Court Opinion

ID: 9404234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 16:09:49.066794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:12.638490
License: Public Domain

J-S10041-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                            :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                            :
              v.                            :
                                            :
                                            :
 ARTUMISE GORE                              :
                                            :
                    Appellant               :   No. 1131 EDA 2022

    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 16, 2021
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
             Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0001594-2017

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and STABILE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:                             FILED JUNE 22, 2023

      Appellant, Artumise Gore, appeals from his judgment of sentence of 4-

8 years’ imprisonment for robbery and other offenses. He contends that the

court abused its discretion by sentencing him above the standard range of the

Sentencing Guidelines. Finding that the court acted within its discretion, we

affirm.

      The trial court, per the Honorable Genece Brinkley, summarized the

evidence adduced during trial as follows:

      Rochelle Goines . . . testified that she and [Appellant] went to
      elementary, junior high, and high school together. She stated that
      they lost contact afterward and reconnected through Facebook in
      July of 2016. The two started dating around that time and
      [Appellant] moved into Goines’s home, at 66th and Guyer Streets
      in Philadelphia, by September 2016.
      Goines testified that on Saturday, September 10, 2016, she
      noticed that her ATM card was missing. She testified that she
      normally kept it in a wallet attached to her phone case and noticed
      that it was no longer in the wallet. She testified that [Appellant]
J-S10041-23

     is the only other person who lived with her at the time. Goines
     testified that she allowed [Appellant] to borrow her ATM card once
     before when she was sick in order to buy her soup. She provided
     him the PIN at that time. Goines maintained that she did not give
     [Appellant] permission to take or use her ATM card at this time.
     Goines testified that on September 15, 2016, [Appellant] asked
     her to walk with him approximately one block to the takeout
     Chinese store around the corner from her house around 11:45
     p.m. When they arrived at the store, [Appellant] withdrew
     Goines’s ATM card from his wallet to pay for the food. Goines
     testified that is when she realized that he had her card.
     [Appellant] asked her to pay for the food. Goines refused and
     explained that she needed the money to pay for rent. She testified
     that he tried to pull the card out of her hand, so she snatched it
     from him and started running away. As she ran away from the
     store, he chased her and tackled her from behind, causing her to
     fall in the middle of the street. When [Appellant] tackled Goines,
     she fell forward with her hands in front of her, which caused cuts
     on her hands. While she was on the ground laying on her
     stomach, [Appellant] was on her back repeatedly punching her in
     the back, right side of the head. Goines testified that she began
     calling for help. Goines explained that she was able to roll over
     onto her back and pushed [Appellant] off of her with her knees
     and hands. At that point, she got up and started running. Goines
     testified that one of her shoes fell off when [Appellant] tackled
     her, so she kicked the other shoe off in order to run towards 67th
     Street. Goines then threw her ATM card in a grassy area next to
     the takeout store.
     Goines testified that [Appellant] tackled her for a second time.
     [Appellant] then raised Goines to her feet by lifting her by her
     ponytail. [Appellant] kept asking where her ATM card was while
     Goines continued to yell for help. Goines testified that she
     explained that she had her hands up and told him she didn’t know
     where it was and that she must have dropped the card.
     [Appellant] pulled down Goines’s shirt to expose her breasts and
     rummaged through her bra. [Appellant] then searched the
     pockets of her pants and reached his hands inside her pants
     outside of her underwear. [Appellant] retrieved her ID and house
     keys from Goines’s pockets but was unable to find the card. At
     that point, Goines noticed a police car driving down Dicks Avenue.

