Court Opinion

ID: 9556234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-16 16:09:27.994585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:20.274167
License: Public Domain

J-S25023-23

  NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  THEODORE LEGGETT                             :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1984 EDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 29, 2019
            In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
                Criminal Division at CP-51-CR-0010053-2017

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                              FILED AUGUST 16, 2023

       Theodore Leggett (Appellant) appeals nunc pro tunc from the judgment

of sentence entered after a jury convicted him of possession of a firearm by a

person prohibited.1 We affirm.

       The trial court summarized the following testimony presented at trial:

                     [] Philadelphia Police Officer Brian Gable

       The first witness for the Commonwealth was Philadelphia Police
       Officer Gable, who testified as follows. On July 16, 2017, while on
       patrol in a marked police vehicle, Officer Gable received a radio
       call that a man was being beaten up inside a home by two (2)
       black males armed with guns. He arrived at the scene shortly
       thereafter and observed Appellant, who matched the description
       of one of the males from the radio call, walking down the street.
       At the same time, Officer Gable observed a man with a torn shirt
       who yelled, screamed, pointed toward Appellant and said, “that’s
       the male that robbed me.” Officer Gable made a U-turn to catch
       up with Appellant, then observed him reach into his waistband,
____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1).
J-S25023-23

       remove a firearm, point it downward at his side, and drop it onto
       the street. Officer Gable caught up to Appellant and subsequently
       arrested him. Officer Gable also recovered the firearm, a black
       Jimenez .380 semiautomatic handgun, from the street where
       Appellant had just discarded it moments before he was stopped.
       Officer Gable checked the firearm to ensure that it was safe and
       found that there was no ammunition inside it. N.T. 1/16/2019, at
       30-48.

                                  [] Leticia Buchanan

       The second and final witness for the Commonwealth was Leticia
       Buchanan …. The Commonwealth and trial counsel for Appellant
       stipulated that Ms. Buchanan was an expert in the areas of
       firearms identification and operability. Ms. Buchanan testified that
       she was a firearms examiner with the Philadelphia Police
       Department and was responsible for testing firearms. In this case,
       she was asked to examine and test the firearm that was recovered
       from the street after it was discarded by Appellant just prior to his
       arrest. Ms. Buchanan testified her testing of the firearm revealed
       that it was fully operational. Id. at 71-77.

                                     [] Stipulations

       The Commonwealth and trial counsel for Appellant stipulated that
       Appellant was previously convicted of a criminal offense in 1995
       which made him ineligible to possess any firearm pursuant to
       6105 of the Uniform Firearms Act. Id at 77.

Trial Court Opinion, 11/28/22, at 3-4.

       After a two-day trial, the jury convicted Appellant of possession of a

firearm by a person prohibited. The trial court, with the benefit of a pre-

sentence investigation (PSI) report, sentenced Appellant to 7½ - 15 years in

prison.2 Counsel for Appellant “attempted to file a post-sentence motion for

____________________________________________

2 Appellant’s sentence is below the mitigated range of the sentencing
guidelines and the Commonwealth’s requested sentence of 9 - 18 years.

                                           -2-
J-S25023-23

reconsideration of sentence but failed to pay for it, resulting in the motion not

being entered.” Trial Court Opinion, 11/28/22, at 5. Nonetheless, the trial

court considered the motion, which it denied on May 14, 2019.             Appellant

timely appealed.

       On appeal, Appellant claimed the trial court considered inappropriate

sentencing factors. Commonwealth v. Leggett, 248 A.3d 941 (Pa. Super.

2021) (unpublished memorandum at 2). This Court found Appellant waived

the issue by not including it in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement. Id.

(unpublished memorandum at 4).                 Accordingly, we affirmed Appellant’s

judgment of sentence. Id.

       On January 20, 2022, Appellant timely filed a pro se Post Conviction

Relief Act (PCRA)3 petition followed by a counseled petition. Appellant claimed

his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve Appellant’s sentencing

issue. The Commonwealth did not oppose the reinstatement of Appellant’s

direct appeal rights. On July 18, 2022, the PCRA court granted the requested

relief.4 Appellant filed a notice of appeal on August 2, 2022. On October 6,

2022, the PCRA court entered an order expressly reinstating Appellant’s direct

appeal rights. PCRA Court Order, 10/6/22. Thus, the appeal is properly before

us.    See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a) (providing that notice of appeal filed after

____________________________________________

3 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.

