Court Opinion

ID: 9838885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-08 16:09:08.100329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:26.603944
License: Public Domain

J-S30027-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  ANTHONY COLLINS                              :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 3205 EDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 29, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-51-CR-0007099-2021

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  ANTHONY COLLINS                              :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 3206 EDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 29, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-51-CR-0007100-2021

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                          FILED SEPTEMBER 8, 2023

       Anthony Collins appeals from his judgments of sentence,1 entered in the

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, following his conviction of

multiple sexual offenses committed on two minors sisters, N.E and N.L. Collins
____________________________________________

1 Collins has complied with the dictates of Commonwealth v. Walker, 185

A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), by filing separate notices of appeal for each trial court
docket number. See id. (holding “where a single order resolves issues arising
on more than one docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for each of
those cases”).
J-S30027-23

was charged in two separate bills of information (CP-51-CR-0007099-2021

(Case 7099)2 and CP-51-CR-0007100-2021 (Case 7100)3). The cases were

tried together,      resulting   in   an aggregate    sentence   of 10-20    years’

incarceration and 12 years of probation.          On appeal, Collins contends his

sentence is “manifestly unreasonable and excessive,” . . . “grossly

disproportionate to [his] crimes” and [that it is not an . . . “individualized

sentence [because the trial court] failed to consider [Collins’] background and

solely focused on the nature of [the] offenses.” Appellant’s Brief, at 14-15.

After careful consideration, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.

       Over the course of several years, Collins raped and sexually abused N.E.

and N.L., while they were under the age of 13 and Collins was over the age of

25. Collins was a “family friend” who lived “on and off” with the victims’ family

for ten years. N.T. Waiver Trial, 4/11/22, at 78. Collins anally raped N.E.

when she was five years old, and continued to sexually abuse her until she

was eleven years old. At trial, N.E. testified that when she was five-years-

old, Collins bent her over the basement banister and penetrated her anally

with his penis.     Id. at 64-65.      N.E. also testified that Collins slapped her

buttocks more than twenty times over the course of six years. Id. at 66-68.

Collins sexually abused N.L. from the time she was four years old until she

was twelve years old. Id. at 40, 42-43, 50-51 (N.L. testifying on separate

occasions Collins masturbated in front of her, she woke to Collins feeling her
____________________________________________

2 N.E. was the victim in Case 7099.

3 N.L. was the victim in Case 7100

                                           -2-
J-S30027-23

buttocks beneath her clothes, Collins put “his hands down [her] pants” while

they were “hugging,” and asked her to “spit into his hands” before he went

into bathroom). The abuse ended when the victims disclosed the events to

their mother, S.L.4

       Collins waived his right to a jury trial and was tried before the Honorable

Jennifer Schultz on April 11, 2022. N.E., N.L., S.L., and Collins testified at

trial. Following trial,5 Collins was convicted of two counts each of corruption

of minors-defendant age 18 or above6 and indecent assault-person less than

13 years of age,7 and one count each of rape of a child,8 involuntary deviate

sexual intercourse with a child (IDSI),9 statutory sexual assault-11 years

____________________________________________

4 After telling S.L. about the abuse, the victims were taken to the Philadelphia

Special Victims Unit where they were given physical exams. The victims also
went to the Philadelphia Children’s Alliance (PCA) where Colleen Getz, a
forensic interviewer, interviewed them. The PCA videotaped interviews were
admitted as Commonwealth exhibits at trial. Moreover, a comprehensive
forensic interview summary for both victims, prepared in conjunction with the
PCA video, was also entered as a Commonwealth exhibit at trial.

5 Collins was acquitted of unlawful contact with a minor in Case 7099.

6 18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1)(ii).

7 Id. at § 3126(A)(7).

8 Id. at § 3121(C).

9 Id. at   § 3123(B).

                                           -3-
J-S30027-23

older,10 and sexual assault.11         Prior to sentencing, the court ordered the

preparation of a pre-sentence investigation report (PSI).

