Court Opinion

ID: 9352975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-10 17:07:25.107789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:06:18.078083
License: Public Domain

J-S42020-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 PERRY WILLIAM SEMELSBERGER            :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 686 WDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 22, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-11-CR-0000217-2021

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 PERRY SEMELSBERGER                    :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 687 WDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 22, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-11-CR-0001336-2020

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 PERRY W. SEMELSBERGER                 :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 688 WDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 22, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-11-CR-0001314-2020
J-S42020-22

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 PERRY SEMELSBERGER                     :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 689 WDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 22, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-11-CR-0001232-2020

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 PERRY SEMELSBERGER                     :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 690 WDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 22, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-11-CR-0000892-2020

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 PERRY W. SEMELSBERGER                  :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 691 WDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 22, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-11-CR-0000732-2020

                                  -2-
J-S42020-22

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

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                          FILED: JANUARY 10, 2023

        Appellant, Perry W. Semelsberger, appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered on March 22, 2022, as made final by the denial of Appellant’s

post-sentence motion on April 27, 2022. We affirm.

        As the trial court ably explained:

          Between the dates of June 17 and October 2, 2020, Appellant
          engaged in a series of criminal acts of various nature[],
          including: criminal trespass, terroristic threats, theft by
          deception, [and] indecent assault. . . . As a result, Appellant
          was charged at six separate case numbers.

          Appellant was charged at Case No. 732-2020 with one count
          of burglary — overnight accommodations[,] person present,
          18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3052(a)(1)(ii), a felony of the first degree,
          one count of criminal trespass, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3503(a)(1)(ii),
          a felony of the second degree, and one count of disorderly
          conduct — hazardous/physical offense, 18 Pa.C.S.A.
          § 5503(a)(4), a misdemeanor of the third degree.

          Appellant was charged at Case No. 892-2020 with one count
          of theft by deception, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3922(a)(1), a
          misdemeanor of the first degree, one count of receiving
          stolen property, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3925(a), a misdemeanor of
          the first degree, one count of theft by unlawful taking —
          movable property, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921(a), a misdemeanor
          of the first degree, one count of receiving stolen property, 18
          Pa.C.S.A. § 3925(a), a misdemeanor of the third degree, and
          one count of disorderly conduct, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(4),
          a summary offense.

          Appellant was charged at Case No. 1232-2020 with one count
          of corruption of minors, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(a)(1)(i), a
          misdemeanor of the first degree, one count of indecent
          assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(1), a misdemeanor of the

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

                                           -3-
J-S42020-22

         second degree, and one count of harassment/strike, shove,
         kick, etc., 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1), a summary offense.

         Appellant was charged at Case No. 1314-2020 with one count
         of intimidation of witnesses or victims, 18 Pa.C.S.A.
         § 4952(a)(3), a felony of the third degree, one count of
         terroristic threats, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2706(a)(1), a
         misdemeanor of the first degree, and one count of
         harassment/lewd, obscene, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(4), a
         misdemeanor of the third degree.

         Appellant was charged at Case No. 1336-2020 with one count
         of retail theft — take merchandise, 18 Pa.C.S.A.
         § 3929(a)(1), a summary offense, one count of open
         lewdness, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5901, a misdemeanor of the third
         degree, and one count of disorderly conduct, 18 Pa.C.S.A.
         § 5503(a)(4), a summary offense.

         Appellant was charged at Case No. 217-2021 with three
         counts of failure to relinquish firearm/weapons required by
         order, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(2)(iv), misdemeanors of the
         second degree.

         Appellant [entered an open guilty plea to] several of the
         above charges on January 28, 2022, including: criminal
         trespass and disorderly conduct at Case No. 732-2020, theft
         by unlawful taking at Case No. 892-2020, corruption of
         minors, simple assault (amended from indecent assault)[,]
         and harassment at Case No. 1232-2020, recklessly
         endangering another person (amended from intimidation of
         witnesses) at Case No. 1314-2020, open lewdness at Case
         No. 1336-2020, and one count of failure to relinquish
         firearms/weapons required by order at Case No. 217-2021.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/14/22, at 1-3 (some capitalization omitted).

     On March 22, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve an

aggregate sentence of three-and-a-half to seven years in prison, followed by

four years of probation, for his convictions. See N.T. Sentencing, 3/22/22, at

10-13.

                                    -4-
J-S42020-22

      Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion and claimed that his

sentence was excessive, as the trial court failed to consider his rehabilitative

needs and the protection of the public.      Appellant’s Post-Sentence Motion,

4/1/22, at 1. Appellant further claimed that “the goals of [the Sentencing

Code could] be accomplished through mental health treatment and intensive

supervision in the community.” Id.

      The trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion and Appellant

filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant raises one claim to this Court:

        Whether the [trial] court erred and abused its discretion by
        failing to consider the evidence of [Appellant’s] rehabilitative
        needs, mental health needs, and protection of the public as
        set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b), resulting in a manifestly
        excessive sentence[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 5.

      Appellant's claim on appeal challenges the discretionary aspects of his

sentence.   “[S]entencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the

sentencing judge, whose judgment will not be disturbed absent an abuse of

discretion.” Commonwealth v. Ritchey, 779 A.2d 1183, 1185 (Pa. Super.

2001). Pursuant to statute, Appellant does not have an automatic right to

appeal the discretionary aspects of his sentence. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).

