Court Opinion

ID: 9961726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 16:12:49.091252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:45.049460
License: Public Domain

J-S19044-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  JAMES FRANCIS CALDERONE                      :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1053 MDA 2022

               Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 5, 2022
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia County
              Criminal Division at No(s): CP-19-CR-0000890-2015

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

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:                             FILED: APRIL 19, 2024

       James Francis Calderone (“Calderone”) appeals from the order denying

his first petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act

(“PCRA”).1 We affirm.

       The PCRA court set forth the following factual and procedural history:

             The present case arises out of an incident which occurred
       on November 9, 2015[,] during which [Calderone,] with an AK-
       47[-]type weapon and other firearms and a large cache of
       ammunition, opened fire at a maintenance worker ([Clair] Hock
       [(“Hock”)]) and three [] police officers . . . at a local industrial
       development complex. [Calderone] drove to the complex with this
       arsenal prepared in the back of his SUV/[m]ini [v]an. After
       crashing into a trailer at the complex and exiting his vehicle,
       [Calderone] popped the back hatch of his vehicle, pulled out one
       of the weapons he had prepared in the back of his vehicle[,] and
       began unloading on []Hock and the three police officers[, Officers
       Brandon Shultz and Regan Rafferty, Detective Gregory Martin,]
       who quickly responded. In the melee, [one of the officers] was
       grazed in the head with a metal fragment [resulting from] a bullet
____________________________________________

1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S19044-23

     shot out of [Calderone’s] weapon. The [o]fficers opened fire only
     after [Calderone] refused to put down his weapons, locked a round
     in the AK-47 chamber[,] and raised the weapon toward the
     officers. After exchanging fire, [Calderone] was shot in the chest
     and incapacitated.

             On June 2, 2016, [Calderone] filed a Motion for Leave to
     Secure a Preliminary Psychiatric/Mental Health Examination
     . . .[, which the trial court] granted by [o]rder dated June 23,
     2016. [Calderone] was examined twice by Richard E. Fischbein,
     M.D., a board[-]certified psychiatrist, once on May 20, 2017[,]
     and once on October 12, 2018. Reports of each examination, with
     various opinions, were entered into the trial record . . ..

            Trial occurred from May 8, 2019 to May 10, 2019. During
     the trial, Dr. Fischbein testified consistent with his reports.

           In [his first report], Dr. Fischbein diagnosed [Calderone]
     with Adjustment Disorder Mixed Emotional Features.              Dr.
     Fischbein testified that [Calderone’s] conduct “did not add up,”
     given that he did not have any other violent episodes, as reported
     by [Calderone]. Dr. Fischbein stated that [Calderone] did not
     have Anti-Social Personality Disorder. Dr. Fischbein testified that
     [Calderone] consistently professed to have no memory of the
     incident.    With no objection from the Commonwealth, Dr.
     Fischbein was permitted to opine that the event was out of
     character for [Calderone,] and that he believed [Calderone’s]
     reporting . . ..1

           1 Dr. Fischbein testified that the incident was “out of

           character” for [Calderone], and that [Calderone]
           “struck me as honest.” Dr. Fischbein’s testimony
           included several such statements.

     Dr. Fischbein confirmed that, very recently prior to the incident,
     [Calderone] had found out that he had impregnated his
     next[-]door neighbor and was concerned about the consequence
     to his marriage. Dr. Fischbein stated that [Calderone] had alleged
     that his wife had put Xanax into [his] coffee the morning of the
     incident, and that Dr. Fischbein believed [Calderone] and his claim
     that he slipped into a delirium as a result. Dr. Fischbein found
     [Calderone] to be competent to stand trial, and testified that he
     was doing rather well in prison, with a balanced outlook. In [that
     same initial report,] Dr. Fischbein opined that [Calderone’s]

                                    -2-
J-S19044-23

     psychiatric illness had a “very significant” effect on [Calderone’s]
     behavior during the incident.          Dr. Fischbein opined that
     [Calderone] was “at [a] minimum,” guilty but mentally ill, and
     “wonder[ed]” if [Calderone] lacked intent during the incident.

            In [his second report], Dr. Fischbein went beyond his
     opinions as expressed in [his first report].           Dr. Fischbein
     interviewed several witnesses and based his opinions on their
     recounting of events. In [the second report], Dr. Fischbein again
     opined that [Calderone] was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder
     with Mixed Emotional Features, with anxiety and depression. He
     then opined that, during the incident, [Calderone] “was suffering
     from a state of delirium, most like[ly] as a result of the
     surreptitious drugging of his drinks by his wife. . . .” There was
     some evidence of that at trial, but [Calderone’s] wife testified that
     she did not drug [his] coffee. [Calderon’s] wife’s testimony was
     [apparently] accepted as credible by both the jury and by th[e
     trial] court. . . . [The trial court] found[] that [Calderone’s] wife
     did not spike his coffee with any drug and [accepted] her
     testimony as credible. Dr. Fischbein opined that [Calderon’s]
     behavior was “out of his volition and control,” and that his wife’s
     drugging of his drinks resulted in “involuntarily altering his
     behavior.” Dr. Fischbein continued to be of the opinion that
     [Calderone] was competent to stand trial, but opined that
     [Calderone] was not able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his
     actions and that he was legally insane at the time of the incident.

           Dr. Fischbein testified that [Calderone] was not able to form
     a specific intent to commit the crimes with which he was charged.

            On May 10, 2019, a jury convicted [Calderone] of four []
     counts of [a]ttempted [m]urder, four [] counts of [a]ggravated
     [a]ssault [(attempt to cause serious bodily injury)], one [] count
     of [a]ggravated [a]ssault [(causing bodily injury to a police
     officer)], and four [] counts of [r]ecklessly [e]ndangering
     [a]nother [p]erson . . ..

            On May 16, 2019, [Calderone] filed a Motion for Leave to
     Secure a Psychological Evaluation of Defendant for Possible
     Sentence Mitigation . . .. [The trial court held a] hearing . . . on
     the . . . motion on June 19, 2019. . ..