       On July 29, 2022, Judge Schultz gave the following statement before

imposing Collins’ sentence:

       The things I have considered in making this sentence are the
       statutory factors that I’m required to consider, including the need
       for the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense in
       relation to the impact on the victims’ li[ves] and the community[,]
       and the rehabilitative needs of Mr. Collins.

       I have also considered the information submitted to me in
       preparation for sentencing, which I have carefully reviewed,
       including the [PSI], an investigation of [Collins’] prior record
       score, [a] mental health evaluation[,] and the S[exual] O[ffender]
       A[ssessment] B[oard] evaluation.

       I have also considered the statements made by the
       Commonwealth and the defense at this hearing, the statements
       made by or on behalf the victim[,] including the victim statement
       that was read into the record during this hearing, although, with
       the caveat that the [c]ourt will not consider and has not
       considered any suggestion about sentence the victim made in
       th[at] statement and also considering the victims’ testimony
       during trial.   I have also considered the Commonwealth’s
       sentencing guidelines.[12]

       The [c]ourt has prepared and [re]viewed the sentencing guideline
       form for each offense. We have already provided those to counsel.

____________________________________________

10 Id. at § 3122.1(B).

11 Id. at § 3124.1.

12 Collins’ prior record score was listed as 0 and his offense gravity scores for

each crime were listed as follows: 14 (rape); 14 (IDSI); 11 (sexual assault);
9 (statutory sexual assault); 6 (corruption of minors); and 6 (indecent
assault).

                                           -4-
J-S30027-23

                                           *     *   *

       [W]e did consider the fact that [Collins] did hold a . . . position of
       trust with this family and with these particular victims.

       And I think that that speaks to the additional harms . . . caused
       [to] the victims. And I think that the over[arching] issue for
       figuring out punishment is not so much need for rehabilitation as
       it is the harms to the victims and the serious nature of these
       offenses.

       Although, we did consider rehabilitative needs as well.

N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 7/29/22, at 30-33 (emphasis added). Following this

statement, the court sentenced Collins as follows:

       Case 7099

          Rape (child under age of 13): 9-18 years’ incarceration with
          10-year probationary tail

          IDSI: 9-18 years’ incarceration, with 10-year probationary
          tail

          Indecent Assault: 3-12 months’ incarceration, with 2-year
          probationary tail

          Statutory Assault:13 12-14 months’ incarceration, with 8-
          year probationary tail

          Corruption of Minors: 3-12 months’ incarceration, with 2-
          year probationary tail

       Case 7100

          Corruption of Minors: 12-24 months’ incarceration, with 2-
          year probationary tail

          Indecent Assault: 12-24 months’ incarceration, with 2-year
          probationary tail.

____________________________________________

13 For purposes of sentencing, Collins’ sexual assault conviction merged with

his statutory sexual assault conviction.

                                           -5-
J-S30027-23

Id. at 33-39. The court imposed standard-range sentences on each of the

crimes in Cases 7099 and 7100. Judge Schultz ordered each custodial and

probationary sentence within each Case to run concurrent with the others.

The custodial and probationary sentences in Case 7100 were ordered to run

consecutive to the sentences in Case 7099. Finally, the court issued a stay-

away order against Collins with regard to the victims and S.L.14

       Collins filed a timely motion for reconsideration challenging the

excessiveness of his sentence, the consecutive nature of his sentences in the

two Cases, and claiming that the trial court “double counted” factors already

accounted for in the guidelines. Following a hearing, the trial court denied

reconsideration. Collins then filed a timely notice of appeal and court-ordered

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. He

raises the following issues for our consideration:

       (1)    Did not the sentencing court violate the requirements of 42
              Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) of the Sentencing Code[,] which states
              that the sentence imposed should call for confinement that
              is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of
              the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim
              and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the
              defendant, as the [trial] court seemed to exclusively focus
              on [Collins’] criminal conduct rather than his rehabilitative
              needs[15] and mitigating circumstances?

