Court Opinion

ID: 9900885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-20 17:08:24.448825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:21.762961
License: Public Domain

J-S32010-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :          PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    RONALD L. FLEMING                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :     No. 400 MDA 2023

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 14, 2023
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-01-CR-0001449-2021

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                           FILED: NOVEMBER 20, 2023

       Appellant Ronald L. Fleming appeals from the February 14, 2023

Judgment of Sentence entered by the Adams County Court of Common Pleas.

Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence of 24 to 48

months of incarceration imposed after a jury found Appellant guilty of

Aggravated Assault, Terroristic Threats, Simple Assault, Indecent Exposure,

and Summary Harassment.1              Appellant’s counsel, Christian J. DeFilippo,

Esquire (“Counsel”), filed an Anders/McClendon Brief and a Petition for

Leave to Withdraw as Counsel.2 After careful review, we grant the Petition for

Leave to Withdraw as Counsel and affirm the Judgment of Sentence.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702(a)(3), 2706(a)(1), 2701(a)(1), 3127, and 2709(a)(1),

respectively.

2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Commonwealth v.
McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981).
J-S32010-23

      The relevant facts as set forth by the trial court are as follows:

      On September 6, 2021, Appellant was an inmate at the Adams
      County Adult Correctional Complex and was housed in a single cell
      in block 1A, which is a restrictive housing unit. The cell had a
      wicket, which is a 12” x 7” opening where food trays and other
      items could be provided to the inmate. After Appellant finished
      his dinner, Correctional Officer Devin Herring (hereinafter “CO
      Herring”) opened the wicket to retrieve Appellant’s food tray.
      Appellant thrust his arm through the wicket while holding the food
      tray, hitting CO Herring in his testicles with the food tray.
      Appellant responded, “I got you dickhead, I got you dickhead”.
      CO Herring felt pain, received medical attention and was
      diagnosed with a contusion to his left testicle with varicocele of
      scrotum. On September 6, 2021, Appellant also exposed his
      genitals to CO Herring and made verbal threats to CO Herring.
      Appellant specifically stated “I’m gonna take your twin son, and
      then I’m gonna stick my dick down his throat and kill him.”

Trial Ct. Op., 5/2/23, at 1-2 (footnote omitted).

      On December 7, 2022, the jury found Appellant guilty of the above-

listed charges.   On February 14, 2023, after reviewing the Presentence

Investigation Report, Sentencing Memorandums filed by defense counsel and

the Commonwealth, as well as a Psychological Evaluation and Competency

Assessment submitted by Appellant, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 24

to 48 months of incarceration for Aggravated Assault, with credit for time

served.   The court did not impose any additional sentence for Terroristic

Threats or Indecent Exposure.       Moreover, the court observed that the

convictions for Summary Harassment and Simple Assault merged with

Aggravated Assault for sentencing purposes. The court did not impose any

additional fines other than any fees, fines, and costs mandated by law, and

the court specifically did not impose a DNA fee “as it would constitute an undue

                                      -2-
J-S32010-23

financial hardship.”3 Trial Ct. Order, 2/14/23, at 2. Appellant did not file a

post-sentence motion.

       Appellant filed pro se a Notice of Appeal on March 9, 2023. The trial

court directed Counsel to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of Matters

Complained of on Appeal. After filing an initial statement and obtaining the

court’s permission to file an amendment, Counsel filed an Amended Concise

Statement and Statement of Intent to Withdraw as counsel on April 21, 2023.

Counsel acknowledged that Appellant sought to challenge his sentence,

claiming it was (1) manifestly excessive based upon the court’s failure to

consider mitigating circumstances including Appellant’s mental health and (2)

based on prejudicial considerations. Counsel asserted that “no non-frivolous

matters could be raised on appeal” and stated that he informed Appellant of

his intent to file an Anders/McClendon Brief and a Petition to Withdraw as

Counsel with this Court. Amended Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement at ¶ 7.

       Subsequently, Counsel filed an Anders/McClendon Brief in this Court,

setting forth the following issues asserted by Appellant:

____________________________________________

3 At the same hearing, the court sentenced Appellant on a separate docket,

CP-01-CR-1037-2021, for three counts of Aggravated Assault by a Prisoner.
These charges related to incidents where Appellant “threw urine and feces and
made threats of violence against Correctional Officers at the Adams County
Adult Correctional Complex between May 26, 2021 and June 11, 2021.” Trial
Ct. Op. at 1 n.1. The court imposed an aggregate term of six to twelve years
of incarceration, which the court imposed consecutively to the sentence under
review. Id. at 3 n.4. The court explained that it imposed the sentences
consecutively because each count involved a separate victim. Id. at 7.
Appellant does not challenge the sentence imposed at CP-01-CR-1037-2021
in this appeal.