                                   ****

                                     -3-
J-S19044-23

           Th[e trial c]ourt issued an [o]rder [on] June 19, 2019
     denying the . . . [m]otion, except that [the court] ordered [a] risk
     assessment[, but otherwise reasoned] that further psychiatric
     evaluations would be redundant.

            At the sentencing hearing of July 17, 2019, . . . the
     sentencing court reviewed the [pre-sentence investigation report
     (“PSI”)]. The [] court also considered the Ohio Risk Assessment
     System Community Supervision tool. [] Dr. [] Fischbein . . . also
     testified at the sentencing hearing and elaborated upon the Ohio
     Risk Assessment System Community Supervision tool.               In
     addition, Dr. Fischbein testified at length regarding [Calderone’s]
     social, psychological, psychiatric[,] and emotional history. Dr.
     Fischbein’s two reports were incorporated into the record at the
     sentencing hearing.

           [Calderone’s] social and family histories were supplemented
     at the sentencing hearing beyond that which was set forth in the
     PSI. In addition to that, [Calderone’s] educational history and
     employment status were also considered, including a letter from
     [Calderone’s] co-workers. The lack of any prior criminal record
     was discussed and considered by the sentencing court. The
     sentencing court held a hearing on the issue of merger of offenses
     and properly excluded several counts [as] having merged with the
     attempted murder count.

           The entire trial record was incorporated into the sentencing
     hearing record. [Calderone] was given an opportunity for
     allocution and declined.

           After a full opportunity was provided to [Calderone] and the
     Commonwealth to present evidence and make argument, the
     sentencing court expressed the reasons for the sentences
     pronounced.      The sentencing court discussed [Calderone’s]
     deliberate and meticulous assembly of an arsenal of weapons and
     ammunition, including an AK-47.

            At the sentencing hearing, the court expressly considered
     the testimony of Dr. Fischbein but rejected it as being incredible.
     The sentencing court “considered the totality of the evidence at
     trial, and here at sentencing, an[d] [found] no credible evidence
     of sufficient weight so as to cause [the sentencing court] to
     mitigate the sentence below the standard range.” The Ohio Risk
     Assessment tool was considered, but the result of that assessment

                                    -4-
J-S19044-23

       was found to be incredible due to the fact that it is primarily based
       upon [Calderone’s] self[-]reporting and the inconsistencies of
       answers and reporting that he provided on different occasions.

            The sentencing court determined that [Calderone] alone[]
       was responsible for his meticulously planned shooting
       rampage . . ..

                                      ****

              The sentencing court proceeded to recite the [p]rior [r]ecord
       [s]core, the [o]ffense [g]ravity [s]core and the [s]tandard [r]ange
       for each count. The sentence for each count was within the
       [s]tandard [r]ange. [The court imposed standard-range guideline
       sentences for each count, with four attempted murder sentences
       of 96-240 months of imprisonment each, to be served
       consecutively, along with one consecutive sentence of fifteen to
       thirty months of incarceration for the aggravated assault (causing
       bodily injury to a police officer) conviction. The remaining
       aggravated assault convictions merged for sentencing purposes,
       and the REAP sentences were to run concurrently.] The aggregate
       sentence was 399 months (33 years, 3 months) to 990 months
       (82 years, 6 months) [of imprisonment].

              [On September 30, 2020, this Court affirmed the judgment
       of sentence on direct appeal.            See Commonwealth v.
       Calderone, 240 A.3d 995 (Pa. Super. 2020) (unpublished
       memorandum).2 Calderone did not petition our Supreme Court
       for review.] On October 21, 2021, PCRA counsel filed a [timely
       first petition] for PCRA [r]elief . . ..

PCRA Court Opinion, 7/5/22, at 1-9 (citations to the record omitted). The

issues Calderone sought to raise included, inter alia, an ineffective assistance

of counsel claim regarding his trial attorneys’ alleged advice that Calderone

should go to trial rather than plead guilty; and ineffectiveness claims arising

____________________________________________

2 In his direct appeal, Calderone argued that the sentencing court abused its

discretion when denying his motion for the appointment of another
psychologist to evaluate him for sentencing purposes.

                                           -5-
J-S19044-23

from trial counsel’s decision not to raise on appeal challenges to the sufficiency

of the evidence, the trial court’s refusal to give an involuntary intoxication jury

instruction, and the discretionary aspects of the sentence. See generally

PCRA Petition, 10/13/21, at 12-26.

        Following an evidentiary hearing at which Calderone’s trial attorneys,

first chair Hugh L. Sumner, Esquire and second chair Elizabeth Wood, Esquire;

Calderone; and his brother, Michael Calderone, testified, the PCRA court

denied relief. See Order, 7/5/22. Calderone timely appealed. See Notice of

Appeal, 7/25/22. Both Calderone and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P.

1925.

        Calderone raises the following issues for our review:

        1. W[ere c]ounsel ineffective in not advising [Calderone] that the
           involuntary intoxication insanity defense was not recognized in
           Pennsylvania, especially since [lead counsel Mr. Sumner]
           thought the sufficiency issue was so poor that that issue was
           not raised on appeal?

        2. Where the lower court did not give an involuntary intoxication
           instruction but gave a voluntary intoxication instruction, were
           counsel ineffective in not raising this denial on appeal, where
           this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Polanco-Cano,
           2019 WL [3231729] (Pa. Super. 2019) [(unpublished
           memorandum)], seemingly left open the question whether this
           defense was viable in Pennsylvania?

        3. Where the evidence did not show that [Calderone] attempted
           to injure anyone but himself and the evidence was insufficient
           as a matter of law as to the attempted murder and aggravated
           assault charges, was appellate counsel ineffective for failing to
           raise a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal?

                                       -6-
J-S19044-23

       4. Were counsel ineffective for failing to preserve numerous
          sentencing issues where the lower court violated multiple
          sentencing norms while imposing a virtual life sentence?

Calderone’s Brief at 3 (issues re-ordered).