____________________________________________

14 Although Collins was classified as a Tier 3 sex offender, his registration
obligation was stayed pending resolution of Commonwealth v. Torsilieri,
232 A.3d 567 (Pa. 2020), which addressed whether Subchapter H of the Sex
Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) is unconstitutional.
15 Ironically, at sentencing, defense counsel repeatedly claimed that Collins’

need for rehabilitation was low due to his “very low” likelihood of reoffending.
See N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 7/29/22, at 18-19, 22.
                                           -6-
J-S30027-23

       (2)    Was not the [trial] court’s sentence violative of the precepts
              of the Pennsylvania Sentencing Code, and contrary to the
              fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process, and
              therefore was it not manifestly unreasonable, excessive,
              and an abuse of discretion?

Appellant’s Brief, at 4.

       Collins’ claims implicate the discretionary aspects of his sentence.16

Such a challenge is not appealable as of right. Commonwealth v. Moury,

992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010).             In order to reach the merits of a

discretionary sentencing issue, we must conduct a four-part analysis to

determine:

              (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether [Collins]
              preserved his issue; (3) whether [Collins’] brief includes a
              concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance
              of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of
              sentence [in accordance with 2119(f)]; and (4) whether the
              concise statement raises a substantial question that the
              sentence is appropriate under the [S]entencing [C]ode. . . .
              [I]f the appeal satisfies each of these four requirements, we
              will then proceed to decide the substantive merits of the
              case.

____________________________________________

16 Our standard of review of a sentencing claim is as follows:

       Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the
       sentencing court, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal
       absent a manifest abuse of discretion, which[,] in this context, is
       not shown merely to be an error in judgment; rather[,] the
       appellant must establish by reference to the record, that the
       sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its
       judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias[,] or ill will, or
       arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.

Commonwealth v. Shull, 148 A.3d 820, 832 (Pa. Super. 2016).

                                           -7-
J-S30027-23

Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033, 1042–43 (Pa. Super. 2014)

(quoting Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa. Super. 2013)).

      Here, Collins has satisfied the first three Colon requirements. Further,

we find that he has presented substantial questions to invoke our appellate

review of his claims. Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 768 (Pa. Super.

2015) (en banc); Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011).

      After reviewing the certified record, the parties’ briefs, and relevant case

law and statutes, we affirm Collins’ judgments of sentence based upon the

well-written opinion authored by Judge Schultz.       See Trial Court Opinion,

4/5/23, at 5-7 (court considered “plethora of information,” including PSI,

mental health evaluation, SOAB assessment, relevant sentencing guidelines,

and made probing inquiries during sentencing hearing in attempt to “gather

as much information as possible” to understand Collins’ background and

possible mitigating factors before imposing sentence); id. at 9-12 (where

victims in two separate cases involved minors being sexually abused for more

than six years, court’s decision to run standard-range sentences in one case

consecutive to sentences in other case not “unreasonable, disproportionate,

or excessive”). We instruct the parties to attach a copy of Judge Schultz’s

opinion in the event of further proceedings in the matter.

      Judgments of sentence affirmed.

                                      -8-
J-S30027-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/8/2023

                          -9-
0035_Opinion
                                                                                                 Circulated 08/16/2023 09:49 AM

                                           IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
                                               CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION

               COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA                                CP-51-CR-0007099-2021
                                                                            CP-51-CR-0007100-2021

                                     v.

                                                                            SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                                            PENNSYLVANIA
               ANTHONY COLLINS                                              3205 EDA 2022
                                                                            3206 EDA 2022

                                                         OPINION
               SCHULTZ, J.

