Court Opinion

ID: 9963103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 16:10:59.182486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:40.878924
License: Public Domain

J-A07033-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  SARAH L QUINONES                             :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 755 MDA 2023

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 23, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-54-CR-0002260-2016

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., SULLIVAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                          FILED: APRIL 24, 2024

       Appellant, Sarah L. Quinones, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered on April 24, 2023, in the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas.

We affirm.

       The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows:

             On September 26, 2018, the Honorable William Baldwin,
       former President Judge of the Schuylkill County Court of Common
       Pleas, now retired, accepted Appellant's guilty plea to Count 2,
       Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, in the case Commonwealth
       v. Quinones, CR-2260-2016 (Schuylkill County). Judge Baldwin
       sentenced Appellant to 30 days confinement in the Schuylkill
       County Prison followed by 4 years, 11 months Intermediate
       Punishment with the first 90 days to be served on house arrest
       with electronic surveillance, plus related costs and fines. The
       sentence was effective October 5, 2018. The Order also awarded
       credit for time served for inpatient treatment totaling 29 days.
       Judge Baldwin granted immediate parole after 24 hours of the
       date of the sentencing Order.
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A07033-24

            On January 27, 2023, Appellant was charged with
      Possession with Intent to Deliver Methamphetamine and
      Possession with Intent to Deliver Fentanyl by the Pennsylvania
      Office of Attorney General in the case of Commonwealth v.
      Quinones, CR-23-2023 (Luzerne County). On April 6, 2023, the
      Commonwealth filed a Motion to Revoke Probation in case CR-
      2260-2016. [The trial court] conducted a probation revocation
      hearing on April 24, 2023. [The trial court] revoked probation and
      imposed the above noted sentence, of which, Appellant appealed.

Tr. Ct. Op. at 1-2.

      Appellant raises three issues for our review:

      I. Did the Court below err when it imposed a sentence of
      incarceration of not less than 9 months nor more than 5 years in
      a State Correctional Institution that was manifestly excessive in
      violation of 42 Pa. C.S. §9721(b) when it failed to consider the
      rehabilitative needs of the Appellant and failed to consider the
      time spent serving the probation order in violation of 42 Pa. C.S.
      § 9771(b)?

      II. Did the Sentencing Court impose a manifestly unreasonable
      sentence of 9 months to 5 years for a probation violation in
      violation of 42 Pa. C.S. § 9771(c)?

      III. Did the Sentencing Court exhibit bias and partiality when it
      relied on the seriousness of the charges in sentencing Appellant
      rather than the lesser offense of a probation violation?

Appellant’s Br. at 3.

      In an appeal from a sentence imposed after the court has revoked

probation, we can review “the validity of the revocation proceedings, the

legality of the sentence imposed following revocation, and any challenge to

the discretionary aspects of the sentence imposed.” Commonwealth v.

Wright, 116 A.3d 133, 136 (Pa. Super. 2015). Each of Appellant’s issues

challenges the discretionary aspects of her sentence following her probation

                                     -2-
J-A07033-24

revocation. We are mindful that “[t]he right to appeal a discretionary aspect

of sentence is not absolute.” Commonwealth v. Martin, 727 A.2d 1136,

1143 (Pa. Super. 1999). Rather, where an appellant challenges the

discretionary aspects of a sentence, the appeal should be considered a petition

for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. W.H.M., 932 A.2d 155, 163 (Pa.

Super. 2007).

       An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence must

invoke this Court's jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:

       [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. [708]; (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).

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

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

       Appellant was sentenced on April 24, 2023.1 When a court revokes

probation and imposes a new sentence, the defendant must preserve

challenges to the discretionary aspects of that new sentence either by

objecting during the revocation sentencing or by filing a post-sentence motion.

____________________________________________

1 We note that at the conclusion of the probation revocation hearing when the

sentence was imposed, the trial court instructed Appellant on her right to
appeal, her ability to file a motion within ten days or an appeal within thirty
days, and that the consequence of her failing to do so is the loss of appellate
rights. N.T., 4/24/23, at 17-18; see Pa.R.Crim.P. 708(D)(3).

                                           -3-
J-A07033-24

Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2006). “A

motion to modify a sentence imposed after a revocation shall be filed within

10 days of the date of imposition.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 708(E).

      Here, a review of the record reveals that Appellant failed to preserve

her claims at sentencing. See N.T., 4/24/23, at 18. After the trial court

imposed the sentence and advised Appellant of her appellate rights, the

transcript indicates that the trial court asked the attorneys if they had any

other matters to raise. Id. When neither attorney objected nor raised any

other matter, the proceeding concluded. Id. Because counsel did not place an

objection to the sentence on the record, Appellant did not properly preserve

the claim at the sentencing proceedings and thus Appellant was required to

file a post-sentence motion to modify her sentence. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 708

cmt. (“Issues properly preserved at the sentencing proceeding need not, but

may, be raised again in a motion to modify sentence in order to preserve them

for appeal.”). The record reflects that Appellant failed to properly preserve this

issue in a motion to reconsider or modify sentence because Appellant did not

file any post-sentence motions. Accordingly, Appellant is unable to satisfy the

four-part test necessary to invoke this court's jurisdiction.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                      -4-
J-A07033-24

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 04/24/2024

                           -5-