       Our standard of review of an order denying PCRA relief is well-settled:

              Our review of a PCRA court’s decision is limited to examining
       whether the PCRA court’s findings of fact are supported by the
       record, and whether its conclusions of law are free from legal
       error. We view the record in the light most favorable to the
       prevailing party in the PCRA court. We are bound by any
       credibility determinations made by the PCRA court where they are
       supported by the record. However, we review the PCRA court’s
       legal conclusions de novo.

Commonwealth v. Staton, 184 A.3d 949, 954 (Pa. 2018) (internal citation

and quotations omitted). “Moreover, we must conduct our review in the light

most favorable to the prevailing party, in this instance, the Commonwealth.”

Commonwealth v. Rizor, 304 A.3d 1034, 1058 (Pa. 2023) (internal citation

omitted). Lastly, the PCRA petitioner “has the burden to persuade this Court

that   the   PCRA     court   erred   and   that   such   error   requires   relief.”

Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 177 A.3d 136, 144-45 (Pa. 2018) (internal

citations omitted).

       All of Calderone’s issues implicate assertions of ineffective assistance of

counsel. In order to be eligible for PCRA relief, the petitioner must prove by

a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction or sentence resulted from

one or more of the enumerated circumstances found in Section 9543(a)(2),

which includes the ineffective assistance of counsel.         See 42 Pa.C.S.A §

9543(a)(2)(ii); see also Commonwealth v. Benner, 147 A.3d 915, 919–20

                                       -7-
J-S19044-23

(Pa. Super. 2016). To prevail on an ineffectiveness claim, the petitioner has

the burden to prove: “(1) the underlying substantive claim has arguable merit;

(2) counsel whose effectiveness is being challenged did not have a reasonable

basis for his or her actions or failure to act; and (3) the petitioner suffered

prejudice as a result of counsel’s deficient performance.” Benner, 147 A.3d

at 920 (internal citations and quotations omitted). The failure to satisfy any

of these prongs is fatal to a petitioner’s claim. See id. Additionally, counsel

is presumed effective. See id.

      Regarding “arguable merit,” this Court has provided that, “[t]he first

inquiry   in    an     ineffectiveness        claim     is      always    whether    the

issue/argument/tactic which counsel has foregone and which forms the basis

for the assertion of ineffectiveness is of arguable merit; for counsel cannot be

considered     ineffective    for   failing    to      assert    a    meritless   claim.”

Commonwealth v. Lott, 581 A.2d 612, 614 (Pa. Super. 1990) (internal

citation and quotations omitted).        For the “reasonable basis” prong, the

petitioner must show that counsel “had no reasonable basis designed to

effectuate his client’s interests.” Id. (emphasis added). We will “conclude

that counsel’s chosen strategy lacked a reasonable basis only if [the

petitioner] proves that an alternative not chosen offered a potential for

success   substantially      greater   than      the     course      actually   pursued.”

Commonwealth v. Brown, 161 A.3d 960, 965 (Pa. Super. 2017) (internal

citation omitted). Accord Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, 132

                                         -8-
J-S19044-23

(Pa. 2012) (stating that, “[g]enerally, where matters of strategy and tactics

are concerned, counsel’s assistance is deemed constitutionally effective if he

chose a particular course that had some reasonable basis designed to

effectuate his client’s interests”) (internal citations and quotations omitted);

see also Commonwealth v. Johnson, 289 A.3d 959, 979 (Pa. 2023) (noting

that “a claim of ineffectiveness ordinarily will not succeed through comparing,

by hindsight, the trial strategy employed with alternatives not pursued”)

(internal citation and quotations omitted). Lastly, to establish prejudice, the

petitioner “must show that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome

of the proceedings would have been different but for counsel’s action or

inaction.” Brown, 161 A.3d at 965.

      In his first issue, Calderone asserts ineffective assistance of counsel in

connection with his rejection of the Commonwealth’s plea offer. Our Supreme

Court has recently reiterated the applicable law for cases in which a petitioner

alleges ineffective advice led to his rejection of a plea offer:

      In these circumstances a defendant must show [prejudice, i.e.,]
      that but for the ineffective advice of counsel there is a reasonable
      probability that the plea offer would have been presented to the
      court (i.e., that the defendant would have accepted the plea and
      the prosecution would not have withdrawn it in light of intervening
      circumstances), that the court would have accepted its terms, and
      that the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer’s terms
      would have been less severe than under the judgment and
      sentence that in fact were imposed.

Rizor, 304 A.3d at 1054 (internal citation omitted).

                                       -9-
J-S19044-23

      Calderone argues trial counsel gave him deficient advice. Specifically,

Calderone argues he did not have a viable defense, and so there was no way

counsel could reasonably advise him to go to trial. See Calderone’s Brief at

27-28. While Calderone concedes he presented an insanity defense, he argues

this defense was “riddled with holes” because some of the evidence—which

showed, inter alia, that he had engaged in some planning prior to the

shooting—undermined the defense. Additionally, Calderone maintains, to the

extent his insanity was caused by involuntary intoxication, the law does not

recognize an involuntary intoxication defense, which further detracted from

the viability of the defense. See id. at 27-28. Calderone asserts that, had he

known how poor his insanity defense was, he would have pleaded guilty. See

id. at 31-32.

      The PCRA court considered Calderone’s issue and determined it merits

no relief. The PCRA court determined that lead trial counsel, Mr. Sumner, did

not advise Calderone to reject the plea offer and proceed to trial, but that it

was Calderone’s decision. See PCRA Court Opinion, 7/5/22, at 9.

      Following our review, we conclude the PCRA court’s findings of fact are

supported by the record and its legal conclusion error-free.     Mr. Sumner,

whom the PCRA court deemed credible, testified that he did not advise

Calderone to reject the plea, but rather set forth Calderone’s options and left

the decision up to Calderone. See N.T., 4/19/22, at 41. Mr. Sumner informed

Calderone that the “defense of insanity is very seldom raised in Pennsylvania.

