Court Opinion

ID: 9751173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:09:58.469844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:55.878245
License: Public Domain

J-S20039-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  PEDRO LUIS ACEVEDO-SOLANO                    :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1793 EDA 2022

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 8, 2022
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0001896-2020

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  PEDRO LUIS ACEVEDO-SOLANO                    :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 3170 EDA 2022

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 8, 2022
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0001899-2020

BEFORE:      DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.:                            FILED AUGUST 28, 2023

       Pedro Luis Acevedo-Solano appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed following a negotiated guilty plea that resulted in him pleading guilty,

across a total of three docket numbers, to one count of conspiracy to commit

robbery, one count of illegally possessing a small amount of marijuana, and

____________________________________________

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S20039-23

one count of carrying a firearm without a license.1 Prior to sentencing,

negotiations    between Acevedo-Solano           and   Commonwealth   yielded   an

agreement that the marijuana and firearm sentences would run concurrent

with his conspiracy to commit robbery sentence. The lower court resultantly

sentenced Acevedo-Solano to an eight-to-twenty-year term of incarceration,

which, specifically at the conspiracy offense, was beyond the aggravated

range of Pennsylvania’s relevant sentencing guidelines. On appeal, Acevedo-

Solano challenges the discretionary aspects of this sentence, suggesting that

the lower court abused its discretion in: (1) failing to provide adequate

reasoning for deviating from the sentencing guidelines; and (2) neglecting to

consider mitigating circumstances. After a detailed review of the record, we

conclude that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing and

therefore affirm.

       As cogently summarized by the lower court:

              Case No. 1999/2020 stems from a motor vehicle stop on
       Rou[t]e 22 in the area of the Airport Road exit, Hanover Township,
       Lehigh County on October 17, 2019. [Acevedo-Solano] was
       observed operating a white Honda Accord. His brake lights
       illuminated and flashed at an irregular interval. Trooper Taylor
       Dietrich of the Pennsylvania State Police initiated a traffic stop.
       During the stop, Trooper Dietrich noticed a handgun laying on the
       floor behind the passenger seat. [Acevedo-Solano] was asked to
       exit the vehicle and was interviewed. [Acevedo-Solano] indicated
       he was not the registered owner of the gun and he did not have
____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S. § 903 (conspiracy), 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(i); 35 P.S. §

780-113(a)(31)(i); and 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a)(2), respectively. Although
Acevedo-Solano was convicted at three docket numbers, only two are the
subject of this appeal, as discussed, infra.

                                           -2-
J-S20039-23

     [a] permit to carry it. He indicated it was not his and that it
     belonged to an individual named Ricardo Martin. Police were
     unable to locate any record of Ricardo Martin. The firearm was last
     identified as having been sold to Franciso Javier Rivera Andujar.

           Case No. 1896/2020 involves a homicide which occurred in
     the early-morning hours of March 3, 2020. [Acevedo-Solano]
     offered a detailed account of the events in this case. On March, 2,
     2020, [Acevedo-Solano] was working at Bakerly, a French breads
     company, when he received a text inviting him to hang out with
     Nikolas Acevedo (“Acevedo”) and Jamett Rivera (“Rivera”).
     [Acevedo-Solano] initially declined because he had obligations
     with his two-month-old daughter. However, he eventually agreed
     to smoke marijuana with them and drive around. He indicated he
     would not be able to hang out with them until closer to midnight.

            At or about 12:00 a.m. on March 3, 2022, [Acevedo-Solano]
     texted Acevedo and Rivera to see where they were. They arrived
     shortly thereafter and [Acevedo-Solano] entered their vehicle.
     However, it was too small so [Acevedo-Solano] suggested they
     get into his vehicle, a red Dodge Durango, in which he was sitting
     while waiting for their arrival. [Acevedo-Solano] offered to drive.
     His fiancé[e] called and asked him to pick up an online food order
     at the Wawa located on 15th Street in Allentown. [Acevedo-
     Solano] indicated he did not notice that both Acevedo and Rivera
     were armed.

           While driving, [Acevedo-Solano] indicated that Acevedo and
     Rivera produced and showed him their guns, which made
     [Acevedo-Solano] nervous because they were already driving
     around at night in a vehicle with tinted windows smoking
     marijuana. [Acevedo-Solano] proceeded to the Wawa, picked up
     the food order, and drove the food to his fiancé[e].

