Court Opinion

ID: 9382722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 16:11:30.623463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:41.274971
License: Public Domain

J-S04010-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    TYREH SMITH                                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 878 EDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 25, 2022
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
                 Criminal Division at CP-51-CR-0004003-2019,
                           CP-51-CR-0004005-2019

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    TYREH SMITH                                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 879 EDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 25, 2022
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
                 Criminal Division at CP-51-CR-0004003-2019,
                           CP-51-CR-0004005-2019

BEFORE:      MURRAY, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                               FILED MARCH 28, 2023

        Tyreh Smith (Appellant) challenges the discretionary aspects of the

sentence imposed following his guilty plea to two counts each of third-degree

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S04010-23

murder and criminal conspiracy, and one count of possessing an instrument

of crime (PIC).1 We affirm.

        The trial court summarized the factual basis of Appellant’s guilty plea:

        [O]n August 29, 2009, between the hours of 2:30 and 3:30 in the
        morning, in the area — at … 5545 Delancey Street, [] in the city
        and county of Philadelphia, the complainants in this case,
        Nakiesha Finks and Jonathan Pitts, were asleep in their home … in
        the upstairs front bedroom, when [Appellant] and a co-defendant,
        James Barrow, entered that property through a rear window by
        pushing in an air-conditioning unit.     Those individuals were
        masked. They continued to proceed through the house with the
        intention of committing a robbery.

        While upstairs … they went up to the front bedroom. … [A]t that
        time, Mr. Barrow proceeded into the bedroom. Mr. Barrow got
        into a physical altercation with Mr. Pitts. Mr. Barrow was armed
        with a revolver handgun. … [D]uring that physical altercation, a
        gunshot went off, prompting [Appellant] to go into that bedroom.

        During that time — when [Appellant] went into that bedroom, he
        aided and assisted Mr. Barrow in subduing both victims.
        [Appellant] was then instructed to duct-tape the hands and wrists
        of the victims. He did so for Mr. Barrow.

        … At that time, Mr. Barrow retrieved the gun back from
        [Appellant]…. [Appellant] went downstairs when Mr. Barrow shot
        both victims execution style in the … back of the head.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/16/22, at 2-3 (quoting N.T., 10/5/21, at 10-13).

        Police arrested Appellant nearly a decade later, on December 31, 2018.

On October 5, 2019, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to the above

charges.     However, the prosecution agreed that the third-degree murder

____________________________________________

1   See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c), 903, 907.

                                           -2-
J-S04010-23

counts would not be subject to mandatory life sentences.2 On February 25,

2022, following the preparation of a pre-sentence investigation report (PSI)

and a mental health evaluation, the trial court sentenced Appellant an

aggregate 24 to 48 years in prison, followed by five years’ probation.3

        Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court

denied on March 10, 2022. On March 21, 2022, Appellant filed two notices of

appeal, with each notice listing both trial court docket numbers.4

        Appellant’s notices of appeal implicate our Supreme Court’s holding in

Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018).              In Walker, the

Supreme Court held that appellants are required to file separate notices of

appeal when a single order resolves issues arising on more than one trial court

docket. Id. at 977. However, this Court has also recognized an exception to

Walker where a breakdown of the court’s processes takes place.

        In Commonwealth v. Stansbury, 219 A.3d 157 (Pa. Super. 2019),

the post-conviction relief court had advised the appellant that he could appeal

the dismissal of his petition by filing “a notice of appeal.” Stansbury, 219

____________________________________________

2See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9715 (providing that the sentence of life imprisonment
shall be imposed for a second third-degree murder conviction).

3The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of 6 – 12 years in prison for
each count of third-degree murder and each count of conspiracy, and a
consecutive five years of probation for Appellant’s conviction of PIC.

4   This Court consolidated the appeals on April 28, 2022.

                                           -3-
J-S04010-23

A.3d at 160. We held such a misstatement constituted a breakdown of the

court’s operation, “such that we may overlook the defective nature of

Appellant’s timely notice of appeal rather than quash pursuant to Walker.”

Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Larkin, 235 A.3d 350, 352-54 (Pa. Super.

2020) (en banc) (reaffirming Stansbury); Commonwealth v. Patterson,

940 A.2d 493, 498 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“The courts of this Commonwealth have

held that a court breakdown occurred in instances where the trial court, at the

time of sentencing, either failed to advise [appellants] of [their] post-sentence

and appellate rights or misadvised [them]”).