                                    - 10 -
J-S19044-23

And, further, it’s hardly ever granted.” Id. at 36. Mr. Sumner further testified

that he told Calderone about the plea offer, that it was a “firm offer” of twelve

to twenty-four years of imprisonment, and that, “[i]f he took that plea, he

could minimize his exposure . . .,” but that if he went to trial, there was a

“strong likelihood the [j]udge would impose consecutive sentences” for any

convictions, up to the more-than-thirty years of incarceration that he actually

received. Id. at 37. Mr. Sumner agreed that he may have told Calderone an

insanity defense was feasible because it was the ultimate conclusion of Dr.

Fischbein. Id. at 41. According to Mr. Sumner, “when [Calderone] makes up

his mind, [he] makes up his mind. . . . [H]e’s a man that he would tell you

what it is and what he wanted to do.” Id. at 44-45. Following Calderone’s

decision to go to trial, trial counsel presented the insanity defense. See, e.g.,

5/10/19, at 72-74 (Mr. Sumner arguing the jury should believe Dr. Fischbein

who opined that Calderone was not guilty by reason of insanity). Moreover,

and crucially, the trial court gave an insanity defense charge to the jury.

See id. at 125-33. Additionally, while the trial court informed the jury that

voluntary intoxication could not establish the insanity defense, see id. at

133, and that intoxication “does not by itself, amount to legal insanity,” see

id. at 128, nowhere did the trial court prohibit the jury from considering

whether Calderone’s alleged involuntarily intoxicated state contributed to his

asserted insanity.     Indeed, the trial court acknowledged Calderone’s

involuntary intoxication defense. See id. at 132 (trial court instructing the

                                     - 11 -
J-S19044-23

jury that it had “heard evidence and[/]or arguments of two points of view.

One, that [Calderone] was involuntarily intoxicated.           Specifically, that

someone put drugs into his system without his knowledge. That is one line of

argument and evidence you heard about”). The trial court also allowed the

jury to consider this. See id. (trial court stating, “It is up to you to determine

what you believe. . . . You can accept [Calderone’s] testimony that [he] was

involuntarily drugged,” and stating that the prohibition on voluntary

intoxication as a defense did not apply to involuntary intoxication).3 Given

that Mr. Sumner: discussed with Calderone the low probability of success of

presenting an insanity defense (predicated on involuntary intoxication);

explained to Calderone what his exposure would be for the plea as opposed

____________________________________________

3  We acknowledge that, apart from the insanity defense, the issue of
involuntary intoxication and whether it is a viable defense appears to be
unsettled law. This Court has opined, for example, that “[i]nvoluntary
intoxication may, in certain instances, provide a defense to the criminal
charge. However, involuntary intoxication cannot, as a matter of law, be
established through evidence showing that the criminal defendant was a
chronic alcoholic incapable of voluntarily refraining from ingestion of alcohol.”
Commonwealth v. Plank, 478 A.2d 872, 875–76 (Pa. Super. 1984)
(emphasis and internal citations and quotations omitted).               But cf.
Commonwealth v. Griscom, 600 A.2d 996, 997 (Pa. Super. 1991)
(observing that “[w]hile involuntary intoxication may, as an abstract principle,
be a defense to a crime, no Pennsylvania appellate court has yet to hold that
the defense of involuntary intoxication is a viable one”); Commonwealth v.
Smith, 831 A.2d 636, 639 (Pa. Super. 2003) (noting that “Pennsylvania[,]
like many other jurisdictions, either by statute or caselaw, specifically limits
the availability of a voluntary intoxication defense but does not specify
whether an involuntary intoxication defense is available”). This does not affect
our disposition, however, because Calderone was permitted to put this issue
before the jury.

                                          - 12 -
J-S19044-23

to convictions at trial; and proceeded to trial at Calderone’s direction and

presented the exact defense they had agreed to present, which the jury

nevertheless disbelieved, we cannot say the PCRA court erred in denying

Calderone relief based on its conclusion that Calderone failed to show that Mr.

Sumner gave Calderone deficient advice which caused him to reject the plea

offer and proceed to trial. See Rizor, 304 A.3d at 1059 (holding that a PCRA

petitioner fails to show prejudice if she cannot show there was a reasonable

probability she would have accepted the plea deal where the evidence shows

the petitioner was set on going to trial if there was “a chance of winning at

trial”).

       In his second issue, Calderone argues trial counsel were ineffective for

failing to raise on appeal the trial court’s denial of his request for an

involuntary intoxication jury instruction.      As noted above, to establish

prejudice, the petitioner “must show that there is a reasonable probability that

the outcome of the proceedings would have been different but for counsel’s

action or inaction.” Brown, 161 A.3d at 965. Accordingly, Calderone must

establish that but for trial counsel’s asserted ineffectiveness, the result of his

direct appeal would have differed. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Lawrence,

960 A.2d 473, 478 (Pa. Super. 2008) (counsel cannot be ineffective for failing

to raise a meritless claim on appeal).

           When reviewing a challenge to jury instructions:

              [W]e must review the jury charge as a whole to determine
       if it is fair and complete. A trial court has wide discretion in

                                       - 13 -
J-S19044-23

      phrasing its jury instructions, and can choose its own words as
      long as the law is clearly, adequately, and accurately presented to
      the jury for its consideration. The trial court commits an abuse of
      discretion only when there is an inaccurate statement of the law.

             A jury charge will be deemed erroneous only if the charge
      as a whole is inadequate, not clear or has a tendency to mislead
      or confuse, rather than clarify, a material issue. A charge is
      considered adequate unless the jury was palpably misled by what
      the trial judge said or there is an omission which is tantamount to
      fundamental error. Consequently, the trial court has wide
      discretion in fashioning jury instructions.

Commonwealth v. Postie, 200 A.3d 1015, 1026 (Pa. Super. 2018) (internal

citation and indentation omitted).

      Calderone argues that an involuntary intoxication instruction was critical

to his defense, which was based on evidence showing his wife, unbeknownst

to him, drugged him, which caused him to open fire on coworkers and police.