                                   -2-
J-S10041-23

      [Appellant] embraced Goines in an apparent hug and began
      kissing her neck. As the police car approached, Goines called for
      help and the police approached. Goines testified that she tried to
      explain the situation to a female police officer. She explained that
      [Appellant] had her house keys and ID and requested the officer
      retrieve them for her. The officer asked [Appellant] whether he
      had any of Goines’s belongings and he said no. At that point, the
      officer asked Goines what she wanted to do. Goines requested
      that the officer transport her to the hospital to address the cuts
      on her hands, elbows, and feet and the scratch on the back of her
      neck caused by [Appellant]. Goines testified that she was treated
      at the hospital for abrasions that took approximately 2 to 4 weeks
      to heal completely.
      After being released from the hospital, Goines went to Southwest
      Detectives in order to follow up on her report. Goines testified
      that photographs were taken of her injuries and confirmed the
      pictures the Commonwealth presented to her were the pictures
      taken by the detectives. She further testified that she had
      personal knowledge that her bank account was missing $698.
      She lives paycheck to paycheck and was waiting for a direct
      deposit in that amount.       After the incident described with
      [Appellant], there was only $2 left in her bank account. Goines
      testified that no one other than [Appellant] knew her pin number
      for her bank account. Goines testified that her bank statement
      reflected someone made a balance inquiry, then made repeated
      withdraws in $100 increments that incurred additional fees and
      charges.
      Goines testified that after this incident, she received text
      messages and messages through social media from [Appellant].
      In the messages, [Appellant] professed his love for Goines and
      apologized for an incident that occurred September 15, 2016. On
      cross examination, Goines denied being drunk or high on crack
      the night of September 15, 2016. Defense counsel questioned
      Goines why [Appellant] would pull out her ATM card, hand it back
      to her, and ask her to withdraw money if he already had the means
      to withdraw money himself. Goines corrected aspects of defense
      counsel’s question in order to repeat the story she described
      previously.
Trial Court Opinion, 9/10/18, at 2-4.

                                        -3-
J-S10041-23

      Following a bench trial, the Honorable Pamela Dembe found Appellant

guilty of robbery, theft by unlawful taking, and simple assault. On September

14, 2017, Judge Dembe sentenced Appellant to 4-8 years’ imprisonment for

robbery, a concurrent term of imprisonment for theft, and a consecutive term

of 5 years’ probation for simple assault, graded as a first-degree misdemeanor.

Appellant did not file a notice of appeal. In early 2018, Appellant filed a PCRA

petition alleging that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct

appeal. On May 10, 2019, the court ordered Appellant’s direct appeal rights

reinstated nunc pro tunc.

      Appellant appealed to this Court, which held that Judge Dembe imposed

an illegal sentence. We reasoned that Appellant’s simple assault conviction

was a second-degree misdemeanor instead of a first-degree misdemeanor,

and his sentence of five years’ probation exceeded the lawful maximum for

second-degree misdemeanors. Accordingly, we remanded for resentencing on

all counts of conviction.

      On August 21, 2019, a resentencing hearing was held before Judge

Brinkley due to Judge Dembe’s retirement.           Judge Brinkley resentenced

Appellant to an aggregate term of 5-10 years’ imprisonment. Appellant

appealed to this Court, which remanded for resentencing on June 1, 2021,

because it was unclear from the record whether Judge Brinkley was aware

that she was sentencing Appellant outside the guidelines. Commonwealth

v. Gore, 2021 WL 2287485 (Pa. Super. June 1, 2021).

                                       -4-
J-S10041-23

     On November 16, 2021, Judge Brinkley convened another sentencing

hearing. The Commonwealth recommended an aggregate sentence of 5-10

years’ imprisonment, while defense counsel recommended a standard

guideline sentence. Judge Brinkley sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term

4-8 years of incarceration, the same sentence originally imposed by Judge

Dembe, and explicitly stated on the record that it was imposing an above-

guideline sentence. N.T., 11/16/21, at 9. Appellant filed timely post-sentence

motions, which were denied, and a timely appeal, the appeal presently under

review. Both Appellant and Judge Brinkley complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

     Appellant raises a single issue in this appeal, “Whether the trial court

erred when it sentenced [Appellant] outside the Pennsylvania Sentencing

Guidelines for the criminal offense of robbery (F2), which was unreasonable

and manifestly excessive?” Appellant’s Brief at 4.

     This is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of Appellant’s sentence.

“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an

appellant to review as of right.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932,

935 (Pa. Super. 2013). Before reaching the merits of a discretionary aspects

issue, this Court must conduct a four-part test to determine:

     (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved
     his or her issue; (3) whether Appellant’s brief includes a 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 appropriate under the Sentencing Code.

                                    -5-
J-S10041-23

Commonwealth v. Williams, 198 A.3d 1181, 1186 (Pa. Super. 2018). “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, 1251 (Pa.

Super. 2006).

