Court Opinion

ID: 9412045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 18:11:33.024374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:24.956491
License: Public Domain

J-S11045-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
  JOHN HENRY JONES                             :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :       No. 634 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 25, 2021
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
           Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0000601-2021

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                                   FILED JULY 27, 2023

       Appellant, John Henry Jones, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, following his open guilty

plea to possession of child pornography.1 We affirm.

       The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this

case as follows:

          On September 9, 2020, officers with the Allentown Police
          Department received a CyberTip Report from the National
          Center for Missing and Exploited Children that a Discord user
          with the profile name “HappyGoLucky#7504” uploaded
          images and videos containing child pornography using the
          platform.   Officers investigated the tip and linked the
          username to an RCN IP address assigned to Appellant.

          Officers obtained a search warrant and executed the
          warrant at Appellant’s home located at 847 Constitution
          Drive, Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania on
____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6312(d).
J-S11045-23

       September 23, 2020. Appellant denied using Discord, but
       admitted there was child pornography on a computer in his
       bedroom. Officers seized several external hard drives
       attached via USB to the back of Appellant’s computer.
       Forensic investigators accessed the hard drives using
       passwords written down on a piece of paper which had been
       confiscated from Appellant’s bedroom and found various
       images     and   videos   depicting   child  pornography.
       Additionally, the investigators located a Word document
       which was entitled “vetting and introduction” and detailed
       “a three-step process to admitting you to our chat rooms.”
       The instructions explained that a person needed to
       introduce him or herself, provide an image depicting child
       pornography, and compliance with the chat room’s rules of
       safety and behavior.

       Officers also located a document entitled “Technical Data”
       explaining how to hide on the internet, Darknet, Clearnet,
       etc. and cautioning against the use of Bitcoin for child
       pornography purchases due to its capacity to be traced. In
       sum, officers located over 400,000 images of child
       pornography and over 200,000 images of child erotica on
       the hard drive. Another external hard drive contained over
       40,000 videos and images, and a third contained over
       14,000.

       During the preparation of the presentence investigation
       [(“PSI”)] report, Appellant admitted he was an
       administrator to a chat room where child pornography was
       shared and admitted creating the above-referenced
       documents.

                              *    *    *

       Appellant was arraigned on April 28, 2021 and charged with
       one count of possession of child pornography, 18 Pa.C.S.A.
       § 6312(d), graded as a felony of the second degree, and
       one count of dissemination of photos or films of child sex
       acts, [18 Pa.C.S.A.] § 6312(c), also graded as a felony of
       the second degree. On July 19, 2021, Appellant entered a
       guilty plea in the form of an open plea to one count of
       possession of child pornography. A PSI was ordered, and
       Appellant appeared before the [court] on October 25, 2021
       for sentencing. The court imposed a sentence of not less

                                  -2-
J-S11045-23

          than two (2) nor more than ten (10) years in a state
          correctional institution.[2] Appellant filed a motion to
          reconsider and modify sentence on November 3, 2021. That
          motion was denied on February 8, 2022.

          On March 3, 2022, Appellant filed a notice of appeal. The
          court entered an order on July 6, 2022 directing Appellant
          to file a [Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)] concise statement of matters
          complained of on appeal. Appellant filed that statement on
          July 21, 2022.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 8/5/22, at 1-3) (internal footnote and some

capitalization omitted).

       Appellant now raises the following issue for our review:

          Is the sentencing of an eighty-one (81) year old individual
          in poor health to a maximum sentence of ten (10) years for
          one count of possession of child pornography on a computer
          manifestly excessive as such sentence, in essence, amounts
          to a life sentence?

(Appellant’s Brief at 7).

       On appeal, Appellant emphasizes that he was eighty-one (81) years of

age at the time of sentencing. Appellant also asserts that he suffers from

various maladies, “including the need for a full time 24 hours/7 days a week

heart monitor with defibrillator as well as diabetes and kidney disease.” (Id.

at 14). Considering his life expectancy, Appellant maintains that the court’s

____________________________________________

2 With an offense gravity score of eight (8) and a prior record score of three

(3), the standard range of the Sentencing Guidelines provided for a minimum
sentence of eighteen (18) to twenty-four (24) months. (See N.T. Sentencing
Hearing, 10/25/21, at 4). Additionally, the statutory maximum sentence for
possession of child pornography, graded as a second-degree felony, was ten
(10) years. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1103(2).