See Calderone’s Brief at 33. Calderone asserts that trial counsel advised him

to go to trial using this defense and then “abandoned that position by not

raising this as an issue on appeal.” Id. at 35. Calderone maintains that the

trial court’s refusal to give the requested instruction, in context of the

instruction on voluntary intoxication, “could have led the jury to have taken

this omission as a tacit statement by the lower court that it did not believe

that involuntary intoxication was a viable defense and, further[, that]

Calderone voluntarily ingested controlled substances.” Id. at 36 (emphasis in

original).

                                     - 14 -
J-S19044-23

       Following our review, we affirm the PCRA court’s determination that this

issue merits no relief, albeit on different grounds.4 Calderone’s argument is

predicated on the fact that the trial court gave no discussion to involuntary

intoxication. However, as noted above, this is unsupported by the record. We

reproduce the relevant part of the trial court’s instruction below:

             . . . I instruct you that intoxication from alcohol or drugs or
       addiction to alcohol or drugs does not, by itself, amount to legal
       insanity, nor does the combination of intoxication and addiction
       amount to legal insanity.

                                         ****

             Now I am going to talk about voluntary intoxication or
       drunk condition. In a sense, I am going to say that this is what
       we might call a conditional instruction because it is conditioned on
       what you find. Hear me out on that. You have heard evidence
       and[/]or arguments of two points of view. One, that [Calderone]
       was involuntarily intoxicated. Specifically, that someone put
       drugs into his system without his knowledge. That is one line of
       argument and evidence you heard about.

             You also heard another argument and evidence that
       [Calderone] had drugs in his system by his own volition,
       voluntarily. It is up to you to determine what you believe.
       You, as fact[-]finders, have the prerogative of accepting all, part,
       or none of the evidence.       You can accept [Calderone’s]
       testimony that [he] was involuntarily drugged. You can
       choose to reject that testimony and argument and conclude that
       [he] was voluntarily drugged . . .. This particular instruction
       only applies if you conclude that [Calderone] took drugs
       voluntarily and was not given the drugs without his

____________________________________________

4 The PCRA court concluded that involuntary intoxication was in fact not a
viable defense, and, accordingly, this issue would not have been successful on
appeal. We do not affirm on this basis. However, this Court may affirm an
order denying PCRA relief for any reason appearing of record. See, e.g.,
Commonwealth v. Towles, 300 A.3d 400, 417 (Pa. 2023).

                                          - 15 -
J-S19044-23

       knowledge.     So here is that instruction applying to
       voluntary intoxication by drugs.

            A voluntary drugged condition is not a defense to a criminal
       charge . . ..

N.T., 5/10/19, at 128, 132-33 (emphases added).                   Thus, the trial court

instructed the jury that it could consider the evidence of involuntary

intoxication    in   determining     whether       to   believe   Calderone’s   defense.

Additionally, the trial court expressly limited its instruction to state that

voluntary intoxication is not a defense, which, rather than implying to the

jury that involuntary intoxication is not a defense, supports the opposite

inference, i.e., that involuntary intoxication could be a defense.5               Thus,

Calderone has failed to show that the jury instruction was an error of law or

palpably misled the jury, and, accordingly, he cannot establish that the

outcome of his appeal would not have been different had trial counsel raised

this argument. See Postie, 200 A.3d at 1026; Lawrence, 960 A.2d at 478.

Accordingly, Calderone is due no relief for this issue.

       In his third issue, Calderone asserts trial counsel were ineffective for

failing to raise sufficiency challenges to his convictions for appeal. As noted

above, in order to prove ineffectiveness, a petitioner must show, inter alia,

prejudice arising from counsel’s omission. “As counsel is not deemed to be

____________________________________________

5 For purposes of our disposition, we need not decide whether Calderone would

have been entitled to this jury instruction or whether involuntary intoxication
is a viable defense. We simply note that Calderone received the substance of
the instruction he requested, and, therefore, he cannot now assert prejudice.

                                          - 16 -
J-S19044-23

ineffective for failing to preserve a meritless issue for appellate review,” where

an issue is meritless, a petitioner “is not entitled to relief . . ..”

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 179 A.3d 1105, 1115 (Pa. Super. 2018)

(internal citation omitted). With these principles in mind, we set forth our

standard of review for sufficiency claims:

             . . . [W]e evaluate the record in the light most favorable to
      the verdict[-]winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all
      reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Evidence
      will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes
      each material element of the crime charged and the commission
      thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt.
      Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a
      mathematical certainty. Any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is
      to be resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak
      and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact
      can be drawn from the combined circumstances.

            The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of
      wholly circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, the fact that the
      evidence establishing a defendant’s participation in a crime is
      circumstantial does not preclude a conviction where the evidence
      coupled with the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom
      overcomes the presumption of innocence. Significantly, we may
      not substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder; thus, so
      long as the evidence adduced, accepted in the light most favorable
      to the Commonwealth, demonstrates the respective elements of
      a defendant’s crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant’s
      convictions will be upheld.

Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719, 722–23 (Pa. Super. 2013)

(internal citations and quotations omitted). Additionally, the fact-finder is free

to believe all, part, or none of the evidence.        See Commonwealth v.

Greenlee, 212 A.3d 1038, 1042 (Pa. Super. 2019).

                                     - 17 -
J-S19044-23

      Regarding intent, the Crimes Code defines “criminal attempt” as follows:

“A person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit a specific crime,

he does any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission

of that crime.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901(a). As this Court has noted:

             For a defendant to be found guilty of attempted murder, the
      Commonwealth must establish specific intent to kill. Therefore, if
      a person takes a substantial step toward the commission of a
      killing, with the specific intent in mind to commit such an act, he
      may be convicted of attempted murder. The Commonwealth may
      establish the mens rea required for first-degree murder, [18
      Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a),] specific intent to kill, solely from
      circumstantial evidence.