           [Acevedo-Solano] indicated he parked outside his residence
     and took the food to his fiancé[e] while Acevedo and Rivera waited
     in the Durango. While he did so, he passed Elijaah Rodriguez
     ([“]Rodriguez[”]) walking westbound on the 1200 block of Turner
     Street in Allentown, Lehigh County. [Acevedo-Solano] denied
     knowing who Rodriguez was and the two nodded at one another.
     After dropping off the food, [Acevedo-Solano] returned to the
     vehicle. When he entered, he heard Acevedo and Rivera arguing
     with each other and Rivera was making statements about
     Rodriguez, threatening to get Rodriguez before Rodriguez could

                                    -3-
J-S20039-23

     get Rivera.

           According to [Acevedo-Solano], he tried to dissuade the
     others, particularly Rivera, from doing anything, citing the
     fact that his young daughter was asleep in his residence.
     [Acevedo-Solano] indicated Rivera pumped his shotgun and said,
     “We’re doing it.” This made [Acevedo-Solano] fearful.

           Rivera directed [Acevedo-Solano] to circle the block, and
     [Acevedo-Solano] complied. Acevedo and Rivera exited the
     vehicle after they saw Rodriguez. They were armed with a rifle
     and a shotgun, respectively. [Acevedo-Solano] remained in the
     vehicle. Rivera and Acevedo approached Rodriguez. [Acevedo-
     Solano] heard gunshots and immediately thereafter, River[a] and
     Acevedo returned to the vehicle. [Rodriguez had been fatally
     shot.] Rivera had a handgun, which he indicated he took from
     Rodriguez. [Acevedo-Solano] dropped Rivera and Acevedo off at
     their respective residences. [Acevedo-Solano] recounted that
     Acevedo apologized profusely to [Acevedo-Solano]. [Acevedo-
     Solano] did not report the crime to the police.

           Case No. 1898/2020 also took place on March 3, 2020.
     During the daytime hours of March 3, 2020, [Acevedo-Solano]
     was stopped by Officer Michael Hammer of the Allentown Police
     Department for dark window tint on a white Honda Accord he was
     operating while traveling northbound in the 600 block of Noth 12 th
     Street in Allentown, Lehigh County. During the stop, Officer
     Hammer smelled a strong odor of fresh marijuana. [Acevedo-
     Solano] handed the officer a plastic bag with marijuana residue.
     A search of the vehicle and of [Acevedo-Solano] was conducted
     and a second bag with a green leafy substance was found in his
     pocket. [Acevedo-Solano] was taken into custody for questioning
     about the shooting and subsequently charged along with Acevedo
     and Rivera following a police investigation.

           After [Acevedo-Solano] was stopped and questioned on
     March 3, 2020, police arrested Acevedo and Rivera as well.
     Acevedo indicated the intent was to rob Rodriguez of his gun, and
     that he fired into the air with the intent of scaring Rodriguez.
     [Acevedo-Solano] indicated he learned that Acevedo and Rivera
     were at Cabela’s earlier in the day on March 2, 2020. They
     purchased ammunition from the store. They also were at a bar
     where they consumed alcohol prior to meeting up with him.

                                    -4-
J-S20039-23

Trial Court Opinion, 8/15/22, at 1-4 (unpaginated).

       As illuminated, supra, Acevedo-Solano pleaded guilty to conspiracy to

commit robbery, carrying a firearm without a license, and possessing a small

amount of marijuana. Pursuant to Acevedo-Solano’s agreement with the

Commonwealth, the sentences associated with the firearms and marijuana

offenses were to run concurrent with the robbery conspiracy sentence. At

sentencing, for that latter offense, the court imposed a term of incarceration

of eight to twenty years. As to the firearms and marijuana offenses, Acevedo-

Solano received a six-to-twenty-four-month term of incarceration, within the

aggravated guideline range for this offense, and a $100 fine, respectively.

       After he was sentenced, Acevedo-Solano filed two motions for

reconsideration, one at the robbery conspiracy sentence and one at the

firearms sentence, which were denied. Resultantly, Acevedo-Solano filed a

timely notice of appeal,2 and the relevant parties have complied with their

____________________________________________

2 Despite having been sentenced at three trial court docket numbers, Acevedo-

Solano originally only filed a singular notice of appeal listing those three
numbers. Moreover, Acevedo-Solano did not file a post-sentence motion at
the docket number involving his marijuana conviction. Pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341(a) and Commonwealth v.
Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (requiring separate notices of appeal when
a single order resolves issues at more than one docket number), this Court
issued a rule to show cause, which directed Acevedo-Solano to demonstrate
why the present appeal should not be quashed. Our order also required
Acevedo-Solano to show why his appeal from the marijuana docket number
should not be quashed given that, in the absence of a post-sentence motion,
his appeal with respect to that offense, filed more than thirty days after the
sentence’s imposition, was untimely. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(3). Ultimately,
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -5-
J-S20039-23

respective obligations under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

As such, this matter is ripe for review.