                      Mr. Collins appeals his sentences in two consolidated cases, wherein he received an

               aggregate sentence of 10-20 years incarceration followed by 12 years of probation. Upon a full

               review of Mr. Collins' claims, the Court considered all the statutory factors required by 42

               Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b), the Court did not double-count the seriousness of the offense, and the Court

               did not abuse its discretion in ordering the sentences to run consecutively, and the resulting

               aggregate sentence was neither unreasonable nor excessive.

                                                 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

                      Because this matter is now on appeal, all facts and inferences are stated in favor of the

               Commonwealth. Mr. Collins was convicted of committing various sexual offenses against two

               sisters, N.E. and N.L., while they were both under the age of 13. He lived off and on in the

               household with them since they were born. N.T., 04/11/2022, at 63-64 (N.E.); N.T., 04/11/2022,

               at 39 (N.L.).
                                                                                                 FILED
                                                                                               APR ':'5 2023
                                                                 1                             Appeals/Post Trial
                                                                                           Office of Judicial Records
       1. Factual Background for CP-51-CR-0007099-2021

       Mr. Collins raped the complaining witness, N.E., while she was between the ages of three

and five years old. N.T., 04/1112022, at 64. While they were in the basement, Mr. Collins bent

N.E. over a banister and penetrated her anally with his penis. Id., at 65-66.

       2. Factual Background for CP-51-CR-0007100-2021

       Mr. Collins also engaged in a series of sexually inappropriate events with N .E. 's sister,

complaining witness, N.L., while she was between the ages of four and twelve. N.T.,

04/11/2022, at 39, 52-53. When N.L. was four years old, she woke up to find Mr. Collins calling

her name and masturbating in front of her. Id., at 40. Mr. Collins' hand was moving back and

forth on his penis. Id., at 41. In another incident when she was four, N.L. woke up to feel Mr.

Collins her buttocks beneath her clothes. Id., at 42.

       When N.L. was twelve years old, N.L. woke up to find Mr. Collins' "hugging" her while

she was lying in bed. Id., at 50-51. Their bodies were facing each other, and Mr. Collins' hands

were underneath N .L.' s clothes, touching her buttocks. Id. In another incident that took place

when N.L. was twelve years old, Mr. Collins asked her to spit into his hands. Id., at 43. Not

feeling comfortable with the request, N .L. compromised by spitting in a measuring cup. Id. Mr.

Collins then took the cup and went into the bathroom. Id.

                                   PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        Mr. Collins was charged in two separate bills of information. In CP-51-CR-7099-2021,

related to complaining witness N.E., Mr. Collins was charged with rape of a child, involuntary

deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI) with a child, unlawful contact with a minor - sexual offenses,

statutory sexual assault, sexual assault, corruption of a minor, and indecent assault of a person

                                                  2
less than 13 years of age. In CP-51-CR-7100-2021, related to complaining witness N.L., Mr.

Collins was charged with unlawful contact with a minor - sexual offenses, corruption of a minor,

and indecent assault of a person less than 13 years of age. The cases were tried together as a

bench trial. In CP-51-CR-7099-2021, Mr. Collins was found guilty on all charges except

unlawful contact with a minor. 1 In CP-51-CR-7100-2021, Mr. Collins was found guilty of

corruption of a minor and indecent assault of a person less than 13 years of age.

          In preparation for sentencing, the Court ordered a pre-sentence investigation (PSI), a

mental health evaluation, and an assessment by the Sex Offender Assessment Board (SOAB).

All of those reports were completed and filed with the Court. N.T., 07/29/2022, at 4. Neither the

Commonwealth not Defense submitted any written materials to the Court in advance of

sentencing. The Court prepared the Guideline Sentence Form for each offense. Id. at 31, see

also Court's Ex. 1, 07/29/2022.

           On July 29, 2022, the Court conducted a sentencing hearing. At the conclusion of the

hearing, the Court sentenced Mr. Collins to an aggregate sentence of ten (10) to twenty (20)

years of incarceration followed by twelve (12) years of probation. Within each case, the

incarceration sentences were concurrent and the probationary sentences were concurrent. The

sentences in 7100-2021 were to run consecutive to the 7099-2021 sentence. The following chart

shows the Guideline recommended minimum sentences and the actual sentences the Court

imposed on Mr. Collins.