      Here, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, preserved his issues in

his post-sentence motion, and included a Rule 2119(f) statement in his brief.

We further conclude that Appellant has raised substantial questions for our

review. Commonwealth v. Kelly, 33 A.3d 638, 640 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“[a]

claim that a sentence is manifestly excessive such that it constitutes too

severe a punishment raises a substantial question”); Commonwealth v.

Curran, 932 A.2d 103, 105 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“a claim that the sentencing

court sentenced outside the sentencing guidelines presents such a substantial

question”). Therefore, we will address Appellant’s claims.

      Our review is governed by the following principles:

      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.

                                     -6-
J-S10041-23

Commonwealth v. Sheller, 961 A.2d 187, 190 (Pa. Super. 2008).

Additionally, our review of the discretionary aspects of a sentence is governed

by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c) and (d):

      (c) Determination on appeal.—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.

      (d) Review of record.—In reviewing the record the appellate
      court shall have regard for:

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

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

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

      (4) The guidelines promulgated by the commission.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c)-(d).

      This Court has further explained:

      Where ... a court imposes a sentence outside of the Sentencing
      Guidelines, the court must provide, in open court, a
      contemporaneous statement of reasons in support of its sentence.
      42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9721(b).

      [A sentencing] judge ... [must] demonstrate on the record, as a
      proper starting point, its awareness of the sentencing guidelines.
      Having done so, the sentencing court may deviate from the

                                     -7-
J-S10041-23

      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,
      so long as it also states of record the factual basis and specific
      reasons which compelled it to deviate from the guideline range.

                                      ***

      [W]hen deviating from the sentencing guidelines, a trial judge
      must indicate that [s]he understands the suggested ranges.
      However, there is no requirement that a sentencing court must
      evoke “magic words” in a verbatim recitation of the guidelines
      ranges to satisfy this requirement. Our law is clear that, when
      imposing a sentence, the trial court has rendered a proper
      contemporaneous statement under the mandate of the
      Sentencing Code so long as the record demonstrates with clarity
      that the court considered the sentencing guidelines in a rational
      and systematic way and made a dispassionate decision to depart
      from them.

Commonwealth v. Beatty, 227 A.3d 1277, 1287-88 (Pa. Super. 2020).

      Further, when the sentencing court is informed by a presentence report,

it is presumed that the court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and

considerations and, where the court has been so informed, its discretion

should not be disturbed. Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1135

(Pa. Super. 2009).

      Finally, the court may depart from the guidelines if it is necessary to

fashion a sentence which considers the protection of the public and the gravity

of the particular offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and

the community. Commonwealth v. Durazo, 216 A.3d 316, 320 (Pa. Super.

2019).

                                       -8-
J-S10041-23

         In the present case, at sentencing on November 16, 2021, counsel for

Appellant recommended a standard guidelines sentence carrying a minimum

sentence of 24-30 months. Counsel argued that Appellant was progressing

with rehabilitation in prison by completing a drug treatment program and a

violence prevention program, participating in the “Batterer’s” violence

prevention program, and working towards his GED.              The Commonwealth

requested a sentence of 5-10 years, noting that (1) the victim was still terrified

of Appellant, (2) Appellant blamed the victim for the incident in the

presentence investigation, and (3) Appellant has a history of probation

violations, including an instance where he was released on bail and

immediately threatened the victim. Appellant spoke on his own behalf and

accepted full responsibility for his actions. Judge Brinkley expressly stated

that Appellant’s sentence was 4-8 years’ imprisonment for robbery, a sentence

she expressly stated was “above and outside the guidelines.” N.T., 11/16/21,

at 32.

         Judge Brinkley explained her reasons for departing from the guidelines

as follows:

         On the charge of robbery the sentence is four to eight years. This
         sentence is above and outside the guidelines. The reasons for the
         sentence include the same information that I just read into the
         record concerning [Appellant’s] recidivism while on federal
         probation and the long history of criminal activity despite being on
         federal probation, as well as the victim’s impact statement
         indicating that she is still afraid of [Appellant] and the lasting
         impact that this crime has had on her over the years.

