Court Opinion

ID: 9372043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 17:07:51.844033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:31.875182
License: Public Domain

J-S39018-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 BRIAN MICHAEL COHEN LEESE, II           :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :   No. 838 MDA 2022

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 26, 2021
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-01-CR-0000384-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                   FILED FEBRUARY 17, 2023

      Brian Michael Cohen Leese, II (“Appellant) appeals from the judgment

of sentence of an aggregate term of 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment, imposed

after he pled guilty to three counts of delivery of a controlled substance and

two counts of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance.

Appellant solely challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. After

careful review, we affirm.

      The Commonwealth entered the following facts on the record at

Appellant’s sentencing hearing, which led to Appellant’s convictions.

      Starting on Count 1, on February 10, 2021, a confidential
      informant [(“CI”)] working with the Adams County Drug Task
      Force set up a controlled buy with [Appellant] in Oxford Township,
      Adams County, Pennsylvania. At that time[,] the CI met with
      [Appellant,] and [Appellant] provided the CI a powder in a plastic
      bag for pre-marked bills. Labs for that particular transaction
      showed that the powder was fentanyl and it was in excess of two
      grams.
J-S39018-22

      Moving onto Count 3, [on] February 16, 2021, [Appellant] met
      with the CI in York County, Pennsylvania[,] under surveillance of
      the State Police, [the] Adams County Drug Task Force[,] and [the]
      York County Drug Task Force. There the CI purchased fentanyl
      from [Appellant] again in exchange for marked bills. Labs showed
      that the fentanyl there was again in excess of two grams.

      On February … 24th for Count 6, the CI met with an uncharged
      co-defendant, that’ll be [Appellant’s co-defendant], that being in
      York County, Pennsylvania[,] again[,] under the watchful eye of
      [the] State Police, [the] Adams County Drug Task Force[,] and
      [the] York County Drug Task Force. [The] CI purchased fentanyl
      from the co-defendant working with [Appellant], again, in
      exchange for marked bills. The labs there showed that the
      fentanyl purchase was in excess of one gram.

      Going back to … Count 2 for PWID[,] on February 26th, 2021, the
      search was conducted of [Appellant’s] residence that’s located in
      York County, Pennsylvania. There police officers working with the
      Adams County and York County Drug Task Force[s] and the State
      Police found 75 oxycodone pills. Those were possessed by
      [Appellant] for sale.

      Additionally, with regard to Count 10 on that same date[,] during
      the search of [Appellant’s] residence, buy money was found from
      the February 24th, 2021 transaction and two bags of pills. There
      were 200 pills total. Those were possessed for distribution. The
      pills were fentanyl pills and testing showed that there was in
      excess of 20 grams of fentanyl there for those pills. Additionally,
      [Appellant] possessed approximately $7,000 in U.S. currency.
      [Appellant] also indicated that he buys approximately 1 to 500
      fentanyl pills for sale per week and will buy them for
      approximately $25 to $30 a pill and $18 a pill for non-fentanyl
      pills that he sells.

N.T., 8/17/21, at 5-6.   Appellant agreed to the facts as presented by the

Commonwealth. Id. at 6-7.

      In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court summarized the

procedural history of this matter as follows:

                                     -2-
J-S39018-22

        On August 17, 2021, Appellant entered into a non-negotiated
        guilty plea to Count 1, amended Count 2,[1] Count 3, Count 6, and
        Count 10. Counts 1, 3, and 6 were each delivery of a controlled
        substance, specifically fentanyl, in violation of Section 780-
        113(a)(30) of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and
        Cosmetic Act.[2] Counts 2 and 10 were possession with intent to
        deliver a controlled substance, specifically fentanyl, also in
        violat[ion] of Section 780-113(a)(30). All counts were felonies
        with maximum sentences of 30 years on each count. Appellant
        was sentenced on October 26, 2021, as follows:

           •   Count 1 — 5 to 10 years in a state correctional institution
               (“SCI”).

           •   Count 2 — 30 to 60 months[’] SCI, concurrent with Count
               1.

           •   Count 3 — 5 to 10 years[’] SCI, consecutive to Count 1.

           •   Count 6 — 5 to 10 years[’] SCI, concurrent with Count 3.