1
    The Court granted judgment of acquittal on the unlawful contact with a minor charge in CP-51-CR-7099-2021.

                                                         3
                                     CP-51-CR-7099-2021
                                                                      Sentence
                                Guideline
        Offense
                              Recommended                 Incarceration            Probation
                                Minimum
Rape of a child                72 - 240 ± 12             108 - 216 months            10 years
IDSI with a child              72 - 240 ± 12             108 - 216 months            10 years
Statutory sexual
                                12 - 24 ± 12              12 - 24 months             8 years
assault
Sexual assault                  36 - 54 ± 12         No sentence - merged w/ statutory assault
Corruption of a minor            3 - 12 ± 6                3 - 12 months             2 years
Indecent assault                 3 - 12 ± 6                3 - 12 months             2 years

                                     CP-51-CR-7100-2021
                                                                      Sentence
                                Guideline
        Offense
                              Recommended                  Incarceration            Probation
                                Minimum
 Corruption of a minor          3 - 12 ± 6                12 - 24 months             2 years
 Indecent assault of a
 person less than 13             3 - 12 ± 6               12 - 24 months             2 years
 years of age

       On August 5, 2022 Defense filed a motion for reconsideration of the sentence. Following

a hearing, the Court denied the motion on November 14, 2022.

       Defense timely filed a Notice of Appeal on December 14, 2022. The Court issued an

Order pursuant to Pa. R. Crim. P. 1925(b) on January 9, 2023. Defense filed a timely Statement

of Errors Complained of on Appeal on January 30, 2023, and presented the following issues:

           1. This court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in imposing the
              instant sentence as the Court's sentence failed to comply with the
              requirements of 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9721 and was unreasonable, as the Court
              seemed to exclusively focus on defendant's criminal conduct rather than his
              rehabilitative needs or mitigating circumstances. This court failed to
              adequately examine and investigate the defendant's background, character

                                                4
               and rehabilitative needs with the goal of imposing an individualized
               sentence.

           2. Defendant also asserts that by sentencing him to consecutive sentences, this
              Court imposed a sentence that is grossly disproportionate to the defendant's
              crimes and failed to consider the defendant's background, character, and
              rehabilitative needs, the sentence is contrary to the fundamental norms
              which underlie the sentencing process and fails to account for
              individualized sentencing, thus making it unreasonable and excessive.

           3. The Court improperly engaged in the double counting in determining the
              sentence by counting both the seriousness of the offense for guideline
              purposes and by seemingly looking exclusively at the conduct in fashioning
              its sentence.

Stmt. of Errors Complained of on Appeal, January 30, 2023.

                                          DISCUSSION

       To simplify the legal issues raised in the Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal,

the Court will frame the issues as follows:

       1. Whether the Court failed to weigh the factors required under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b).

       2. Whether the Court improperly double-counted the seriousness of the offense in

           crafting the sentences.

       3. Whether the Court abused its discretion when ordering the sentence in 7100-2021 to

           run consecutive to the sentence in 7099-2021, and whether the resulting aggregate

           sentence was unreasonable and/or excessive.

The Court will address each of these issues in tum.

       1) The Court considered all the statutory factors required by 42 Pa.C.S.A.
          § 9721(b).

       Under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b), the Court is required to consider multiple factors when

crafting a sentence of confinement. "The sentence imposed should call for confinement that is

                                                5
consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it related to the impact

on the life of the victim and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant."

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b). Defense contends that the Court failed to do so, and instead suggests

that the Court focused solely on the gravity of the offense.