                                        -9-
J-S10041-23

     The court has also taken into consideration everything that
     [Appellant] has said, in particular what he said today, regarding
     his treatment programs and his willingness to apologize to the
     victim. I believe that this sentence of four to eight years is an
     appropriate sentence even though it is above and outside the
     guidelines for the reasons that I gave today and the reasons that
     I read into the record today.

N.T., 11/16/21, at 32-33. Judge Brinkley reviewed a presentence report, a

victim impact statement, and a memo dated July 25, 2019 from the

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”). Judge Brinkley observed

that the DOC memo

     stated that Defendant was still on federal probation and that he
     did poorly on community supervision and violated every term
     imposed. His violations include absconding supervision, not
     completing court orders, drug treatment, incurred new arrests
     while on probation. In all, he has eight violations, six revocations
     and one pending revocation here in Federal Court. The current
     matter he was in direct violation of his federal probation. It is
     important to note [that] the next [paragraph] . . . shows he has
     been . . . continuously supervised on probation, parole or
     incarcerated since 1992. In that time he had only a total of eleven
     and a half months free of some form of court supervision or not
     incarcerated. In short, he spent nearly all but eleven months in
     the past twenty-five years on court supervision or was
     incarcerated. Since then nothing has changed in his life despite
     the implementation of various county probations, state and
     federal programs. He continues to not be amenable to county or
     any supervision—each time he’s released from custody he either
     absconds or does not rema[in] committed to his treatment
     program or his sobriety. It is not long after each release he comes
     to be incarcerated. He still believes he’s in control of his addiction
     and that he does not need treatment. He said he blames the
     victim, his ex-girlfriend for falsely accusing him of this crime. And
     it goes on.

Id. at 27-28.

                                    - 10 -
J-S10041-23

      For multiple reasons, the sentence for Appellant’s attack and robbery of

the victim was a proper exercise of discretion. Judge Brinkley resentenced

Appellant to the same aggregate sentence that Judge Dembe imposed at the

original sentencing hearing. Her sentence was within the statutory maximum

and less than the sentence recommended by the Commonwealth.                 She

explicitly stated on the record that she was aware that her sentence was above

the guidelines, thus rectifying her failure in the previous sentencing hearing

to mention this detail. Beatty, 227 A.3d at 1287-88.

      Furthermore, Appellant’s sentence was reasonably related to the gravity

of his offense. Appellant stole the victim’s debit card and emptied her account.

He fought with her over the debit card, chased her down the street, and

tackled her from behind. He then repeatedly punched her in the head. When

the victim was able to momentarily break free from Appellant’s grasp, he

chased after her again, grabbed hold of her, and resumed punching her. When

the victim fell to the ground, Appellant pulled her up by her hair. He then

pulled down the victim’s shirt, rummaged through her bra, exposed her

breasts and put his hand down her pants.

      In addition, Appellant’s crime had a significant impact on the victim.

The victim informed the court that the attack made her distrustful of people

and that she was still afraid that Appellant would come after her. Moreover,

Appellant’s bail had to be revoked before trial because he was improperly

sending the victim messages on social media.

                                     - 11 -
J-S10041-23

      Judge Brinkley properly determined that Appellant had little chance of

rehabilitation, given his extensive criminal record, including numerous arrests,

convictions and violations of probation and parole, and his history of drug use.

      Judge Brinkley further considered the evidence presented by the

defense. She heard argument by defense counsel for a mitigated sentence,

and she considered a report prepared by the Department of Corrections

detailing the treatment programs Appellant had completed while incarcerated.

The court also heard Appellant’s allocution in which he accepted responsibility

for his actions. Judge Brinkley, however, had the discretion to conclude that

any mitigating factors, such as Appellant’s background, display of remorse,

and personal character, were outweighed by various aggravating factors. This

Court cannot second-guess Judge Brinkley’s consideration of the evidence.

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

(this Court “cannot re-weigh the sentencing factors and impose our judgment

in the place of the sentencing court”).

      Finally, Judge Brinkley had the benefit of Appellant’s presentence

investigation report, so she presumably was aware of all appropriate

sentencing factors and considerations and took them into account. Ventura,

975 A.2d at 1135.

      For these reasons, we conclude that Appellant’s sentence was a proper

exercise of discretion, and we affirm.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                     - 12 -
J-S10041-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/22/2023

                          - 13 -