       On appeal, Acevedo-Solano presents two related issues:

       1. Did the court abuse its discretion in failing to provide any
          reasons for its sentence, which exceeded the aggravated range
          of the sentencing guidelines?

       2. Did the court abuse its discretion when it failed to consider any
          of the mitigating circumstances presented at the time of
          sentencing?

See Appellant’s Brief, at 8.

       As with all discretionary aspects of sentencing claims, we utilize a well-

settled set of precepts:

       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.

       The right to appellate review of the discretionary aspects of a
       sentence is not absolute, and must be considered a petition for
       permission to appeal. An appellant must satisfy a four-part test to

____________________________________________

Acevedo-Solano conceded that an appeal from the marijuana docket number
was untimely, which resulted in our partial quashal of his appeal. However, in
accordance with Commonwealth v. Young, 265 A.3d 462 (Pa. 2021), and
its progeny, Commonwealth v. Young, 208 A.3d 1049 (Pa. Super. 2022),
we allowed for Acevedo-Solano to perfect the appeal by filing two amended
notices of appeal for his appeals at the robbery conspiracy and firearms
sentences, with each notice listing only one trial court docket number.
Acevedo-Solano complied with our instructions, and as such, this now
consolidated appeal is properly before this Court.

                                           -6-
J-S20039-23

      invoke this Court’s jurisdiction when challenging the discretionary
      aspects of a sentence.

      [W]e conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (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[, see 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.

Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 132 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations

omitted) (indentations altered).

      A “substantial question” is one that sets “forth a plausible argument that

the sentence violates a provision of the sentencing code or is contrary to the

fundamental norms of the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Dodge,

77 A.3d 1263, 1268 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted); see also 42

Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) (mandating that a sentence of confinement must be

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[ ]”). If the four-part test is satisfied,

then we review an appellant’s substantive claim, which requires inquiry into

whether the lower court, at any point, abused its discretion in sentencing. See

Commonwealth v. Akhmedov, 216 A.3d 307, 328-29 (Pa. Super. 2019) (en

banc).

      Acevedo-Solano filed a timely notice of appeal, properly preserved his

contentions via post-sentence motion, and included a Rule 2119(f) statement

                                     -7-
J-S20039-23

in his brief. Accordingly, we are tasked with evaluating whether he has raised

a substantial question.

      Distilled down, Acevedo-Solano argues that he has presented at least

one substantial question because: (1) the lower court failed to state its

reasons for deviating from the sentencing guidelines and imposing a sentence

above the aggravated range; and (2) the lower court neglected to consider

mitigating factors. See Appellant’s Brief, at 19-21. As “[t]his court has found

that a claim that the trial court failed to state its reasons for deviating from

the guidelines presents a substantial question for review,” Commonwealth

v. Garcia-Rivera, 983 A.2d 777, 780 (Pa. Super. 2009), Acevedo-Solano has

therefore presented a substantial question. Moreover, although implicit in his

argument, Acevedo-Solano’s Rule 2119(f) statement suggests that his

sentence is excessive given the court’s lack of consideration into mitigating

factors associated with him as a person and in the context of the facts

underpinning his robbery conspiracy conviction. This argument, too, raises a

substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253

(Pa. Super. 2015) (“This Court has held that an excessive sentence claim–in

conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating

factors–raises a substantial question.”); see also Commonwealth v.

Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105, 1107 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“[A] claim that the court

erred by imposing an aggravated range sentence without consideration of

mitigating circumstances raises a substantial question.”).

                                     -8-
J-S20039-23

      Acevedo-Solano believes that “the sentencing court failed to provide any

reasons for deviating beyond the aggravated range sentence as it pertains to

his [c]onspiracy conviction.” Appellant’s Brief, at 25. Acevedo-Solano also

baldly attacks his aggravated-range sentence for the firearms offense.

      Preliminarily, we emphasize that because the lower court judge, here,

had the benefit of a presentence investigation report, “it will be presumed that

he or she was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s

character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory

factors.” Commonwealth v. Boyer, 856 A.2d 149, 154 (Pa. Super. 2004).

As to sentencing above the guidelines:

      The court may deviate from the recommended guidelines; they
      are merely one factor among many that the court mut consider in
      imposing a sentence. A court may depart from the guidelines if
      necessary, to fashion a sentence which takes into account the
      protection of the public, the rehabilitative needs of the defendant,
      and the gravity of the particular offense as it relates to the impact
      on the life of the victim and the community. When a court chooses
      to depart from the guidelines, however, it must demonstrate on
      the record, as a proper starting point, its awareness of the
      sentencing guidelines. Further, the court must provide a
      contemporaneous written statement of the reasons for the
      deviation from the guidelines.