       Defense's argument ignores the Court's statement at the beginning of the explanation of

the sentences:

       The things that I have considered in making this sentence are the statutory factors
       that I'm required to consider, including the need for the protection of the public,
       the gravity of the offense in relation to the impact on the victims' life and the
       community, and the rehabilitative needs of Mr. Collins.

N.T., 07/2912022, at 30.

       Defense's argument is likely based on the Court's statement later in the same explanation

that "the overarching issue for figuring out punishment is not so much need for rehabilitation as

it is the harm to the victims and the serious nature of these offenses. Although, we did consider

rehabilitative needs as well." N.T., 07/29/2022, at 32- 33; see also Ct. Order March 31, 2023

(correcting transcription error). Defense seems to misinterpret the Court's statement as

exclusively focusing on the harm to the victims and the gravity of the offenses. This

interpretation ignores the plain meaning of the term overarching. Something being

"overarching" does not mean that it is all-encompassing to the exclusion of all other

considerations. It merely means that it is something that influences every part. See Britannica

Dictionary, available at: https://www. britannica.corn/dictionary/overarching#. In the present

case, the impact on the victims and gravity of the offenses were the strongest factors for

sentencing, but not the only factors. The Court makes this clear in the next sentence during the

sentencing hearing, "we did consider rehabilitative needs as well." N.T., 07/29/2022, at 33.

                                                   6
        Furthermore, the record demonstrates a plethora of information about Mr. Collins was

considered by to the Court as part of the sentencing process. When the Court possesses a pre-

sentence investigation report (PSI), it is presumed that the Court considered and weighed all the

relevant information the report contained, as well as the statutory mitigating factors.

Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12, 18 (Pa. 1988)). "It would be foolish, indeed, to take the

position that if a court is in possession of the facts, it will fail to apply them to the case _at hand."

Id. At Mr. Collins' sentencing, the Court had available the PSI, the mental health evaluation,

and the SOAB assessment. N.T. 07/29/2022, at 30. Going beyond the mere presumption, the

Court specifically stated that it "carefully reviewed" the PSI, the mental health evaluation, the

and the SOAB assessment. Id. Furthermore, the Court's inquiries during the sentencing hearing

demonstrate that the Court was attempting to gather as much information as possible to

understand the full picture of Mr. Collins' background, possible mitigating facts, and potential

rehabilitative needs, " ... he declined to participate in the [mental] health evaluation and the PSI.

Is there any additional information that you would like the Court to know at this point that would

ordinarily come through those reports?" Id., at 23.

        2) The Court did not double-count the seriousness of the offense.

        Next, Defense argues that the Court improperly engaged in "double-counting" by

considering the seriousness of the offense via the guidelines, and then again by "looking

exclusively at the conduct in fashioning its sentence." Stmt. Of Errors Complained of on

Appeal, January 30, 2023. Defense's argument fails on several fronts.

        First, as explained above, the Court did not focus exclusively on Defendant's conduct

when fashioning the sentences. The Court had the benefit of the PSI, the mental health

evaluation, the SOAB assessment, statements made by the Commonwealth and Defense at the

                                                     7
sentencing hearing, and one of the victim's statements which was read into the record at the

hearing. N.T., 07/29/2022, at 30-31. As discussed more fully in the previous section, because

the Court had those reports, it is presumed that the Court considered all of the information

therein when crafting the sentences. Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12, 18 (Pa. 1988).

Moreover, the Court expressly stated that the contents of those documents were reviewed and

considered in crafting the sentences. N.T., 07/29/2022, at 30-31.

       Second, the term "double-counting" is not appropriately applied to the present situation.

Double-counting is a practice where the sentencing judge deviates from the standard guideline

range on the basis of a factor that is already considered in the Guidelines. "[S]entences should

not be aggravated or mitigated for circumstances incorporated in other provisions of the

Guidelines,. ... " See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Bartlow, 512 A.2d 34, 446 (Pa. Super 1986)

(quoting Sentencing Guideline Implementation Manual, 15). While the case law predominantly

talks about double-counting in the context of prior record score, it is equally applicable to

offense gravity score. As the Sentencing Guidelines state:

       The sentencing guidelines provide sanctions proportionate to the severity of the
       crime and the severity of the offender's prior record score. This establishes a
       sentencing system with a primary focus on retribution, but one in which the
       recommendation allow for the fulfillment of other sentencing purposes including
       rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation.

