Court Opinion

ID: 9954561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 16:11:19.301823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:57.263195
License: Public Domain

J-S44029-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  AARON K. SCOTT                               :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 602 EDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 20, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-51-CR-0000762-2022

BEFORE:      OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:                             FILED MARCH 26, 2024

       Appellant Aaron K. Scott appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed after he pled guilty to third-degree murder and related offenses. On

appeal, Appellant raises claims regarding the discretionary aspects of his

sentence. We affirm.

       The underlying facts of this matter are well known to the parties. See

Trial Ct. Op., 4/3/23, at 2-5. Briefly, on October 18, 2021, Appellant was

involved in a physical altercation with another individual on the 3300 block of

Ryan Avenue in Philadelphia near Lincoln High School.            The altercation

occurred at approximately 2:48 P.M., which was shortly after students at

Lincoln High School were dismissed for the day. After Appellant and the other

person exchanged punches, Appellant backed up, drew a gun, and fired

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S44029-23

multiple shots. Appellant then fled the scene. However, Appellant continued

firing the gun and shot into the crowd multiple times. Two bystanders were

shot during this incident: a sixteen-year-old male and a sixty-six-year-old

male. The sixteen-year-old was transported to the hospital in critical condition

and ultimately survived following numerous surgeries and after spending

months in hospitals and a rehabilitation facility. However, the sixty-six-year-

old was pronounced dead at the hospital from a gunshot wound to the head.

Appellant was apprehended a few blocks away from the scene of the shooting

in possession of a handgun. See id. at 2-5.

       On October 18, 2021, Appellant was arrested and charged with murder,

attempted murder, aggravated assault, possessing an instrument of a crime

(PIC), simple assault, recklessly endangering another person (REAP), and

criminal conspiracy. See id. at 1. On October 28, 2022, Appellant entered

an open guilty plea to third-degree murder, attempted murder, aggravated

assault, PIC, simple assault, and REAP.1 The trial court sentenced Appellant

to a term of twenty to forty years of incarceration for third-degree murder, a

consecutive term of ten to twenty years of incarceration for attempted

murder, a consecutive term of five years of probation for PIC, and a two-year

term of probation for REAP to be served concurrently with the sentence for

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(c), 901(a), 2702(a)(1), 907(a), 2701(a), and 2705
respectively.

                                           -2-
J-S44029-23

PIC.2 See Sentencing Order, 1/20/23, at 1-2. This resulted in an aggregate

sentence of thirty to sixty years of incarceration, followed by five years of

probation. See id. at 2.

       Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion to modify his sentence,

which the trial court denied. Appellant subsequently filed a timely notice of

appeal. Both the trial court and Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

       On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue:

       Did the trial court abuse its discretion in imposing an aggregate
       sentence of thirty (30) to sixty (60) years following an open plea?

Appellant’s Brief at 5 (formatting altered).3

       Appellant argues that the trial court failed to consider relevant

mitigating factors and Appellant’s rehabilitative needs when imposing its

sentence. See Appellant’s Brief at 8. Appellant also asserts that the trial

court imposed excessive consecutive sentences without placing sufficient

reasons on the record. See id. at 9-10.

____________________________________________

2 Aggravated assault and simple assault merged with third-degree murder for

sentencing purposes. See Sentencing Order, 1/20/23, at 1-2.

3 Appellant does not challenge his probationary sentences and only presents

a claim concerning the sentences of incarceration for third-degree murder and
attempted murder. See Appellant’s Brief at 5, 9; Rule 1925(b) Statement,
3/16/23, at 1. Accordingly, we will address only the sentences imposed for
third-degree murder and attempted murder. See, e.g., Commonwealth v.
Lamont, --- A.3d --- 2024 PA Super 3, 2024 WL 106985 at *8, n.12, (Pa.
Super. filed Jan. 9, 2024) (explaining that claims that are not raised in either
the Rule 1925(b) statement or in the statement of questions involved are
waived on appeal).

                                           -3-
J-S44029-23

      The Commonwealth contends that Appellant’s sentences were within the

standard range of the sentencing guidelines. See Commonwealth’s Brief at

1, 9. The Commonwealth emphasizes that there was more than one victim,

and it asserts that the sentences were not unreasonable and the trial court

properly exercised its discretion to impose consecutive sentences. See id. at

6-11. The Commonwealth concludes that the trial court provided appropriate

reasons for the sentences and considered all relevant sentencing factors. See

id. at 8-14.

      “[C]hallenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle

an appellant to review as of right.” Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987,

991 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citations omitted). Before reaching the merits of such

claims, we must determine:

      (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved
      his issues; (3) whether Appellant’s brief includes a [Pa.R.A.P.
      2119(f)] concise statement of the reasons relied upon for
      allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of
      sentence; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a
      substantial question that the sentence is inappropriate under the
      sentencing code.

Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293, 296 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations

omitted).

      “To preserve an attack on the discretionary aspects of sentence, an

appellant must raise his issues at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion.

Issues not presented to the sentencing court are waived and cannot be raised

for the first time on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247,

                                    -4-
J-S44029-23

1251 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a)

(stating that “[i]ssues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be

raised for the first time on appeal”).

      “The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” Commonwealth v. Battles, 169 A.3d

1086, 1090 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted).      “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. Grays, 167 A.3d

793, 816 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted).

      Here, the record reflects that Appellant preserved his sentencing

challenge by raising it in his post-sentence motion, filing a timely notice of

appeal and a court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement, and including a Rule

2119(f) statement in his brief. See Corley, 31 A.3d at 296. Further, we

conclude that Appellant’s issue raises a substantial question for our review.

See Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 340 (Pa. Super. 2015)

(concluding that the “[a]ppellant’s challenge to the imposition of his

consecutive sentences as unduly excessive, together with his claim that the

court failed to consider his rehabilitative needs and mitigating factors upon

fashioning its sentence, presents a substantial question”); Commonwealth

v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1042 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating that a claim that

the trial court imposed a sentence that is not consistent with the gravity of

                                         -5-
J-S44029-23

the crime, the need for public protection, or the appellant’s rehabilitative

needs raised a substantial question). Accordingly, we will review the merits

of Appellant’s claims.

      Our standard of review is as follows:

      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. In this context, an abuse
      of discretion is not shown merely by 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.

      Additionally, our review of the discretionary aspects of a sentence
      is confined by the statutory mandates of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c) and
      (d). Subsection 9781(c) provides:

         The appellate court shall vacate the sentence and remand
         the case to the sentencing court with instructions if it finds:

            (1) the sentencing court purported to sentence within the
            sentencing guidelines but applied the guidelines
            erroneously;

            (2) the sentencing court sentenced within the sentencing
            guidelines but the case involves circumstances where the
            application of the guidelines would be clearly
            unreasonable; or

            (3) the sentencing court sentenced outside the
            sentencing guidelines and the sentence is unreasonable.

         In all other cases the appellate court shall affirm the
         sentence imposed by the sentencing court.

      42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c).

      In reviewing the record, we consider:

         (1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and the
         history and characteristics of the defendant.

                                      -6-
J-S44029-23

         (2) The opportunity of the sentencing court to observe the
         defendant, including any presentence investigation [(PSI)].

         (3) The findings upon which the sentence was based.

         (4) The guidelines promulgated by the commission.

      42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(d).

Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253-54 (Pa. Super. 2014) (some

citations omitted and some formatting altered).

      “When imposing a sentence, the sentencing court must consider the

factors set out in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b), [including] the protection of the public,

[the] gravity of offense in relation to impact on [the] victim and community,

and [the] rehabilitative needs of the defendant[.]”         Commonwealth v.

Fullin, 892 A.2d 843, 847 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted and formatting

altered). “A sentencing court need not undertake a lengthy discourse for its

reasons for imposing a sentence or specifically reference the statute in

question, but the record as a whole must reflect the sentencing court’s

consideration of the facts of the crime and character of the offender.”

Commonwealth v. Schutzues, 54 A.3d 86, 99 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations

omitted).

      Additionally, the trial court “must consider the sentencing guidelines.”

Fullin, 892 A.2d at 848 (citation omitted). However, “where the trial court is

informed by a PSI [report], it is presumed that the court is aware of all

appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and that where the court

has   been    so   informed,   its   discretion   should   not   be   disturbed.”

                                      -7-
J-S44029-23

Commonwealth v. Edwards, 194 A.3d 625, 638 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation

omitted and formatting altered).

       “Generally, Pennsylvania law affords the sentencing court discretion to

impose its sentence concurrently or consecutively to other sentences being

imposed at the same time or to sentences already imposed. [An a]ppellant is

not entitled to a ‘volume discount’ on his multiple convictions by the imposition

of concurrent sentences.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 249 A.3d 1206, 1216

(Pa. Super. 2021) (citations omitted and formatting altered).

       Here, the record reflects that the trial court ordered a PSI report, which

it reviewed prior to sentencing. See N.T. Sentencing Hr’g, 1/20/23, at 3. At

the sentencing hearing, the trial court considered the sentencing guidelines,

Appellant’s mental health issues, the need to protect the public, and the

gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the victims and community.

See id. at 4, 70-71.