                                           -3-
J-S32010-23

      1. Appellant questions whether the Trial Court was manifestly
      excessive in its [s]entencing of Appellant and failed to consider
      mitigating circumstances, including but not limited to, the
      psychological/psychiatric evaluation at [s]entencing?

      2. Appellant also questions whether the Trial Court was excessive
      in its [s]entencing of Appellant based on prejudicial
      considerations?

Anders/McClendon Brief at 4. Appellant has not filed a response.

                                      A.

      “Before we address the merits of this appeal, we must determine

whether counsel has complied with the procedures provided in Anders and

its progeny.” Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1195 (Pa. Super.

2018) (en banc). Our Supreme Court requires counsel seeking to withdraw

to satisfy the following four requirements in an Anders/McClendon Brief:

      (1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with
      citations to the record;

      (2) refer to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably
      supports the appeal;

      (3) set forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and

      (4) state counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is
      frivolous.

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009). In so doing,

“[c]ounsel should articulate the relevant facts of record, controlling case law,

and/or statutes on point that have led to the conclusion that the appeal is

frivolous.”   Id.   Counsel must also “furnish a copy of the brief to [the

appellant] and advise him of his right to retain new counsel, proceed pro se

                                     -4-
J-S32010-23

or raise any additional points that he deems worthy of the court’s attention.”

Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748, 751 (Pa. Super. 2005).

      If counsel satisfied these requirements, we then must “make an

independent judgment to decide whether the appeal is in fact wholly

frivolous.” Santiago, 978 A.2d at 355 n.5 (citation omitted). In so doing,

we will “conduct a review of the record to ascertain if on its face, there are

non-frivolous issues that counsel, intentionally or not, missed or misstated.”

Yorgey, 188 A.3d at 1197.

      After review of the Anders/McClendon Brief, we find that Counsel

sufficiently complied with the requirements of Santiago and Millisock

through Counsel’s brief to this Court and by providing the necessary

information to Appellant. Accordingly, we turn to the issues presented.

                                      B.

      As noted, Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence.

It is well settled that “[w]e do not review an appellant’s challenge to

discretionary aspects of a sentence as a matter of right.” Commonwealth

v. Schroat, 272 A.3d 523, 526 (Pa. Super. 2022). To invoke this Court’s

jurisdiction, an appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of sentence

must satisfy the following: (1) file a timely notice of appeal; (2) demonstrate

that they preserved the issue at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion; (3)

comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), which requires the appellant to “set forth in a

separate section of the brief a concise statement of the reasons relied upon

for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of a

                                     -5-
J-S32010-23

sentence[;]” and (4) present a substantial question as required by 42 Pa.C.S.

§ 9781(b). See Schroat, 272 A.3d at 527.

      “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.”          Id.

(citation omitted).   It is well-established “that a claim of inadequate

consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for

our review.”   Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900, 903 (Pa. Super.

2013) (citation omitted). Moreover, “[t]he imposition of consecutive, rather

than concurrent, sentences may raise a substantial question in only the most

extreme circumstances, such as where the aggregate sentence is unduly

harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the length of imprisonment.”

Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171–72 (Pa. Super. 2010).

                                     C.

      In the Anders/McClendon Brief, Counsel conveyed that Appellant

sought to challenge the consecutive nature of the instant sentence and the

sentence imposed in the related matter.     Anders/McClendon Brief at 8.

Second, Counsel stated that “Appellant believes that the lower court failed to

consider mitigating circumstances when Sentencing Appellant.” Id. Finally,

                                    -6-
J-S32010-23

counsel noted that “Appellant believes the lower court was excessive in its

Sentencing due to prejudicial considerations.” Id. 4

       After conducting an independent review, we discern no non-frivolous

issues to be raised on appeal. Rather, as noted by the sentencing court and

Counsel, Appellant’s challenges fail to satisfy the requirements for this Court

to review the discretionary aspects of his sentence.    Most significantly, as

noted by the sentencing court, Appellant did not preserve his claim by

objecting at sentencing or filing a post-sentence motion. Trial Ct. Op. at 6.

Additionally, his challenges to the imposition of consecutive sentences and the

court’s weighing of mitigating factors do not rise to the level of substantial

questions.5     Accordingly, we grant the Petition for Leave to Withdraw as

Counsel and affirm the Judgment of Sentence.

       Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel granted.        Judgment of

Sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

4  Counsel did not include a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement in the
Anders/McClendon Brief. Nevertheless, this Court does “not consider
counsel’s failure to submit a Rule 2119(f) statement as precluding review of
whether Appellant’s issue is frivolous.” Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d
656, 661 (Pa. Super. 2015).

5 Moreover, the sentencing court and Counsel demonstrate that the sentence

was not excessive as the court imposed a sentence in the standard range, did
not impose additional sentences for the Terroristic Threats and Indecent
Exposure convictions, and considered Appellant’s mitigating circumstances,
including his psychological assessment.

                                           -7-
J-S32010-23

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 11/20/2023

                           -8-