Court Opinion

ID: 9894137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 16:11:11.137917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:48.954258
License: Public Domain

J-S30004-23
J-S30005-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 ALFRED JOSEPH BARLOW                    :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :   No. 3057 EDA 2022

    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 4, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-09-CR-0003866-2020

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 ALFRED J. BARLOW                        :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :   No. 3062 EDA 2022

    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 4, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-09-CR-0005451-2019

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

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                  FILED OCTOBER 31, 2023

     In these cases, which we sua sponte consolidate herein, Appellant,

Alfred Joseph Barlow, appeals from the judgment of sentence of an aggregate

term of one to two years’ incarceration, imposed after terms of probation and

parole he was serving were revoked and he was resentenced. On appeal,
J-S30004-23
J-S30005-23

Appellant solely challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. After

careful review, we affirm.

      In August of 2021, Appellant pled guilty to one count of retail theft in

case No. CP-09-CR-0005451-2019 (“case 5451-2019”), and was sentenced to

time served to 23 months’ incarceration. That same day, Appellant also pled

guilty, in case No. CP-09-CR-0003866-2020 (“case 3866-2020”), to a single

count of retail theft and was sentenced to one year probation. Thereafter,

Appellant was released on parole in case 5451-2019, and was also serving

probation in case 3866-2020, when he violated the terms/conditions of his

parole and probation.        Specifically, at the revocation and resentencing

hearing, the Commonwealth stated the following facts regarding Appellant’s

violations:

      [The Commonwealth:] … Your Honor, [Appellant] failed to report
      on June 1st of 2022, and he failed to be available for his
      prescheduled home visit.

      [Appellant] submitted an oral fluid test with an overall positive
      test result for THC on December 2nd of 2021.

      On May 19th of 2022, while at Jefferson Hospital, [Appellant] was
      advised by — he advised female staff that he had thigh pain. This
      is a new arrest, Your Honor. He proceeded to pull out his erect
      penis, grab the woman’s breast, and there is still currently an
      active warrant from Philadelphia Police Department for the
      indecent exposure and fondling of an adult. And I believe that
      there is a detainer lodged against [Appellant] from Philadelphia
      for those outstanding charges.

      On June 9th of 2022[, Appellant] was arrested in Bensalem
      Township and was charged with robbery. It looks like several
      counts of robbery. And that was assigned Bill No. 3200 of 2022.
      On July 6th of 2022[, Appellant] was given a reduced bail on those
      charges.

                                      -2-
J-S30004-23
J-S30005-23

     On October 6th of 2022[, Appellant] pled guilty to two counts of
     retail theft and two counts of receiving stolen property. All other
     charges were nol-prossed, and sentencing was deferred to today
     to be heard before Your Honor.

     Again, this is [Appellant’s] first violation. He has made no efforts
     to make any payments on his court fines and costs, no restitution
     has been ordered in any of those cases.

     On October 7th[, Appellant] was referred to Family Services. He
     was also referred to Family Services again on December 2nd. And
     on April 7th of 2022[, Appellant] was again referred and directed
     to obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation and a mental health
     evaluation. On May 5th[, Appellant] was again directed to obtain
     a mental health and drug and alcohol evaluation.

     On June 10th[,] he was given new charges. [Appellant] — the
     department lodged a detainer against [Appellant] and [he] was
     provided information on July 14th of 2022 in reference to mental
     health court.

     On August 23rd of 2022[, Appellant’s probation/parole violation]
     notice was sent to his case manager at Bucks County Correctional
     Facility. [Appellant] was provided an application for mental health
     court, but he indicated he’s not interested in being a part of the
     treatment court.

     He’s had several misconducts while in custody. On June 14th of
     2022[, Appellant] incurred two Class 1 misconducts for sexual
     misconduct and disobeying a direct order.       [Appellant] was
     witnessed by a nurse in the dispensary to be masturbating over
     his jumper. He was asked to stop, and he continued his hand
     motions. He was then asked to leave, and he refused to do so.
     Correctional officers had to remove him from the dispensary, and
     [Appellant] was sentenced to 30 days in the Restrictive Housing
     Unit.