204 Pa. Code§ 303.ll(a) 7th Ed., amend. 1(Sept.27, 2013). Therefore, the seriousness of the

offense and the impact on the victims are circumstances which are incorporated into the

Guidelines and should not form the basis to mitigate or aggravate a sentence from the standard

guideline range.

        That being said, the Court did not engage in such double-counting. The Court gave a

standard guideline sentence for each and every conviction. See Table supra at 4. Moreover, the

                                                  8
total aggregated sentence is still well within the guidelines for the top charges of rape of a child

and IDSI with a child. Since the Court followed the Guidelines, it cannot be said that the Court

double-counted the nature of the crime - it was appropriately factored into the guideline

recommendation, which the Court followed when crafting the sentences. The Court agreed with

the Guideline analysis and chose to follow the guideline recommendations.

       With regard to the Court's decision to order the sentences in the two cases to run

consecutive rather than concurrent, the Guidelines do not address such situations. The

Guidelines only advise a sentencing court on how to address a particular crime. The Guidelines

are silent regarding questions of multiple crimes, multiple victims, multiple cases, and decisions

of concurrent verses consecutive sentences. Therefore, the Court taking into account that there

were multiple crimes committed against different victims is not double-counting.

        3) The Court's order of consecutive sentences was not an abuse of discretion and
           the resulting aggregate sentence was neither unreasonable nor excessive.

        Defense argues that by imposing consecutive sentences, the Court subjected Mr. Collins

to an excessive, unreasonable, and grossly disproportionate sentence. In the hearing for the

Motion for Reconsideration, Defense conceded that the Court's sentence for each count was

within the standard guideline range for the respective count. N.T., 11/14/2022, at 23-25.

"Where a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the

sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code." Commonwealth v. Hill, 210 A.3d 1104,

1117 (Pa. Super. 2019). Even in the aggregate, the total sentence is still within the standard

guideline range for the top charges ofrape of a child and IDSI with a child. N.T., 11/14/2022, at

24-25. Defense's only objection is that the Court ordered the sentences in 7100-2021 to run

                                                   9
consecutive to rather than concurrent with in the sentences in 7099-2021. Defense's claim fails

for several reasons. 2

         The sentencing court has discretion to impose consecutive sentences rather than

concurrent sentences. Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 170 A.39 127, 133 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).

Sentencing is a matter solely considered by the trial court, and the trial judge should determine,

based on the specific facts of each case, whether a sentence shall run consecutively or

concurrently with another sentence. Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995, 998 (Pa. Super. Ct.

2009).

         Here, the Court sentenced Mr. Collins to concurrent sentences within each case, but

ordered that the sentences for 7100-2021 should run consecutive to 7099-2021. There are

several factors that weighed in favor of consecutive sentences: (1) Mr. Collins was convicted of

crimes in two separate cases; (2) there were two separate victims; and (3) the offenses in each

case were committed separately from the other case and were not under a single chain of events.

N.T., 11/14/2022, at 26.

         Defense's contention that the sentences were "grossly disproportionate to his crimes" is

without merit. In 7099-2021, Mr. Collins was convicted of rape of a child and IDSI with a child.

