-14

- 3 - 

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. Two requirements must be 

met before we will review this challenge on its merits. First, an 

appellant must set forth in his brief a concise statement of the 

reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the 

discretionary aspects of a sentence. Second, the appellant must 

show that there is a substantial question that the sentence 

imposed is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code. The 

determination of whether a particular issue raises a substantial 

question is to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In order to 

establish a substantial question, the appellant must show actions 

by the trial court inconsistent with the Sentencing Code or 

contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing 

process. 

Commonwealth v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254, 1262-63 (Pa. Super. 2012), 

appeal denied, 64 A.3d 630 (Pa. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. 

McAfee, 849 A.2d 270, 274 (Pa. Super. 2004)). 

Appellant’s brief includes a statement of reasons relied upon for 

allowance of appeal, in which he claims that the sentence is contrary to the 

norms underlying the sentencing process because the sentencing court 

“failed to afford due weight and consideration to mitigating factors,” and 

“failed to proffer a legally sufficient statement on the record in support of a 

consecutive sentence.” Appellant’s Brief at 5.

 A claim that the sentencing court did not consider adequately certain 

mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question. Commonwealth 

v. Johnson, 961 A.2d 877, 880 (Pa. Super. 2008). However, “[a]n 

allegation that a judge failed to offer specific reasons for [a] sentence does 

raise a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215, 
J-S61037-14

- 4 - 

1222 (Pa. Super. 2011) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

Therefore, we grant permission to appeal as to the question of the adequacy 

of the sentencing court’s on-the-record statement of reasons for the 

sentence.3

 

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. 

* * * 

 When imposing sentence, a court is required to consider 

the particular circumstances of the offense and the character of 

the defendant. In considering these factors, the court should 

refer to the defendant’s prior criminal record, age, personal 

characteristics and potential for rehabilitation. 

Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 760-61 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). See also 42 Pa.C.S. 

§ 9721 (“[T]he court shall follow the general principle that the sentence 

imposed should call for confinement that is consistent with the protection of 

____________________________________________ 

3 Appellant’s post-sentence motion asks the sentencing court to impose this 

sentence concurrent rather than consecutive to the sentence he was already 

serving. However, it does not raise an objection to the sufficiency of the 

reasons offered by the sentencing court for the consecutive sentencing 

scheme. Although Appellant arguably failed to preserve this claim, we 

decline to find waiver. See Commonwealth v. Egan, 679 A.2d 237, 239 

(Pa. Super. 1996) (declining to find waiver of challenge to trial court’s failure 

to offer reasons for sentence, as such claim can be reviewed by examining 

the sentencing transcript). 
J-S61037-14

- 5 - 

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.”). 

[W]hether or not there is a departure from the guidelines, a 

court imposing sentence for a felony or misdemeanor shall make 

part of the record, and disclose in open court during sentencing, 

a statement of the reasons for the sentence. The court is not 

required to parrot the words of the Sentencing Code, stating 

every factor that must be considered under Section 9721(b). 

However, the record as a whole must reflect due consideration 

by the court of the statutory considerations [enunciated in that 

section]. 

Commonwealth v. Coulverson, 34 A.3d 135, 145 (Pa. Super. 2011) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Feucht, 955 A.2d 377, 383 (Pa. Super. 

2008)). 

With these principles in mind, we examine the reasons offered by the 

sentencing court on the record at Appellant’s sentencing hearing.

I have listened to the evidence presented here today and I 

have read the prior history which isn’t good. It involves a 

significant number of robberies. I do note that this involved the 

use of another homemade weapon, so to speak, which isn’t

good, so that even while incarcerated, you pose a risk to others. 

Now, having said that, I also take into account your age, 

the fact that you now have a GED, you have some work history, 

and you have accepted responsibility by way of your testimony 

at the preliminary hearing and by way of your plea here today. 

N.T., 2/13/2013, at 24-25. The sentencing court then went on to order 

what Appellant acknowledges was a mitigated range sentence on the 

aggravated assault conviction, and a sentence below the mitigated range

on the weapons conviction. Id. at 26-26. Given the sentence imposed, and 
J-S61037-14

- 6 - 

the sentencing court’s on-the-record explanation for it, we are utterly 

unconvinced that Appellant’s sentence resulted from partiality, prejudice, 

bias, or ill will against him or is otherwise manifestly unreasonable to his 

detriment. Indeed, if Appellant’s sentence had run concurrently with the 

lengthy sentences he already was serving, Appellant would serve virtually no 

additional time for the serious offenses he committed while imprisoned. The 

sentencing court’s refusal to endorse punishment-free inmate violence was 

not an abuse of discretion. 

 Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 10/7/2014