Commonwealth v. Tucker, 143 A.3d 955, 964 (Pa. Super. 2016) (internal

citations, quotations, and brackets omitted). A person commits aggravated

assault if he, inter alia, “attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or

causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances

manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 2702(a)(1).    We have explained the elements of aggravated assault as

follows:

      “Serious bodily injury” has been defined as “[b]odily injury which
      creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious,
      permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the
      function of any bodily member or organ.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301.
      For aggravated assault purposes, an “attempt” is found where an
      “accused who possesses the required, specific intent acts in a
      manner which constitutes a substantial step toward perpetrating
      a serious bodily injury upon another. An intent ordinarily must be
      proven through circumstantial evidence and inferred from acts,
      conduct or attendant circumstances.

                                     - 18 -
J-S19044-23

Commonwealth v. Fortune, 68 A.3d 980, 984 (Pa. Super. 2013) (some

internal citations and quotations omitted).

       Calderone argues that trial counsel were ineffective for preserving

sufficiency challenges to his attempted murder and aggravated assault

convictions “despite the fact that there was a vigorous insanity defense

presented and no evidence of intent to hurt anyone.” Calderone’s Brief at 18-

19. He points to evidence in the record showing that he wanted to die at the

time, that he told police after the shooting that he hoped he had not hurt

anyone, and that there was testimony he was “shooting high and low, with no

rhyme or reason.” Id. at 19.6 He additionally relies on his insanity defense

to show that, “he did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily injury” because

he was involuntarily in a drug-induced state of delirium. Id. at 22. Calderone

asserts his sufficiency challenges have arguable merit, trial counsel had no

reasonable basis for failing to preserve them for appeal, and, had they raised

them, his convictions would have been overturned. See id. at 23-26.

       The PCRA court considered this issue and concluded that, based on the

facts of record: “It is clear that the facts were sufficient to sustain the verdicts.

It is equally clear that an appeal based upon the claim that the evidence was

____________________________________________

6 Calderone concedes he was “quite possibly guilty of assaulting Detective
Martin [per section 2702(a)(3)] with a deadly weapon after a shot caused a
ricochet and metal str[uck] the officer’s head . . ..” Calderone’s Brief at 19-
20. Nor does Calderone contest his recklessly endangering another person
(“REAP”) convictions. See id. at 23. Accordingly, we do not consider his issue
to encompass these convictions.

                                          - 19 -
J-S19044-23

insufficient to support the verdicts would have been frivolous. Trial counsel is

not required to preserve and present frivolous grounds for appeal.”            PCRA

Court Opinion, 7/5/22, at 16.

       Following our review, we discern no basis to disturb the PCRA court’s

conclusions. We reiterate that Calderone is challenging his attempted murder

and aggravated assault convictions vis-à-vis Hock, Officers Rafferty and

Shultz, and Detective Martin. Regarding Hock, the testimony shows that after

Calderone yelled to him to “get out[, h]e was having a bad day,” Hock got into

a golf cart to drive away, “[a]nd it wouldn’t start . . .. And, then the next

thing I knew, he was shooting at me again.”                 N.T., 5/8/19, at 74-75.

Calderone shot multiple rounds at Hock twice while Hock was in the golf cart.

See id. at 78. Hock could see “dirt flying right in front of me,” before he got

out of the golf cart; Calderone paused firing, and Hock was able to walk around

a building and out of the line of fire. Id. at 75. Following the shooting, there

was a hole in the windshield that had not previously been there. See id. at

75-76.7 Officer Rafferty testified that, after responding to the shooting, he

pleaded with Calderone to stop shooting, but Calderone refused, and

ultimately situated himself behind an SUV and then began “shooting from

behind the vehicle.”       Id. at 155.         During this time, Officer Rafferty saw

“Detective Martin, his head recoil violently[,] like back and to the left. And as

____________________________________________

7 Hock could not say if he was in the cart when the shot went through the

windshield. See id. at 79.

                                          - 20 -
J-S19044-23

he did so[,] back into the left[,] and then he fell to the ground on my left side.

. . . [I t]hought he was dead.” Id. at 155-56. Officer Rafferty described the

gunfight as “extremely violent.” Id. at 156. After releasing a second volley

of fire, Officer Rafferty paused, and saw Calderone moving from Rafferty’s left

to right: “he came out from behind the vehicle and started, it would appear[,]

to be beginning to actually flank our position . . ..”       Id.   Officer Rafferty

described Calderone as having the rifle “shouldered, it would be considered

what is port arms or kind of a considered like a low ready position. It is a

combat position, rifle in his shoulder and moving out.”                Id. at 158

(emphasis added).      Officer Shultz, who had taken cover behind a tower,

recalled that Calderone had “shot through the [SUV] directly towards our

direction . . ..”   Id. at 109.    Officer Shultz testified: “[The] tower I was

standing behind took several direct impacts from those rounds where I had to

. . . duck down . . . I don’t know if it was pieces of metal, debris, dirt, whatever

was coming off that tower from the rounds hitting me . . ..” Id. at 109-10.

According to Officer Shultz, Calderone’s “shots were coming directly at us.

The only thing we had to do was take cover at that point.”             Id. at 111.

Detective Martin testified: “I vividly recall the rounds sailing over top or by my

head. There is a different sound from a shot being shot away from me versus

being shot towards me.” Id. at 142. When asked whether Calderone’s pattern

of fire was random, Detective Martin replied, “Oh, that was directed to fire at

. . . the officers’ location. That was not random in any way, shape or form.

                                      - 21 -
J-S19044-23

It was directed at us.” Id. During Calderone’s subsequent attempt to flank

the officers, Officer Rafferty released another volley of approximately twenty

rounds, during which he struck Calderone. See id. at 158. Officer Shultz

opined of Officer Rafferty’s return fire: “Fortunately[,] that saved our lives

more than likely.” Id. at 111.

