Opinion ID: 2208977
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Challenge to Discretionary Aspects of Sentence

Text: Finally, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing concurrent sentences of 8 to 20 years imprisonment for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and 2 1/2 to 5 years imprisonment for terroristic threats. We deny allowance of appeal as to these issues. Appellant has failed to include a concise statement of reasons for allowance of appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). Moreover, cursory review of the brief and the record reveals the complete absence of a substantial question. The seriousness of the offense, aggravating circumstances of the victim's age and appellant's other offenses [2] fully warranted the sentence imposed. Moreover, review of the contents of the Pre-Sentence Report including the Victim Impact Statements was entirely proper. See Commonwealth v. Penrod, 396 Pa.Super. 221, 232, 578 A.2d 486, 491 (1990); Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 393 Pa.Super. 277, 286, 574 A.2d 610, 614-15 (1990); 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9721, 9731 et seq.; 71 P.S. § 180-9.3(1). No one prevented appellant from subpoenaing witnesses for the sentencing hearing to cross-examine, impeach, or rebut witnesses regarding statements in those reports, or from seeking a continuance to do so. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721. Hence, the procedural challenge is specious. Because the substantive claim is plainly meritless, we decline to direct the purposeless act of supplementing the brief to bring it into compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f).