      The requirement that the court provide a contemporaneous
      written statement is satisfied when the judge states his reasons
      for the sentence on the record and in the defendant’s presence.

Commonwealth v. Durazo, 210 A.3d 316, 320-21 (Pa. Super. 2019)

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (cleaned up). This Court

“shall” vacate sentences that are “outside the sentencing guidelines … and

unreasonable.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c)(3); see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c)(1)-

                                      -9-
J-S20039-23

(2) (requiring this Court to vacate sentences within the sentencing guidelines

if the lower court “applied the guidelines erroneously” or if “the application of

the guidelines [is] clearly unreasonable[]”).

       In fully evaluating his brief, Acevedo-Solano’s argument morphs from

averring that the lower court provided no reasons for deviating from the

guidelines to claiming that the court predicated its sentence “solely on the

seriousness of the offense without considering all relevant factors[.]”

Appellant’s Brief, at 30. Relatedly, notwithstanding the fact that he was

originally charged with criminal homicide, see id., at 9 (“[Acevedo-Solano]

was charged with [c]riminal [h]omicide[.]”), Acevedo-Solano contends that a

court may not sentence “on the basis of offense[s] or conduct not charged or

pled.” Id., at 30.

       Acevedo-Solano also believes, as his ancillary assertion,3 that the court

failed to consider his age, remorse, cooperation with prosecution, and his lack

of prior record. See id., at 32. Instead, it “relied solely on the seriousness of

the offenses and discredited the mitigating factors[.]” Id.

       At sentencing, the court fully apprised Acevedo-Solano of the possible

sentence ranges for the crimes in which he pleaded guilty. Specifically, as to

the conspiracy to commit robbery offense, Acevedo-Solano had a prior record

score of zero, but the offense had a gravity score of eleven. Therefore,

____________________________________________

3 Although Acevedo-Solano presented two questions for our review, his brief

is limited to one omnibus argument section.

                                          - 10 -
J-S20039-23

“[s]tandard range for the minimum period of incarceration [was] 45 to 63

months. Mitigated is 33 to 45. Aggravated is 63 to 75.” Sentencing Hearing,

4/8/22, at 5. As to the firearms offense, which carried an offense gravity score

of four, the standard range was identified as “probation to 3 months.

Mitigated, nothing below probation. Aggravated 3 to 6 months.” Id., at 6.

      Immediately preceding the imposition of its sentence, the court

explained:

            The record should reflect I have consulted or thoroughly
      reviewed the contents of the pre[]sentence investigation report,
      taking into account Mr. Acevedo-Solano’s statement here in court
      today as well as his cooperation with the police from the very
      beginning of the investigation as well as [the mother of the
      victim’s] comments here in court today.

            Two things stand out to me, Mr. Acevedo-Solano. First off is
      that while you and your lawyer have requested a certain amount
      of leniency, in my mind, that’s already been provided by not
      having you plead guilty on the homicide charge as an accomplice.
      That you aided and abided [sic] the commission of this offense
      whether you completely foresaw the ultimate outcome or not.

            You drove, you stopped, you let them out. You waited for
      them to come back and you didn’t go immediately to the police.
      You didn’t go back to the scene where [the victim] lay on the
      ground. So in my mind, you have already received significant
      consideration by allowing you to plead guilty to the conspiracy to
      robbery charge instead of a more serious offense.

             Secondly, one of the other cases you pled guilty to back on
      January 27th was for the firearms charge as a person who would
      otherwise have been entitled to possess a firearm but you did not
      legally have the ability to possess. This was from a situation that
      occurred in October of 2019, some six months before this offense
      occurred. So you appeared not to have been a stranger to being
      in contact with firearms albeit those for which you did not legally
      have a right to possess them.

                                     - 11 -
J-S20039-23

           So taking into account all those actions as well as your
      behavior relevant to this particular investigation, I will sentence
      you as follows …

Sentencing Hearing, 4/8/22, at 19-21.

      After announcing its sentences, the court stated:

            [The court] note[s] for the record the sentence for the
      conspiracy to [commit] robbery charge is beyond the aggravated
      range. It is one-half of what the other co-defendant, Mr. Acevedo,
      received as is an accurate reflection in my view as to the
      appropriateness of the sentence for the behavior which resulted
      on the night which led to the death of [the victim]. The firearms
      charge is at the top of the aggravated range.