Instead, Appellant must petition this Court for permission to appeal the

discretionary aspects of his sentence. Id.

      As this Court explained:

        [t]o reach the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue, we
        conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether

                                     -5-
J-S42020-22

         appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, Pa.R.A.P. 902,
         903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at
         sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence,
         Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether appellant's brief has a fatal
         defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a
         substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not
         appropriate under the Sentencing Code, [42 Pa.C.S.A.]
         § 9781(b).

Commonwealth v. Cook, 941 A.2d 7, 11 (Pa. Super. 2007).

      Here, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion and notice of appeal.

Further, Appellant's post-sentence motion claimed that his sentence is

excessive because the trial court failed to consider Appellant’s rehabilitative

and mental health needs and the protection of the public. See Appellant’s

Post-Sentence Motion, 4/1/22, at 1. Thus, Appellant preserved his current

appellate claims. We will now determine whether Appellant's claims present

a “substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate

under the Sentencing Code.” Cook, 941 A.2d at 11.

      Generally, to raise a substantial question, an appellant must “advance

a colorable argument that the trial judge's actions were: (1) inconsistent with

a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental

norms which underlie the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. McKiel,

629 A.2d 1012, 1013 (Pa. Super. 1993); Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748

A.2d 721, 726 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en banc), appeal denied, 759 A.2d 920 (Pa.

2000).    Additionally, in determining whether an appellant has raised a

substantial question, we must limit our review to Appellant’s Rule 2119(f)

statement.    Goggins, 748 A.2d at 726.      This limitation ensures that our

                                     -6-
J-S42020-22

inquiry remains “focus[ed] on the reasons for which the appeal is sought, in

contrast to the facts underlying the appeal, which are necessary only to decide

the appeal on the merits.” Id. at 727 (emphasis omitted).

      Appellant contends that his sentence is excessive because the trial court

failed to consider his rehabilitative needs and the protection of the public.

Both claims present a substantial question, thus permitting our review of the

claims. See Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987, 992 (Pa. Super. 2016)

(substantial question raised where appellant claimed the court “failed to

consider relevant sentencing criteria, including the protection of the public,

the gravity of the underlying offense and the rehabilitative needs of

[a]ppellant, as 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9721(b) requires”) (citation omitted).

      On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court should not have

sentenced him to further incarceration, but rather should have sentenced him

to “time served or house arrest with electronic monitoring, with required

intensive mental health treatment.”    Appellant’s Brief at 14.   As Appellant

argues, his psychological evaluation noted that “his past symptoms of

psychosis could have been entirely substance induced” and “there was also a

potential lack of executive functioning [in his brain,] due to brain trauma

[from] a stroke suffered in 2015.”     Id.   Therefore, Appellant argues, his

“sentence should [have been] focused on intensive mental health treatment.”

Id.   Appellant further argues that the “[a]dditional incarceration” the trial

court ordered in his case was not warranted since “all the court’s objectives

                                     -7-
J-S42020-22

[could have been] accomplished with community supervision or house arrest.”

Id.

      Initially, we note, there is no dispute that the trial court sentenced

Appellant within the standard sentencing guideline ranges. Moreover, during

sentencing, the trial court relied upon a presentence investigation report. See

N.T. Sentencing, 3/22/22, at 2. As such, we presume that the trial court was

aware of the mitigating factors Appellant currently points to on appeal. See,

e.g., Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652, 663 (“[w]hen a sentencing

court has reviewed a presentence investigation report, we presume that the

court properly considered and weighed all relevant factors in fashioning the

defendant's sentence”).     Finally, when fashioning Appellant’s sentence, the

trial court expressly considered Appellant’s rehabilitative and mental health

needs and the protection of the public. Indeed, during the sentencing hearing,

the trial court declared:

        In fashioning your sentence today, I’ve taken into
        consideration a lot of things. I spent a lot of time on two
        separate dates reviewing your information, the facts of your
        case, your guidelines. I reviewed the assessment that was
        done by [psychologist Scott J. Scotilla].        I took into
        consideration the charges to which you pled guilty, the
        sentencing     code,   the   sentencing   guidelines,    your
        rehabilitative needs, and the protection of the community.
        I’ve taken into consideration statements that your attorney
        made in court today. I’ve taken into consideration the
        statements made by the victim in court today. And I took
        into consideration two things: your initial allocution to the
        court where you apologized to everybody out there; and I
        also took into consideration the profanity that you used
        against the victim when she exercised her right to speak and
        express her concerns for your behavior[].

                                      -8-
J-S42020-22

        You’d indicated that your issues stem from substance abuse
        issues, but you are incarcerated right now and you are not
        under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and yet that same
        type of behavior that led to these offenses, that same type of
        behavior that has led to you serving sentences on indirect
        criminal contempt[], it was just displayed before the court
        right now.

        I think that you are a danger to the community. I cannot
        state whether or not you have a traumatic brain injury and I
        am hopeful that the state institution to which I’m about to
        sentence you can address that, and if possible, [provide] you
        with any medications that may assist in your condition. I
        hope you receive that.

N.T. Sentencing, 3/22/22, at 9-10 (some capitalization omitted).

      As is evident from the above, the trial court expressly considered

Appellant’s rehabilitative and mental health needs and the protection of the

public when fashioning Appellant’s sentence. Therefore, Appellant’s claim on

appeal necessarily fails.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 01/10/2023

                                    -9-