     On September 7th of 2022[, Appellant] incurred two Class 1
     misconducts for creating a disturbance and attempting to commit
     an assault. [Appellant] lunged at the K9 whose name is Burger in
     an aggressive manner. [Appellant] was found guilty of creating a
     disturbance and not guilty of an attempt to commit an assault….
     He was sanctioned to 20 days in the Restrictive Housing Unit.

     On September 8th of 2022[, Appellant] incurred a Class 1
     misconduct for disobeying an order. [Appellant] refused to allow

                                    -3-
J-S30004-23
J-S30005-23

       correctional officers to house another inmate in the Restrictive
       Housing Unit Cell and he refused to allow anyone in the cell.
       [Appellant] was found guilty and sanctioned to ten days
       suspended sanctions.

N.T. Hearing, 11/4/22, at 8-12.

       After Appellant had the opportunity to speak, see id. at 15-23, the court

found him in violation of his probation in case No. 3866-2020. Id. at 28. The

court revoked Appellant’s probation and resentenced him to a term of one to

two years’ incarceration.        Id.    In case No. 5451-2019, the court found

Appellant in violation, revoked his term of parole, and resentenced him to

serve the remainder of his back time concurrently with his sentence in case

No. 3866-2020. Id. Thus, Appellant’s aggregate sentence is one to two years’

incarceration.

       Appellant filed a timely motion for reconsideration of his sentence on

November 10, 2022.         However, the trial court did not address Appellant’s

motion before he filed timely notices of appeal, which we consolidate herein.1

On December 15, 2022, the court issued an order directing Appellant to file a

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

____________________________________________

1 Appellant’s motion to reconsider did not toll the thirty-day period to file an

appeal from the sentence imposed following the revocation of his probation
and parole. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 708(E) (“A motion to modify a sentence
imposed after a revocation shall be filed within 10 days of the date of
imposition. The filing of a motion to modify sentence will not toll the 30-day
appeal period.”); Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927, 929 (Pa.
Super. 2003) (“An appellant whose revocation of probation sentence has been
imposed after a revocation proceeding has 30 days to appeal her sentence
from the day her sentence is entered, regardless of whether or not she files a
post-sentence motion.”).

                                           -4-
J-S30004-23
J-S30005-23

Appellant timely complied on January 4, 2023.         The court issued a Rule

1925(a) opinion on February 3, 2023.

       In Appellant’s identical appellate briefs filed in each of his present two

cases, he states one issue for our review: “Did the trial court abuse its

discretion in sentencing Appellant where the trial court failed to consider all

relevant factors resulting in a manifestly unreasonable sentence?” Appellant’s

Brief at 7 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

       Our standard of review is well settled:
       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. Further, revocation of a probation sentence is
       a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and
       that court’s decision will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence
       of an error of law or an abuse of discretion.

Commonwealth v. Shires, 240 A.3d 974, 977 (Pa. Super. 2020) (cleaned

up).

       Here, Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence.

       Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not
       entitle an appellant to review as of right. Commonwealth v.
       Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 912 (Pa. Super. 2000). 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 determine: (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

                                      -5-
J-S30004-23
J-S30005-23

         appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing
         Code, 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 9781(b).

      Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa. Super. 2006),
      appeal denied, … 909 A.2d 303 ([Pa.] 2006). 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. Mann, 820 A.2d 788,
      794 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, … 831 A.2d 599 ([Pa.]
      2003).

      The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must
      be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Commonwealth v. Paul,
      925 A.2d 825, 828 (Pa. Super. 2007). 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.”
      Sierra, supra at 912–13.

Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quoting

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

      In this case, Appellant has met the first three requirements for review

of a claim implicating the discretionary aspects of his sentence. In his Rule

2119(f) statement, he contends that in imposing his sentence, the court

“failed to consider all relevant factors such as Appellant’s age, family history,

or rehabilitative needs.”    Appellant’s Brief at 11.    He contends that his

sentence is therefore “manifestly excessive and unreasonable.” Id. at 12. We

consider Appellant’s claims as constituting a substantial question for our

review. See Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super.

2015) (en banc) (citation and quotation marks omitted) (“[A]n excessive

sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to

consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.”).