                               *    *         *

            It’s a combined sentence of 8 to 20 years. Eight years on
      the conspiracy to robbery charge. As [the court] said, that is
      beyond the aggravated range. It is one-half of what [Acevedo-
      Solano’s] co-defendant, … Mr. Acevedo received and a little less
      than that of what Mr. Rivera received. The firearms charge is at
      the top of the aggravated range and runs concurrent, 6 to 24
      months so [Acevedo-Solano does not] pick up any additional
      period of incarceration or punishment for that.

Id., at 22-24. The corresponding sentencing order reflects the same deviation

from the sentencing guidelines and attendant explanation for that divergence.

See Sentencing Order, 4/8/22 (“This sentence is beyond the aggravated

range due to [Acevedo-Solano’s] actions the night of the incident that resulted

in the death of [the victim].”).

      The court, armed with a presentence investigation report, expressly

reflected on all relevant factors associated with Acevedo-Solano and the

discrete circumstances of his criminality, as well as his impact on the victim’s

family and the community more broadly. As made evident in its subsequent

                                     - 12 -
J-S20039-23

opinion, the court “took into consideration [Acevedo-Solano’s] relative

cooperativeness with police, and his comparatively limited role in the events

which led to the death of [the victim].” Trial Court Opinion, 8/15/22, at 9

(unpaginated). However, it also found that “[t]he mitigating factors must be

balanced against the fact that [he] was found to be in unlawful possession of

a firearm just over four months prior to the date of [the victim’s] death.” Id.

Moreover, as the driver, Acevedo-Solano became aware of Acevedo and

Rivera’s possession of firearms prior to the shooting death of the victim. See

id. Despite knowing that he was in the presence of firearms, Acevedo-Solano

“continued to associate with them. By [his] own account, when Rivera directed

him to circle the block looking for [the victim], [Acevedo-Solano] complied.”

Id.

      After the shooting death of the victim, Acevedo-Solano waited and

dropped off Rivera and Acevedo at their respective residences. See id.

Acevedo-Solano did not call emergency services to assist the victim, nor did

he call police to report the homicide that had just taken place. See id.

      The court, after taking all of these factual underpinnings into account,

which it measured alongside the presentence investigation report as well as

statements made by both Acevedo-Solano and the victim’s mother,

determined that, in imposing a sentence for robbery conspiracy outside of the

sentencing guidelines, Acevedo-Solano still clearly received the benefit of his

plea bargain with the Commonwealth “which spared him from the homicide

                                    - 13 -
J-S20039-23

charge.” Id. The record reflects that the court expressed these determinations

contemporaneous with its imposition of Acevedo-Solano’s sentences, explicitly

indicating its consideration of mitigating factors. While Acevedo-Solano would,

perhaps, desire a reweighing of the lower court’s considerations, that action

is not within our purview. We afford wide latitude to the lower court’s

sentencing    determinations,   and    when    the   record   reflects   adequate

consideration of the relevant factors, such as it does here, we will not disturb

the court’s discretion.

      Acevedo-Solano received a term of incarceration that, at its minimum,

will amount to ninety-six months. Based on the sentencing guidelines, the

aggravated range for conspiracy to commit robbery maxed out at seventy-

five months. Juxtaposed against the facts of this case, we perceive no

unreasonableness to this sentence. The lower court adequately considered:

(1) Acevedo-Solano’s specific role in the events that led to the shooting death

of the victim; (2) Acevedo-Solano’s background and his prior record score of

zero; (3) Acevedo-Solano’s willingness to ultimately cooperate with police

officers; (4) Acevedo-Solano’s presentence investigation report; and (5) the

effects that Acevedo-Solano’s actions on the victim, the victim’s family, and

the community at large. Moreover, we highlight that the court was in the

position to be able to observe Acevedo-Solano. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(d)(2).

In total, then, the court adequately made its findings part of the record and

presented a reasonable basis to deviate from the sentencing guidelines at the

                                      - 14 -
J-S20039-23

conspiracy to commit robbery offense given that, inter alia, Acevedo-Solano

pleaded guilty to a lesser charge than the homicide-related charge he was

alternatively facing. Accordingly, Acevedo-Solano is due no relief because the

court provided adequate reasons to deviate from the sentencing guidelines

and, too, clearly considered mitigating factors at sentencing. Furthermore, for

the reasons already stated given the court’s complete consideration of all

relevant factors at sentencing, Acevedo-Solano has presented no basis to

depart from the aggravated-range sentence that the court imposed at the

firearms offense. Therefore, we affirm Acevedo-Solano’s judgment of

sentence.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/28/2023

                                    - 15 -