                                           -3-
J-S11045-23

imposition of a ten (10) year maximum is effectively a sentence of life

imprisonment. Appellant contends that the court did not provide sufficient

reasons to justify the maximum sentence imposed.         Moreover, Appellant

insists that his maximum sentence is a product of partiality and prejudice

because the court knew “it was very unlikely that [Appellant] would live that

long.” (Id. at 16). Appellant concludes that the court imposed a manifestly

excessive and unreasonable maximum sentence, which this Court must

vacate. As presented, Appellant’s claim challenges the discretionary aspects

of his sentence.    See Commonwealth v. Coulverson, 34 A.3d 135

(Pa.Super. 2011) (explaining claim that court imposed excessive sentence by

deviating from sentencing norms constituted challenge to discretionary

aspects of sentencing).

      “Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an

appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d

103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264, 129 S.Ct. 2450, 174

L.Ed.2d 240 (2009). Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary aspects of

sentencing issue:

         [W]e 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, 42
         Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).

                                    -4-
J-S11045-23

Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal

denied, 589 Pa. 727, 909 A.2d 303 (2006) (quoting Commonwealth v.

Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2005)).

      When appealing the discretionary aspects of a sentence, an appellant

must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by including in his brief a separate concise

statement demonstrating a substantial question as to the appropriateness of

the sentence under the Sentencing Code. Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 571

Pa. 419, 812 A.2d 617 (2002); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). “The requirement that an

appellant separately set forth the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal

furthers the purpose evident in the Sentencing Code as a whole of limiting any

challenges to the trial court’s evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging

on the sentencing decision to exceptional cases.” Phillips, supra at 112

(emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

      “The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d

162, 170 (Pa.Super. 2010).      “A substantial question exists only when the

appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s actions

were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code;

or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing

process.” Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768 (Pa.Super. 2015)

(en banc), appeal denied, 633 Pa. 774, 126 A.3d 1282 (2015) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526, 533 (Pa.Super. 2011)). An appellant

                                      -5-
J-S11045-23

raises a substantial question where he claims the court failed to offer specific

reasons that comport with statutory considerations for extending a standard-

range sentence to the statutory maximum. See Coulverson, supra at 143.

      Instantly, Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal, he preserved his

issue in his post-sentence motion, and his brief included a Rule 2119(f)

statement. Further, Appellant’s claim raises a substantial question as to the

appropriateness of the sentence imposed by asserting that the court did not

provide an adequate justification for imposing a statutory maximum sentence.

See id. Accordingly, we proceed to address the merits of Appellant’s issue.

      This Court reviews discretionary sentencing challenges based on the

following standard:

         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. An abuse of
         discretion is more than just an error in judgment and, on
         appeal, the trial court will not be found to have abused its
         discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment
         exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of
         partiality, bias or ill-will.

Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54, 55 (Pa.Super. 2003) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Hess, 745 A.2d 29, 30-31 (Pa.Super. 2000)).

      “[A] court is required to consider the particular circumstances of the

offense and the character of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804

A.2d 1, 10 (Pa.Super. 2002), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148, 125 S. Ct. 2984,

162 L.Ed.2d 902 (2005).       “In particular, the court should refer to the

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

                                     -6-
J-S11045-23

potential for rehabilitation.” Id.

         A sentencing court need not undertake a lengthy discourse
         for its reasons for imposing a sentence or specifically
         reference the statute in question[.] [W]hen a trial court
         imposes a sentence that is within the statutory limits, there
         is no abuse of discretion unless the sentence is manifestly
         excessive so as to inflict too severe a punishment.

Commonwealth v. Conklin, 275 A.3d 1087, 1098 (Pa.Super. 2022) (internal

citations and quotation marks omitted).