       In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court stated:

       The court reviewed the [PSI] report, considered all the testimony
       and arguments of counsel and imposed a sentence within the
       applicable guideline range.[4]    The undersigned considered
____________________________________________

4 The trial court correctly concludes that the sentences were within the
standard range of the sentencing guidelines. See Trial Ct. Op., at 9. The
applicable sentencing guideline range for Appellant’s third-degree murder
conviction with the deadly weapon used enhancement was ninety months to
the statutory limit of twenty years of incarceration. See 204 Pa. Code §
303.17(b); 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102(d). Accordingly, Appellant’s sentence of twenty
to forty years of incarceration was within the standard range of the guidelines.
See 204 Pa. Code § 303.17(b); 18 Pa.C.S. §1102(d). Further, Appellant’s
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -8-
J-S44029-23

       [Appellant’s] mental health and rehabilitative needs as well as his
       history, the need for the protection of the public and the gravity
       of the offense.

       [Appellant’s] claim that this is an excessive sentence is further
       belied by the horrific facts of this case. This was a brutal, cold,
       callous, merciless, and senseless murder. [Appellant] shot into a
       group of about fifty innocent students as school was letting out.
       The fact that only two people were hit is amazing. That [the
       sixteen-year-old] is still alive is nothing short of miraculous. [This
       victim] testified about how his entire life has changed and will
       never return to what it was and explained the injuries and pain he
       still faces daily, including that his one eye still doesn’t close
       completely, and he stumbles when he tries to walk, all because
       [Appellant] shot him, an unarmed victim of [Appellant’s]
       unwarranted anger.           [The other victim,] a 66-year-old
       grandfather[,] had just dropped off a prom dress for his
       granddaughter and was driving away when he was shot and killed
       by [Appellant]. That family is at a complete loss as to this
       senseless killing and even struggle with blaming themselves for
       the loss of their father and grandfather, for if he had not delivered
       the dress for his granddaughter that day, [he] would still be alive.
       Repeatedly shooting into a crowd of innocent students getting out
       of school — a crowd of at least fifty children — a crowd that had
       not done or said anything to [Appellant], in the early afternoon is
       an abomination. The terror and horror inflicted on the school and
       the entire neighborhood by this cannot be understated. There was
       not the slightest justification or reason for [Appellant’s] cowardly,
       murderous attack on our society, especially our children.

____________________________________________

sentence of ten to twenty years of incarceration for attempted murder was
also within the standard range of the sentencing guidelines. Appellant states
that the OGS for attempted murder was 13. See Appellant’s Brief at 9.
However, that assertion is incorrect. Rather, “[c]onvictions for attempt . . .
to commit murder receive the [OGS] of 14 if there is serious bodily injury[.]”
204 Pa.Code § 303.3(c)(4). Here, there is no dispute that the sixteen-year-
old victim sustained serious bodily injury. Accordingly, although Appellant’s
prior record score was zero, the applicable minimum guideline range for
attempted murder with serious bodily injury with the deadly weapon used
enhancement was ninety months of incarceration to the statutory limit. See
204 Pa. Code § 303.17(b); 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102(c). Therefore, Appellant’s
sentence of ten to twenty years of incarceration for attempted murder was
within the standard range of the guidelines.

                                           -9-
J-S44029-23

       This court examined [Appellant’s] background, character and
       rehabilitative needs, and the relevant information regarding these
       factors, all of which was considered. An abuse of discretion in
       sentencing is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather,
       [A]ppellant 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. The court reviewed
       all of the material submitted, considered all of the testimony and
       arguments of counsel and imposed a sentence. The undersigned
       considered [Appellant’s] mental health and rehabilitative needs as
       well as his history, the need for the protection of the public and
       the gravity of the offense.

Trial Ct. Op., at 9-11 (citations omitted and formatting altered).

       Based on our review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion by

the trial court. See Raven, 97 A.3d at 1253. In addition to considering the

PSI report, the record reflects that the trial court considered facts of the case,

the sentencing guidelines and sentencing factors including Appellant’s mental

health history and psychiatric report, Appellant’s lack of criminal history, the

impact of the crimes on the victims, and the need to protect the community.5

See Commonwealth v. Kurtz, 294 A.3d 509, 536 (Pa. Super. 2023) (stating

that “all the Sentencing Code requires is that the court consider all of the

relevant factors when imposing the sentence” (citation omitted and emphasis

added)), appeal granted on other grounds, 306 A.3d 1287 (Pa. 2023); see

also Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 778 (Pa. Super. 2009)

(explaining that an appellate court cannot reweigh the sentencing factors and

____________________________________________

5 See N.T. Sentencing Hr’g at 4, 71.

                                          - 10 -
J-S44029-23

impose its judgment in place of the sentencing court’s where the sentencing

court was fully aware of all mitigating factors).

      On this record, we have no basis to conclude that the trial court abused

its discretion in imposing Appellant’s sentence. See Edwards, 194 A.3d at

637; see also Brown, 249 A.3d at 1216 (noting that a defendant is not

entitled to a “‘volume discount’ on his multiple convictions by the imposition

of concurrent sentences” (citations omitted)).      Therefore, Appellant is not

entitled to relief. Accordingly, we affirm.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 3/26/2024

                                     - 11 -