      In sum, the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth

as the verdict-winner establishes Calderone committed attempted murder and

aggravated assault of Hock, Officers Shultz and Rafferty, and Detective

Martin: Calderone fired shots toward Hock’s head while in the golf cart

(evinced by the bullet hole in the windshield of the cart); he caused a head

injury to Detective Martin; Officer Shultz testified that Calderone’s shots were

coming directly at him; Detective Martin recalled shots traveling by his head;

Officer Rafferty described Calderone as taking a “combat position” as he fired

at them. Based on the above evidence, taken in the light most favorable to

the Commonwealth, and with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, the

evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Calderone

fired his assault rifle at Hock, Officers Shultz and Rafferty, and Detective

Martin, with the intent to cause serious bodily injury and death. See Fortune,

68 A.3d at 984; Commonwealth v. Predmore, 199 A.3d 925, 931 (Pa.

Super. 2018) (en banc) (noting that “the use of a deadly weapon directed at

a vital organ of another human being justifies a factual presumption that the

actor intended death unless the testimony contains additional evidence that

                                     - 22 -
J-S19044-23

would demonstrate a contrary intent,” but concluding, under the specific

circumstance where Predmore had shot the legs of his victim, which are not

vital organs, that the presumption was not applicable) (internal citation and

quotations omitted; emphasis added).8 Because counsel cannot be ineffective

for   failing   to   preserve    a   meritless     issue,   Calderone’s   assertion   of

ineffectiveness, based on a failure to preserve sufficiency challenges to his

convictions, warrants no relief.        See Johnson, 179 A.3d at 1115 (counsel

cannot be ineffective for failing to preserve a meritless issue).

       In his last issue, Calderone argues trial counsel were ineffective for

failing to preserve for appeal challenges to the discretionary aspects of his

sentence. To succeed on an ineffectiveness claim involving preservation of a

discretionary aspects of sentencing issue, a PCRA petitioner must demonstrate

that the underlying sentencing issue has merit. See Commonwealth v.

Jones, 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“[I]f the PCRA court can

determine from the record that the sentence was not excessive ... then there

is no underlying merit to the ineffectiveness claim and the claim must fail.”);

see also Commonwealth v. Reaves, 923 A.2d 1119, 1131-32 (Pa. 2007)

(claim of ineffectiveness for failure to preserve discretionary sentencing issue

____________________________________________

8 The jury evidently disbelieved, as it was entitled to, Calderone’s insanity
defense and credited the testimony evincing his specific intent to kill. See
Greenlee, 212 A.3d at 1042 (stating that the jury is free to believe all, part,
or none of the evidence).

                                          - 23 -
J-S19044-23

requires a showing of reasonable probability that sentencing court would have

imposed lesser sentence).

      “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.” Commonwealth v. Barnes, 167 A.3d 110, 122 n.9 (Pa. Super.

2017) (en banc). “Where the sentencing court had the benefit of a [PSI], we

can assume the sentencing court was aware of relevant information regarding

the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with

mitigating statutory factors.” Commonwealth v. Hill, 210 A.3d 1104, 1117

(Pa. Super. 2019) (internal citation and quotations omitted). “Further, where

a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law

views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Id. (internal

citation omitted). A trial court does not abuse its discretion by merely giving

a defendant’s mitigation evidence less weight than the defendant would like.

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

defendant is not entitled to a “‘volume discount’ because the crimes occurred

during one criminal enterprise.” Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d

581, 589 (Pa. Super. 2010). Where there are multiple victims resulting from

violent criminal offenses, “[t]he mere fact that the crimes arose out of the

same incident does not mean that [the defendant] is entitled to receive

concurrent sentences.” Commonwealth v. Bonner, 135 A.3d 592, 605 (Pa.

Super. 2016) (internal citation omitted).

                                    - 24 -
J-S19044-23

      Calderone argues his trial attorneys were ineffective for failing to

preserve a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. He relies

on the evidence that showed he was “drugged by his wife” at the time. See

Calderone’s Brief at 40. He relies on his lack of prior criminal history and

points out “there is no evidence that he would commit [an act like this] in the

future.” Id. at 41. He argues the evidence demonstrates “good character,

steady work history, good family support, and, most significantly, there is no

evidence he tried to hurt anyone. And this act was truly aberrant conduct.”

Id. Thus, Calderone argues the trial court failed to consider his mitigating

evidence and imposed an excessive sentence.         See id. at 43.     He also

maintains the trial court “based nearly its entire sentence on the seriousness

of the offense” and did not give an adequate rationale for imposing the

sentence. Id. at 47. He additionally asserts the trial court failed to consider

his rehabilitative needs vis-à-vis his mental health issues. See id. at 49.

      The PCRA court considered this issue and determined it lacks merit

because Calderone could not show the trial court abused its discretion:

            At the sentencing hearing . . ., the [PSI] was discussed and
      defense counsel was given the opportunity to add to or correct it.
      It was confirmed that the sentencing court reviewed the PSI. The
      sentencing court also considered the Ohio Risk Assessment
      System Community Supervision tool. Psychiatrist, Dr. Richard
      Fischbein, who testified at trial, also testified at the sentencing
      hearing and elaborated upon the Ohio Risk Assessment System
      Community Supervision tool. In addition, Dr. Fischbein testified
      at length regarding the [Calderone’s] social, psychological,
      psychiatric and emotional history. Dr. Fischbein’s two reports
      were incorporated into the record at the sentencing hearing.

                                    - 25 -
J-S19044-23

           [Calderone’s] social and family histories were supplemented
     at the sentencing hearing beyond that which was set forth in the
     PSI. In addition to that, [Calderone’s] educational history and
     employment status were also considered, including a letter from
     [Calderone’s] co-workers. The lack of any prior criminal record
     was discussed and considered by the sentencing court. The
     sentencing court held a hearing on the issue of merger of offenses
     and properly excluded several counts [as] having merged with the
     attempted murder count.

           The entire trial record was incorporated into the sentencing
     hearing record.     [Calderone] was given an opportunity for
     allocution and declined.

           After a full opportunity was provided to [Calderone] and the
     Commonwealth to present evidence and make argument, the
     sentencing court expressed the reasons for the sentences
     pronounced. The sentencing court discussed [Calderone’s]
     deliberate and meticulous assembly of an arsenal of weapons and
     ammunition, including an AK-47.