      Instantly, the court provided the following statement of reasons to

support the sentence imposed:

         As I stated before, the record should reflect that I have
         reviewed the extensive presentence memo submitted by
         [defense counsel] with the written letter from [Appellant’s]
         daughter as well as the three reports from [Appellant’s
         mental healthcare provider]. The presentence investigation
         report had various attachments as well, which were
         reviewed by the court.

         [Appellant], I’m always a little struck by the fact that
         defendants apologize to the court. There’s no need to
         apologize to me. This is what I signed up for in a way, I
         guess. So these are the kind of things that judges have to
         address. And I appreciate and respect the comments made
         by your daughter in her letter and your son in his testimony
         today. I think it’s very important you have that support
         network available to you.

         And my comments that I’m next about to offer are not
         meant to distress your children. So I’m going to give them
         the opportunity to leave the room if they want so they don’t
         hear about the depiction of the pornographic images which

                                     -7-
J-S11045-23

          were in possession of [Appellant3].

                                       *       *   *

          And this was all after [Appellant’s] federal conviction for
          when he was found to possess 20,000 images of child
          pornography after initially releasing 300 visual depictions.
          He was enrolled in sex offender treatment at Forensic
          Treatment Services.       After 6 to 9 months, he was
          unsuccessfully discharged after they discovered he was
          viewing adult pornography. On page seven of the PSI, it
          does reflect that [Appellant] was sexually assaulted as a
          four-year-old, with that perpetrator never being prosecuted.

          He admitted to being aroused by children since he was a
          kid, adding that they have beautiful faces, good
          personalities. He was attracted to both male and female pre
          and early pubescent children. And last sentence on page
          seven, “I got stuck into it by accident, it’s alluring, it’s not
          really that bad of a problem.”

          So while I understand the Sexual Offender’s Assessment
          Board has determined that he is not to be classified as a
          sexually violent predator, [Appellant], quite frankly, if
          individuals like yourself and others did not view these
          images, there would not be the motivation by those who
          compile and then distribute these images subjecting
          children to sexual assaults and victimization, even though
          you never may come in personal contact with them.

          I will give you credit for your frankness with the prosecuting
          officers in releasing the information and for entering a plea
          and perhaps sparing a jury the details of this. However, I
          do not feel it’s appropriate to place you on house arrest.

                                       *       *   *

          You’re going to state prison for two to ten years. I kept the
____________________________________________

3 At this point, the court described the specific pornographic images recovered

from Appellant’s electronic devices. (See N.T. Sentencing Hearing at 23-24).
Due to the graphic nature of these images, we decline to include the
descriptions.

                                           -8-
J-S11045-23

         sentence at the top of the standard range in light of your
         admission to this offense, your voluntary participation to
         release the images involved to the prosecutors and in light
         of your age and health conditions. Certainly, an aggravated
         sentence would have been warranted, but because of the
         factors I just announced this is a standard range sentence.

(N.T. Sentencing Hearing at 22-25, 28) (some capitalization omitted).

      In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the court reiterated the factors that it

weighed when crafting Appellant’s sentence:

         The [c]ourt considered the PSI and sentencing
         memorandum submitted by defense counsel. Appellant had
         an extensive collection of child pornography on his
         computer. As the administrator of a Discord server or chat
         room, he also played a role in the further dissemination of
         these images. By the same token, he cooperated with the
         police officers, admitted his offense, and is of advanced age
         and has health conditions. The sentence imposed balanced
         all of these factors and was appropriate under these
         circumstances.

(Trial Court Opinion at 6-7).

      Here, the court properly weighed the relevant factors, including

Appellant’s age and health, in fashioning the sentence. See Griffin, supra.

We emphasize that a court need not undertake a lengthy discourse to support

the sentence imposed, and we cannot fault the justifications provided here.

See Conklin, supra.      Further, the presence of a PSI report allows us to

presume that the court considered mitigating factors, and the court’s

discretion while using a PSI report should not be disturbed.             See

Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 368 (Pa.Super. 2005) (stating if

sentencing court has benefit of PSI report, law presumes court was aware of

                                     -9-
J-S11045-23

relevant information regarding defendant’s character and weighed those

considerations along with mitigating factors). Under these circumstances, we

see no abuse of discretion. See McNabb, supra. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment of sentence.

     Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 7/27/2023

                                   - 10 -