                                      -6-
J-S30004-23
J-S30005-23

      In reviewing the merits of Appellant’s sentencing challenge, we are

mindful that,
      [s]entencing 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.

Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1275 (Pa. Super. 2006).

      Presently, Appellant focuses his argument on claiming that the trial

court failed to consider his rehabilitative needs. As he observes, he “testified

at length regarding those needs[,]” explaining that he “suffers from a number

of mental health problems[,]” including “bipolar disorder, anxiety, and

depression.” Appellant’s Brief at 14 (citing N.T. Hearing at 17). According to

Appellant, he “was in the community on probation and parole and was doing

very well[,] … working full time and supporting his four children.” Id. He

claims that he “attempted to get drug and alcohol and mental health

treatment[,] but had a difficult time doing so because he did not have the

required identification.”   Id.; see also N.T. Hearing at 18-19.      Appellant

further contends that the violations he committed were due to his not taking

his mental health medication and being intoxicated, yet “[i]nstead of

fashioning a sentencing which would allow Appellant to participate in

meaningful treatment,” the trial court sentenced him to serve a sentence that

                                     -7-
J-S30004-23
J-S30005-23

“is manifestly excessive and unreasonable.” Id. at 15. Thus, Appellant asks

that we vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing.

     No relief is due. As the trial court aptly explained:
     The Pennsylvania Sentencing Code requires that, when imposing
     sentence, a court must consider the protection of the public, the
     gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the victim and
     the community, the defendant’s rehabilitative needs and the
     sentencing guidelines. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b). These were the
     factors used when determining Appellant’s sentence and are
     proper under Pennsylvania law. On the record[,] we stated our
     reasons for the sentences imposed, despite the numerous
     interruptions by Appellant:

        THE COURT: Listen — I listened to you, now you can listen
        to me, okay? … [Y]ou go out and you get drunk. And then
        you commit a crime. You steal things from two different
        stores, okay? So that’s when you’re on probation, that’s
        when you’re on supervision, you do that. […] So you then
        go to jail. And then when you’re in jail, you get at least four
        misconducts, you know, Class 1 misconducts. So what do
        you expect, that I keep you out on the street on probation,
        or that I keep you in Bucks County Correctional Facility?
        You’ve demonstrated to me that you’re not capable of
        conforming your conduct to either of the requirements of
        those places. On the street —

        THE [APPELLANT]: But --

        THE COURT: -- you don’t take your medicine, you get drunk,
        you commit new crimes.       You go to jail, you bother
        everybody, you get four misconducts.

     N.T. [Hearing at] 23-24.

     Appellant … clearly has a lack of respect for authority. Here, our
     decision to impose the sentences for the violations in case number
     5451-2019, and case number 3866-2020[,] was clearly supported
     by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771[.] Appellant … was convicted of another
     crime, and the sentence was essential to vindicate the authority
     of the court. While the sentencing guidelines were not specifically
     referenced during the sentencing hearing, they were carefully
     explained to Appellant … at the entry of the guilty plea. Ordering

                                     -8-
J-S30004-23
J-S30005-23

       the sentences to run consecutively is well within our discretion;[2]
       a lesser sentence would depreciate the seriousness of the crime
       and diminish the authority of this court.

Trial Court Opinion, 2/2/23, at 8-9.

       We discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court. The court heard

and   considered      Appellant’s    testimony   about   his   mental   health   and

drug/alcohol addiction issues.         However, it also heard that Appellant has

squandered multiple opportunities to rehabilitate himself, instead choosing to

not take his medication, consume drugs and alcohol, and commit new crimes.

He also has not conformed his behavior while incarcerated in the county jail.

This record supports the court’s determination that Appellant’s rehabilitative

needs are outweighed by the necessity of the court to protect the public and

vindicate its authority. Therefore, Appellant’s sentence is not an abuse of the

court’s discretion.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 10/31/2023

____________________________________________

2 The court’s remark about consecutive sentences refers to the fact that it
imposed Appellant’s sentence for his probation revocation to run consecutively
to a sentence of one to two years’ imprisonment that the court imposed for
charges in another, unrelated case that is not presently before us on appeal.

                                           -9-