Court Opinion

ID: 9945857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 17:11:23.405787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:16.090277
License: Public Domain

J-A29028-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 JAYME WAYNE WALTER                    :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 94 WDA 2023

    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 29, 2022
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Criminal Division at No(s):
                        CP-07-CR-0002440-2021

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 JAYME WAYNE WALTER                    :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 95 WDA 2023

    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 29, 2022
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Criminal Division at No(s):
                        CP-07-CR-0000863-2022

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 JAYME WAYNE WALTER                    :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 96 WDA 2023

    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 29, 2022
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Criminal Division at No(s):
                        CP-07-CR-0000864-2022
J-A29028-23

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                   FILED: February 28, 2024

      Jayme Wayne Walter appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed

after he pled guilty to multiple drug related offenses. He claims that the trial

court abused its discretion when it denied his post-sentence motion without a

hearing. Upon review, we affirm.

      The trial court detailed the facts of this case in its opinion, which we

need not repeat. Briefly, this matter arises out of two separate controlled

buys between Walter and a confidential informant for methamphetamine. On

another occasion, Walter drove to Allentown to pick up drugs and bring them

back to Blair County. Upon his return, Walter was pulled over and a search

of the vehicle uncovered cell phones, $1,000 cash, six pounds of

methamphetamine and various amounts of cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl.

Walter was arrested and charged at three separate dockets with various

offenses.

      On September 14, 2022, the day his trial was to start, Walter entered

an open guilty plea in all three cases to six counts of possession with intent to

deliver controlled substances including methamphetamine, fentanyl, heroin,

and cocaine, three counts of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, four

counts of possession of a controlled substance, one count of use/possession

drug paraphernalia, three counts of criminal use of a communication facility,

and one count each of corrupt organizations, conspiracy to commit corrupt

                                      -2-
J-A29028-23

organizations, dealing in proceeds of unlawful activities, and dealing in

proceeds of unlawful activities (designed to conceal).1

       On November 29, 2022, the trial court sentenced Walter to an

aggregate term of 32 ½ to 65 years’ incarceration.        Walter filed a post-

sentence motion, which the trial court denied without a hearing.

       Walter filed this timely appeal. He and the trial court complied with

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

       On appeal, Walter raises the following single issue:

       Did the post-sentence motion’s court abuse [its] discretion by
       denying [Walter’s] post-sentence motion without a hearing given
       the lengthy sentence the court imposed?

Walter’s Brief at 5.

       Walter claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied

his post-sentence motion without a hearing.      Walter maintains that this is

particularly so considering the lengthy sentence the court imposed. According

to Walter, the court did not give him a hearing because he previously acted

out in court and the court “did not want to possibly have to hear him complain

about the Commonwealth and his sentence.”2 Walter’s Brief at 9.
____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903, 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30), (a)(16), (a)(32), 18
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 7512, 911(b)(3), 911(b)(4), 5111(a)(1), and 5111(a)(2).

2 We note that Walter makes several other arguments claiming the trial court

abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. However, Walter
did not include any issue regarding the discretionary aspects of his sentence
in his statement of questions involved on appeal. An appellant is required to
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -3-
J-A29028-23

       Initially, based upon our review of the record, we observe that Walter

did not include any issue in his Rule 1925(b) statement regarding the court’s

denial of a hearing on his post-sentence motion. Instead, he claimed that

his sentence was manifestly excessive and raised various issues pertaining

to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Issues not included in the Rule

1925(b) statement are waived. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); Commonwealth

v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998). Consequently, Walter’s sole appellate

issue is waived.

       Nonetheless, even if Walter had not waived his issue, we would conclude

that it is without merit. Notably, Walter cited no authority to support his claim.

____________________________________________

“state concisely the issues to be resolved [by this Court], expressed in the
terms and circumstances of the case but without unnecessary detail.”
Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a). “This rule is to be considered in the highest degree
mandatory, admitting of no exception; ordinarily no point will be considered
which is not set forth in the statement of questions involved or suggested
thereby.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 424 A.2d 531, 533 (Pa. Super. 1981).
In accord with the clear language of Rule 2116(a) that “no question will be
considered” unless it is included within the statement of issues, we conclude
that any arguments related to the discretionary aspects of Walter’s sentence
are waived.

Furthermore, Walter did not include a concise statement of reasons relied
upon for allowance of appeal of the discretionary aspects of sentence pursuant
to Rule 2119(f) in his appellate brief. Generally, “[w]here an appellant fails
to comply with Rule 2119(f) and the Commonwealth objects, the issue is
waived for purposes of review.” Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 861 A.2d
304, 308 (Pa. Super. 2004).            Here, the Commonwealth objected.
Commonwealth's Brief at 7. Therefore, Walter’s arguments regarding the
discretionary aspects of his sentence are waived on this basis also.

                                           -4-
J-A29028-23

Rather, he only made a blanket statement that the trial court abused its

discretion by not conducting a hearing.3 Indeed, Walter could not offer any

legal support for his claim. It is clear that the decision to hold a hearing on a

post-sentence motion is within the trial court’s discretion. Pennsylvania Rule

of Criminal Procedure 720(B)(2)(b) provides: “The judge shall [] determine

whether a hearing or argument on the motion is required, and if so, shall

schedule a date or dates certain for one or both.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(2)(b).

As such, there is no right to a hearing on a post-sentence motion. We would

conclude that Walter’s issue merits no relief.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

DATE: 2/28/2024

____________________________________________

3 An appellant must provide a legal argument for each question, which should

include a discussion and citation of pertinent authorities. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).
“[I]t is an appellant's duty to present arguments that are sufficiently
developed for our review. The brief must support the claims with pertinent
discussion, with references to the record and with citations to legal
authorities.” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super.
2007) (internal citation omitted). Walter’s appellate brief fails to develop any
meaningful legal argument or analysis on this issue. It therefore fails to
comply with the rules of appellate procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

                                           -5-