       Our review discloses that the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s post-

sentence motion failed to apprise Appellant of his appellate rights.          See

Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(4)(a) (requiring that orders denying post-sentence

motions include notice to the defendant of certain appellate rights, including

the right to appeal and the time limits within which an appeal must be filed).

This   omission    constituted   a   breakdown     of   the   court’s   processes.

Consequently, we decline to quash Appellant’s appeal under Walker. See

Patterson, 940 A.2d at 498.

       Appellant presents the following issue:

       DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN IMPOSING AN
       AGGREGATE SENTENCE OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) TO FORTY-EIGHT
       (48) YEARS ON THESE TWO CASES FOLLOWING AN OPEN PLEA?

Appellant’s Brief at 5.

                                       -4-
J-S04010-23

        A challenge to the discretionary aspect of a sentence is not appealable

as of right. Commonwealth v. Miller, 275 A.3d 530, 534 (Pa. Super. 2022).

        Rather, an appellant challenging the sentencing court’s discretion
        must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by (1) filing a timely notice of
        appeal; (2) properly preserving the issue at sentencing or in a
        motion to reconsider and modify the sentence; (3) complying with
        Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), which requires a separate section of the brief
        setting forth a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for
        allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of a
        sentence; and (4) presenting a substantial question that the
        sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing
        Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b), or sentencing norms.

Id. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, preserved his issue in a post-

sentence motion, and included in his brief a statement of the reasons relied

upon for allowance of appeal. Accordingly, we look to whether Appellant raises

a substantial question his sentence is inappropriate under the Sentencing

Code.

        In his Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement, Appellant argues the trial court

failed to consider

        [the] sentencing factors enumerated at 42 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 9721,
        imposed consecutive sentences without sufficient justification, did
        not fully account for mitigation evidence, and specifically
        ignored/failed to put proper weight on the following factors: (a)
        Appellant was not the gunman and did not shoot anyone[;] (b) his
        prior record score was 0[;] (c) Appellant gave police the identity
        of the shooter, was not the mastermind and did not plan this
        crime[;] (d) Appellant accepted responsibility and showed
        extreme remorse. Further the [trial court] improperly relied on
        [the] Commonwealth’s baseless argument that Appellant blamed
        an innocent individual and took part in prison riots.

Appellant’s Brief at 4.       Appellant’s claim raises a substantial question.

Commonwealth v. Summers, 245 A.3d 686, 692 (Pa. Super. 2021)

                                        -5-
J-S04010-23

(concluding claims that the sentence was harsh and excessive and the trial

court failed to consider mitigating factors raised a substantial question);

Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 776 (Pa. Super. 2009)

(concluding a claim that the trial court only considered the seriousness of the

offense raises a substantial question). Accordingly, we will address the merits

of Appellant’s claim.

      Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion by failing to

consider the factors enumerated in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721, imposing consecutive

sentences without sufficient justification, and failing to appropriately consider

and weigh certain mitigating factors.     Appellant’s Brief at 8.   According to

Appellant, the trial court failed to appropriately weigh the following factors:

      Appellant was not the gunman and did not shoot anyone, (b) his
      prior record score was 0[;] (c) Appellant gave police the identity
      of the shooter[;] was not the mastermind and did not plan this
      crime[;] [and] (d) Appellant accepted responsibility and showed
      extreme remorse….

Id. Appellant emphasizes that he testified against his co-conspirator, who

pulled the trigger. Id. at 10. Appellant claims that since the murders, he quit

drinking and using marijuana, got married, and is now living a law-abiding

life. Id.

      Appellant further argues the trial court improperly relied on the

Commonwealth’s argument that he “blamed an ‘innocent’ individual and took

part in prison riots.” Id. Appellant points out the trial court said nothing prior

to imposing sentence, “except for telling Appellant that he was ‘a very lucky

                                      -6-
J-S04010-23

man that [he] got the deal [he] got.’” Id. (quoting N.T., 2/25/22, at 34).