           •   Count 10 — 5 to 10 years[’] SCI, concurrent with Count
               6.

        The resulting aggregate sentence for Appellant in this matter is
        for 10 to 20 years[’] SCI.

        On March 23, 2022, Appellant filed a pro se petition for relief under
        the Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).[3] Appellant was granted
        court-appointed counsel for representation throughout the PCRA
        proceedings. Counsel filed an amended PCRA petition on May 10,
        2022, raising a claim for ineffective assistance of plea counsel for
        failure to file a requested appeal, and requesting the
        reinstatement of Appellant’s post-sentence and appeal rights. The
        amended petition filed by PCRA counsel withdrew several other
        claims originally raised in Appellant’s pro se petition.

        A pre-hearing conference on Appellant’s PCRA petition was held
        on May 17, 2022. The Commonwealth agreed with Appellant’s
____________________________________________

1Count 2 was amended only to change the date from February 10, 2021, to
February 26, 2021. N.T. at 2.

2   35 P.S. §§ 780-101 – 780-144.

3   42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.

                                           -3-
J-S39018-22

       assertion that due to ineffective assistance of plea counsel, his
       appellate rights should be reinstated. We declined to reinstate
       Appellant’s post-sentence rights with this court because any
       motion requesting reconsideration of the sentence imposed would
       have been meritless, as there was no basis for relief. However,
       we granted the request to reinstate Appellant’s right to file an
       appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.[4]

Trial Court Opinion (“TCO”), 6/28/22, at 1-2 (unnecessary capitalization

omitted).

       Appellant did not appeal from the PCRA court’s order denying him leave

to file a post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc. Instead, on June 7, 2022, he

filed a direct appeal nunc pro tunc from the underlying judgment of sentence.

The trial court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement

of errors complained of on appeal, and he complied. On June 28, 2022, the

trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion.       Appellant now presents the

following sole issue for our review: “Whether the trial court erred as a matter

of law and/or abused its discretion in sentencing Appellant to an aggregate

sentence of 10-20 years, which constituted an excessive sentence?”

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

       Appellant’s challenge implicates the discretionary aspects of his

sentence.    “The right to appellate review of the discretionary aspects of a

sentence is not absolute and must be considered a petition for permission to

____________________________________________

4 See PCRA Court Order, 5/17/22 (single page) (reinstating Appellant’s right
to file a direct appeal to this Court but declining to reinstate Appellant’s right
to file post-sentence motions).

                                           -4-
J-S39018-22

appeal.” Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247, 1265 (Pa. Super.

2014) (en banc).

      An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence
      must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:

         We conduct a four-part analysis to determined: (1) whether
         [the] 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 [the]
         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.[] § 9781(b).

      Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally
      waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or in a
      motion to modify the sentence imposed.

Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations

and internal quotation marks omitted).

      Here, the record clearly reflects that Appellant was granted permission

to file a direct appeal nunc pro tunc and that he has done so in a timely

manner. However, Appellant failed to preserve his claim before the trial court.

We have reviewed the transcripts and discern that Appellant did not raise any

issue regarding the discretionary aspects of his sentence at the sentencing

hearing, nor does he point us to anywhere in the record where such claim was

preserved. Moreover, no post-sentence motion for reconsideration was ever

                                      -5-
J-S39018-22

filed.5 Thus, we are precluded from reviewing the merits of Appellant’s claim.

See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 936 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“Issues

challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence must be raised in a post-

sentence motion or by presenting the claim to the trial court during the

sentencing proceedings.           Absent such efforts, an objection to a

discretionary aspect of a sentence is waived.”) (citation omitted;

emphasis in original).

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 02/17/2023

____________________________________________

5Appellant elected to file a direct appeal from his judgment of sentence, rather
than appeal the PCRA court’s order denying him permission to file a post-
sentence motion nunc pro tunc. See Commonwealth v. Liston, 977 A.2d
1089, 1090 (Pa. 2009) (holding that when a PCRA court reinstates a
defendant’s direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc, the defendant is not
automatically granted the right to file a post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc,
but that “[i]f a defendant successfully pleads and proves that he was deprived
of the right to file and litigate said motions as a result of the ineffective
assistance of counsel, a PCRA court is free to grant such relief”).

                                           -6-