            At the sentencing hearing, the court expressly considered
     the testimony of Dr. Fischbein but rejected it as being incredible.
     The sentencing court “considered the totality of the evidence at
     trial, and here at sentencing, an[d] [found] no credible evidence
     of sufficient weight so as to cause [the sentencing court] to
     mitigate the sentence below the standard range.” The Ohio Risk
     Assessment tool was considered, but the result of that assessment
     was found to be incredible due to the fact that it is primarily based
     upon [Calderone’s] self[-]reporting[,] and the inconsistencies of
     answers and reporting that he provided on different occasions.

           The sentencing court determined that [Calderone], and
     [Calderone] alone, was responsible for his meticulously planned
     shooting rampage . . ..

                                   ****

           The sentencing court proceeded to recite the [p]rior [r]ecord
     [s]core, the [o]ffense [g]ravity [s]core and the [s]tandard [r]ange
     for each count. The sentence for each count was within the
     [s]tandard [r]ange.

                                   ****

                                    - 26 -
J-S19044-23

           In addition, in ordering the Ohio Risk Assessment, the
     sentencing court obviously focused upon [Calderone’s]
     amenability to rehabilitation. That is the prime focus of a risk
     assessment: To determine the risk of recidivism. . . . The fact
     that [the court] found the conclusions of the [r]isk [a]ssessment
     incredible in this case does not negate the fact that [the court]
     ordered its completion and considered it. . . ..

                                   ****

            In the present case, [Calderone] was convicted of
     attempting to murder four [] persons, including three [] police
     officers and one [] co-worker. [Calderone] was sentence[ed]
     consecutively for these four [] convictions, plus the [a]ggravated
     [a]ssault upon a police officer . . .. The sentencing court chose to
     sentence [Calderone] concurrently for the four [] [REAP] counts.
     [Calderone] should not get a “volume discount” on this case . . ..
     [Calderone] was convicted of trying to kill four [] persons and for
     causing shrapnel to hit a police officer in the head, and justice
     requires that he serve a separate, consecutive sentence for each
     of those counts.

                                   ****

            . . . [T]he sentencing court elaborated at length as to the
     reasons for the sentences. The PSI was discussed, as was
     [Calderone’s] and his expert psychiatrist’s claims to a lack of need
     for rehabilitation due to the incident being “out of character.” The
     fact that th[e] court found those claims to be incredible does not
     mean that they were not considered. Incapacitation was cited as
     a primary reason for the sentences: It was expressly stated that
     the public must be protected from someone, such as [Calderone],
     who has the capacity within [himself] to assemble an arsenal in
     the back of [his] SUV, to drive it to work and to unload multiple
     clips from an automatic assault style weapon on several police
     officers and a co[-]worker.

                                   ****

           It is reiterated that the need for incapacitation, deterrence,
     and punishment was determined to outweigh [Calderone’s] need
     for rehabilitation. Again, the determination that the need for
     incapacitation     outweighs     [Calderone’s]     amenability    to

                                    - 27 -
J-S19044-23

       rehabilitation does not mean that [Calderone’s] amenability to
       rehabilitation was ignored. It means that the sentencing court
       indeed engaged in a balancing of the purposes of sentencing and
       that the sentencing court made a determination of that balance
       against [Calderone].

PCRA Court Opinion, 7/5/22, at 5-9, 12-13, 14-16 (internal citations to the

record omitted).

       Following our review, we conclude Calderone has failed to show the

PCRA court abused its discretion or committed an error of law.     The PCRA

court’s lengthy and thoughtful recapitulation of the sentencing hearing

demonstrates the sentencing court thoroughly considered the circumstances

of this case as well as Calderone’s mitigation evidence and rehabilitative

needs; therefore, the outcome of his direct appeal would not have differed

had trial counsel preserved challenges to the discretionary aspects of his

sentence.9    We note the sentencing court considered Calderone’s PSI and

therefore was presumptively aware of Calderone’s character and rehabilitative

needs. See N.T., 7/17/19, at 2 (sentencing court indicating it reviewed the

PSI); see also Hill, 210 A.3d at 1117. Additionally, the sentencing court

reviewed two psychiatric reports and a risk assessment, though it did not

____________________________________________

9 An assertion that a sentencing court imposed an excessive sentence and
failed to consider a defendant’s mitigating evidence or rehabilitative needs
raises a substantial question, as does an assertion that the sentencing court
failed to adequately state its reasons for the sentence.          See, e.g.,
Commonwealth v. Rush, 162 A.3d 530, 543-44 (Pa. Super. 2017) (stating
that an assertion that the trial court also failed to consider, among other
things, a defendant’s rehabilitative needs, and thereby imposed an
unreasonable and excessive sentence, presents a substantial question).

                                          - 28 -
J-S19044-23

afford them the weight Calderone desired. See N.T., 7/17/19, at 21 (court

discussing Calderone’s expert reports and risk assessments); see also

Macias, 968 A.2d at 778 (sentencing court does not abuse its discretion by

giving less weight to mitigation evidence than a defendant prefers).

Calderone’s consecutive sentences were all in the standard range, which is

presumptively appropriate.    See Hill, 210 A.3d at 1117. Additionally, the

consecutive sentences for attempted murder were because Calderone

attempted to kill four different people; and the one consecutive sentence for

an aggravated assault (causing bodily injury to a police officer) conviction,

that did not merge with the attempted murder convictions, was because

Calderone succeeded in causing bodily injury to Detective Martin. See N.T.,

7/17/19, at 26; see also Bonner, 135 A.3d at 605 (defendants are not

entitled to a volume discount where there are multiple victims of criminal

conduct even if it occurred during the same incident). The sentencing court

spent considerable time articulating its reasoning. See N.T., 7/17/19, at 19-

28. The foregoing shows Calderone has failed to show prejudice, i.e., that the

outcome of his appeal would have been different had trial counsel preserved

challenges to the discretionary aspects of his sentence.       Because counsel

cannot be ineffective for failing to preserve a meritless claim, Calderone is due

no relief. See Jones, 942 A.2d at 906; see also Reaves, 923 A.2d at 1131-

32. Accordingly, we affirm the PCRA court’s order denying relief.

      Order affirmed.

                                     - 29 -
J-S19044-23

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 04/19/2024

                           - 30 -