The underlying facts are that his victim was no older than 6 years old at the time of assault and

that he penetrated her anally with his penis while she was in her home and under Mr. Collins'

2
  As an initial matter, appellate view of the discretionary aspects of the Court's sentence is not an appeal of right.
Pursuant to Commonwealth v. Hoch, such appeals should be viewed as petitions for permission to appeal. 936 A.2d
515, 517-18 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007). Prior to granting said appeals, the petitioner needs to satisfy a four-prong test
outlined in Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010):
          (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal; (2) whether the issue was properly
          preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence; (3) whether appellant's
          brief has a fatal defect; and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed
          from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.
Challenges to the Court's exercise of its discretion in ordering sentences to run consecutive rather than concurrent
fails the substantial question prong of the aforementioned test. Commonwealth v. Lloyd, 878 A.2d 867, 873 (Pa.
Super. Ct. 2005).

                                                          10
care. For that offense, the Court ordered a sentence of 9 to 18 years of incarceration, which was

within the lower half of the standard guideline range and which was far less than the statutory

maximum of 40 years. In 7100-2021, Mr. Collins was convicted of indecent assault of a person

less than 13 years of age. The underlying facts are that he repeatedly fondled his victim's

buttocks while she was sleeping and masturbated in front of her. For that offense, the Court

ordered a sentence of 12 to 24 months of incarceration, which was within the standard guideline

range and which was far less than the statutory maximum of 84 months. The Guidelines, via the

offense gravity score, provide guidance to the Court on what is a proportionate sentence given

the severity of a particular crime. 204 Pa. Code § 303.1 l(a) 7th Ed., amend. 1 (Sept. 27, 2013).

The Court, in following the Guidelines, crafted such a proportionate sentence.

        Defense also argues that the Court failed to consider the defendant's background,

character, and rehabilitative needs, which resulted in an excessive sentence which was not

individualized to Mr. Collins. As discussed above, the Court considered all the statutory factors

required by law before imposing the sentence on Mr. Collins. See Discussion, supra at 5. In

weighing those factors, the Court had a plethora of information about Mr. Collins' background

and characterfound in the PSI, the mental health report, and the SOAB assessment. In addition,

at the sentencing hearing the Court also heard and considered statements from the Defense

Counsel. 3 N.T., 07/29/2022, at 30-31.

        Notably, although Defense now suggests the Court failed to consider rehabilitative needs

of Mr. Collins, at the sentencing hearing, the Defense itself argued that no rehabilitation was

needed. Id., at 19 ("his need for rehabilitation is, in my opinion, is kind oflow."). The Court

3
 Mr. Collins elected not to provide a statement himself on the advice of counsel and on the basis that he maintains
his innocence. N.T., 07/29/2022, at 16 - 17, 29. The Court did not hold this decision against Mr. Collins when
crafting the sentences. Id., at 32.

                                                         11
even attempted to elicit additional possible mitigating factors from Defense Counsel at the

hearing. Id., at 23 (" ... [defendant] declined to participate in the [mental] health evaluation and the

PSI. Is there any additional information that you would like the Court to know at this point that

would ordinarily come through those reports?") In short, Defense offered no specific

suggestions on what rehabilitative measures would be effective, other than to argue that Mr.

Collins simply won't do it again. Id., at 18 & 22. The Court also disagrees with Defense's

characterization of the offenses as isolated events in Mr. Collins' life. These crimes were not a

single act. He had multiple sexual contacts with the victims over a course of at least eight years.

        The Court did consider rehabilitative needs of Mr. Collins, but, ultimately, by defendant's

own admission, there was little that could be done in that regard. Thus, while rehabilitative

needs factor was considered, when weighed along with the other statutory factors, the

seriousness of the crime was a much stronger factor in the present case. Defense's claim that the

Court did not weigh the statutory factors as the Defendant wishes does not amount to an

appealable error. Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 170 A.3d 127, 133 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).

                                           CONCLUSION

        Based on the foregoing, the Court considered all of the statutorily required factors as part

of the sentencing, the Court did not engage in double-counting, and the Court's exercise of its

discretion in ordering the sentence in 7100-2021 to run consecutive to the sentence in 7099-2021

was neither unreasonable nor excessive.

                                                                BY THE COURT:

                                                   12