      Appellant acknowledges the trial court’s sentence is within the

sentencing guidelines. Id. at 9. Appellant challenges the court’s imposition

of consecutive sentences,

      after the Commonwealth argued at sentencing that Appellant sat
      silently for years (the murders occurred in 2009) while another
      person was charged with the same, and it was not until 2018 when
      his fingerprints were discovered that he “came clean.” (N.T.[,]
      2/25/22[,] at [] 17-18.) Additionally, the Commonwealth argued
      for a harsher sentence due to another murder involving Appellant
      which happened in Missouri County from a “drug deal gone
      wrong.” ([Id. at] 17-18)….

Appellant’s Brief at 9-10.

      A court imposing a sentence must make a part of the record a

statement of the reasons for the sentence imposed. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b);

Miller, 275 A.3d at 535. In addition, Section 9721(b) requires that the court

consider the following factors: “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.”         42 Pa.C.S. §

9721(b). The balancing of the Section 9721(b) factors is the sole province of

the sentencing court. Miller, 275 A.3d at 535.

      Moreover, when the sentencing court has the benefit of a PSI, we

presume that the court was aware of relevant information regarding the

defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with the

statutory factors. Id.; Commonwealth v. Knox, 165 A.3d 925, 930 (Pa.

Super. 2017). This Court has explained:

                                      -7-
J-S04010-23

      A pre-sentence report constitutes the record and speaks for itself.
      In order to dispel any lingering doubt as to our intention of
      engaging in an effort of legal purification, we state clearly that
      sentencers are under no compulsion to employ checklists or any
      extended or systematic definitions of their punishment procedure.
      Having been fully informed by the pre-sentence report, the
      sentencing court’s discretion should not be disturbed. This
      is particularly true, we repeat, in those circumstances where it can
      be demonstrated that the judge had any degree of awareness of
      the sentencing considerations, and there we will presume also that
      the weighing process took place in a meaningful fashion. 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.

Knox, 165 A.3d at 930-31 (emphasis added; citation omitted).

      Further, “in imposing a sentence, the trial [court] may determine

whether, given the facts of a particular case a sentence should run consecutive

to or concurrent with another sentence being imposed.” Commonwealth v.

Taylor, 277 A.3d 577, 593 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation omitted).              “The

imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences lies within the

sound discretion of the sentencing court.” Id. (citation omitted).

      Here, the trial court had the benefit of a PSI:

      A presentence report had been prepared for this case, which was
      studied, along with all of the evidence presented, and considered
      numerous factors, such as the nature of the crime, [Appellant’s]
      background, the likelihood of rehabilitation and the need for the
      public to be protected from this behavior by [Appellant]again. The
      sentence imposed on [A]ppellant took into account all of those
      considerations.

      ….

             According to the presentence report, [Appellant] had a
      robbery conviction in 2011 and a DUI conviction in 2015. Despite
      this, [Appellant’s] calculated prior record score was zero. The

                                     -8-
J-S04010-23

      parties agreed that the offense gravity score for the third-degree
      murder charges was thirteen, and with a prior record score of
      zero, the guidelines designate a minimum of sixty to seventy-eight
      months to the statutory limit, which is two hundred and forty
      months, plus or minus twelve months. (N.T. 2-25-2022, p. 3).

            [Appellant] was sentenced to six to twelve years’
      incarceration for each of the crimes which is within the guidelines.
      [Appellant] produced no evidence that the sentence imposed was
      either inconsistent with a specific provision of the sentencing code
      or contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the
      sentencing process and as such, there is no substantial question.
      This court examined [Appellant’s] background, character and
      rehabilitative needs, and the pre-sentence investigation report
      detailed the relevant information regarding these factors, all of
      which was considered.

            These were brutal, cold, callous, merciless, and senseless
      murders. Because the mask was knocked off the co-defendant
      and the victims saw his face, they were both summarily executed.
      To be sleeping in your bed, woken by armed intruders who want
      to steal anything of worth that you have is absolutely terrifying.
      To then be duct-taped and then wait while the two of you are
      going to be executed is unimaginable.

      ….

             … The court reviewed the presentence investigation report,
      considered all of the testimony and arguments of counsel and
      imposed a sentence within the applicable guideline range. The
      [court] 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 Court Opinion, 6/16/22, at 5-7 (citations omitted).

      We discern no abuse of discretion or trial court error, as the trial court

properly exercised its discretion in examining the circumstances at sentencing.

See id.

      Judgments of sentence affirmed.

                                     -9-
J-S04010-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/28/2023

                          - 10 -