Court Opinion

ID: 9395792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 16:11:38.095455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:11.347196
License: Public Domain

J-S13041-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 DAVID ANDRAUSKAS                      :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 2187 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 28, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-09-CR-0001604-2020

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 DAVID ANDRAUSKAS                      :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 2188 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 28, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-09-CR-0001605-2020

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 DAVID ANDRAUSKAS                      :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 2189 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 28, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-09-CR-0001606-2020

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
J-S13041-23

                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 DAVID ANDRAUSKAS                       :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 2190 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 28, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-09-CR-0001607-2020

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 DAVID ANDRAUSKAS                       :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 2191 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 28, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-09-CR-0001608-2020

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 DAVID ANDRAUSKAS                       :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 2192 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 28, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-09-CR-0001611-2020

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :

                                  -2-
J-S13041-23

    DAVID ANDRAUSKAS                             :
                                                 :
                       Appellant                 :   No. 2193 EDA 2022

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 28, 2022
       In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-09-CR-0001612-2020

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                                 :
                v.                               :
                                                 :
                                                 :
    DAVID ANDRAUSKAS                             :
                                                 :
                       Appellant                 :   No. 2194 EDA 2022

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 28, 2022
       In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-09-CR-0001613-2020

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                                 :
                v.                               :
                                                 :
                                                 :
    DAVID ANDRAUSKAS                             :
                                                 :
                       Appellant                 :   No. 2195 EDA 2022

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 28, 2022
       In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-09-CR-0001614-2020

BEFORE:      NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                              FILED MAY 18, 2023

____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

                                           -3-
J-S13041-23

        In these consolidated appeals,1 David Andrauskas appeals from the June

28, 2022 aggregate judgment of sentence of 6½ to 13 years’ imprisonment,

plus $10,905.60 in restitution, imposed after he pled guilty to multiple counts

of burglary, fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and related

offenses2 at nine different criminal dockets. After careful review, we affirm

the judgment of sentence.

        The relevant facts of this case are summarized at length in the trial court

opinion and need not be reiterated here. See trial court opinion, 12/21/22 at

1-5; notes of testimony, 6/28/22 at 5-17.

        The procedural history of this case, as gleaned from the certified record,

is as follows. On April 27, 2022, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to

multiple counts of burglary, fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and

related offenses. These charges stemmed from Appellant’s involvement in a

series of burglaries of various retail businesses located in Bucks County,

Pennsylvania, between January 4 through February 8, 2020.

        On June 28, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate

term of 6½ to 13 years’ imprisonment, plus a restitution in the amount of

$10,905.60. The record reflects that Appellant received credit for time-served

since February 8, 2020.

____________________________________________

1 The appeals in this matter were sua sponte consolidated by this Court on
January 3, 2023.

2   18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a)(4) and 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3733(a), respectively.

                                           -4-
J-S13041-23

       On June 30, 2022, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion for

reconsideration of sentence at each trial court docket. The trial court denied

Appellant’s motions on July 22, 2022. This timely appeal followed.3

       Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

              Did the [trial] court abuse its discretion by imposing a
              sentence that exceeded what is necessary to protect
              the public and to rehabilitate [Appellant], and that
              failed to consider other factors related to [Appellant’s]
              rehabilitative    needs,     family,     and    pre-trial
              incarceration[?]

Appellant’s brief at 4.

       Our standard of review in assessing whether a trial court has erred in

fashioning a sentence is well settled. “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. Zirkle,

107 A.3d 127, 132 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 117

A.3d 297 (Pa. 2015). Appellant must “establish, by reference to the record,

that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its

____________________________________________

3 Nine separate notices of appeal, each containing one trial court docket
number, were filed on Monday, August 22, 2022. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908 (for
computations of time, if the last day of any such period shall fall on a Saturday,
Sunday, or on a legal holiday, such day shall be omitted from the
computation). On August 9, 2022, counsel for Appellant had previously filed
nine notices of appeal, each containing all nine trial court dockets. On August
22, 2022, counsel filed an application to withdraw those appeals, which was
granted on October 4, 2022. Appellant and the trial court have complied with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

                                           -5-
J-S13041-23

judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or arrived at a

manifestly unreasonable decision.” Commonwealth v. Bullock, 170 A.3d

1109, 1123 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 184 A.3d

944 (Pa. 2018).

      Where an appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence,

as is the case here, the right to appellate review is not absolute.

Commonwealth v. Conte, 198 A.3d 1169, 1173 (Pa.Super. 2018), appeal

denied, 206 A.3d 1029 (Pa. 2019). On the contrary, an appellant challenging

the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction

by satisfying the following four-part test:

            (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether
            appellant preserved his 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.

Commonwealth v. Carrillo-Diaz, 64 A.3d 722, 725 (Pa.Super. 2013)

(citations omitted).

      Instantly, the record reveals that Appellant filed a timely notice of

appeal and preserved his claim in a post-sentence motion. Appellant has also

included a statement in his brief that comports with the requirements of

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f).     See Appellant’s brief at 14-16.   Accordingly, we must

determine whether Appellant has raised a substantial question.

                                      -6-
J-S13041-23

      “The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.”      Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d

932, 935 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 76 A.3d 538

(Pa. 2013). “A substantial question exists only when appellant advances a

colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were either:

(1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or

(2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing

process.”   Commonwealth v. Glass, 50 A.3d 720, 727 (Pa.Super. 2012)

(citation omitted), appeal denied, 63 A.3d 774 (Pa. 2013).

      Here, Appellant baldly contends that his standard-range sentences

“exceeded what is necessary to protect the public and to rehabilitate [him],”

and that the sentencing court “failed to consider other factors related to his

rehabilitative needs, family, and pre-trial incarceration[.]” Appellant’s brief at

14, 16.

      “This Court repeatedly has held that a claim of inadequate consideration

of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review.”

Commonwealth v. Crawford, 257 A.3d 75, 79 (Pa.Super. 2021) (citations

omitted). In Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa.Super. 2015),

appeal denied, 126 A.3d 1282 (Pa. 2015), a panel of this Court reiterated

that, “ordinarily, a claim that the sentencing court failed to consider or accord

proper weight to a specific sentencing factor does not raise a substantial

question.” Id. at 769. Likewise, in Commonwealth v. Cannon, 954 A.2d

                                      -7-
J-S13041-23

1222 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 964 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2009), we held

that a claim that the trial court failed to consider the defendant’s rehabilitative

needs, age, and educational background did not present a substantial question

for review. Id. at 1228-1229.

       Based on the foregoing, we find that Appellant’s argument fails to raise

a substantial question, and, therefore, he has not preserved his challenge to

the discretionary aspects of sentencing. Accordingly, we affirm the June 28,

2022 judgment of sentence.4

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

       Judge Murray joins this Memorandum.

      Judge Nichols concurs in the result.

____________________________________________

4  Even if Appellant had raised a substantial question for this Court's
consideration, we would find no abuse of discretion. Contrary to Appellant’s
contention, our review of the June 28, 2022 sentencing hearing transcript
reveals that the trial court considered and weighed numerous factors in
fashioning Appellant’s sentence, including his rehabilitative and treatment
needs and the impact of his crimes on the public. See notes of testimony,
6/28/22 at 29-30, 41-43, 52.

                                           -8-
J-S13041-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/18/2023

                          -9-