4 Although this Court requested a copy of the order from the trial court, a copy

has not been located.

                                           -3-
J-S25023-23

announcement of a ruling, but before entry of the order, “shall be treated as

filed after such entry and on the day thereof.”). Appellant and the PCRA court

have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

       Appellant presents two questions for review:

       1. Did the trial court err, abuse its discretion, and/or make a
          mistake of law in considering the uncharged crime of robbery
          when sentencing Appellant?

       2. Did the trial court err, abuse its discretion, and/or make a
          mistake of law in the situation where Appellant was sentenced
          as a repeat violent offender5 and the [c]ourt considered as an
          additional sentencing factor his past convictions?

Appellant’s Brief at 6 (questions reordered, footnote added).

       Appellant’s issues implicate the discretionary aspects of his sentence. A

challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence is not appealable as of

right, and is more properly considered a request for permission to appeal:

       Before [this Court may] reach the merits of [a challenge to
       the discretionary aspects of a sentence], we must engage in a four
       part analysis to determine: (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 [see Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f)]; and (4) whether the concise
       statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is
       appropriate under the sentencing code.... [I]f the appeal satisfies
       each of these four requirements we will then proceed to decide
       the substantive merits of the case.

____________________________________________

5
  “Repeat Violent Offender Category [REVOC]” is the Prior Record Score
category set forth at 204 Pa. Code § 303.4(a)(1).

                                           -4-
J-S25023-23

Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 759 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation

omitted, brackets in original).

      Appellant has satisfied the above requirements. He (1) timely filed his

nunc pro tunc appeal; (2) preserved his claims in his post-sentence motion;

and (3) included in his brief a Rule 2119(f) statement. Appellant also presents

a substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Ali, 197 A.3d 742, 760 (Pa.

Super. 2018) (recognizing claim that sentencing court relied on impermissible

factors raises a substantial question).   We therefore address the merits of

Appellant’s issues.

      Preliminarily, we recognize that sentencing is “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) (citation omitted).

      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 trial 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.

Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843, 847 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation

omitted).

      Appellant first argues the trial court improperly considered an uncharged

robbery at sentencing. Appellant’s Brief at 11-12. Appellant references the

trial testimony of Officer Gable, who stated:

      I observed [Appellant]. I’m still driving. I noticed something but
      I’m still driving to 1908 East Cambria Street. But as I was going

                                      -5-
J-S25023-23

      through the intersection, a witness was on the corner of
      Kensington and Cambria on the east side of the corner. He was
      very excited, jumping up and down, pointing at the male,
      yelling, “That’s the male who robbed me, that’s the male
      who robbed me.” At that point I proceeded to make a U-turn
      because [Appellant] was already past my car and being that the
      flash [radio report] that we had was two black males with both
      having firearms, I tried to keep my eye on him right away. As I’m
      making the U-turn, I can see him pulling from his waistband area
      with his right hand. He had a black firearm…

Id. at 11 (emphasis added) (quoting N.T., 1/16/19, at 34-35). According to

Appellant, the trial court considered the aforementioned uncharged robbery

at sentencing.   Id. at 12.     Appellant bases his assertion on the following

statement by the trial court:

      So I believe this [sentence] is appropriate under the specific facts
      and circumstances of this case which is why I’m going below the
      guidelines. Although this was a robbery, I think allegedly in the
      beginning, there was no robbery testimony presented, and the
      Commonwealth did not move on robbery, even if they could have
      … under [the] excited utterance [hearsay exception] or the police
      testimony, and therefore, I believe that the guidelines call for a
      lesser sentence than the standard, which would be 10 to 20 [years
      in prison], and that’s why I’m going to 7½ to 15. Credit for time
      served.

Id. at 12-13 (quoting N.T., 4/29/19, at 19).

      In considering Appellant’s argument, we are mindful that

      [w]hile sentencing discretion is broad, the trial court’s discretion
      is not unfettered. When imposing sentence, a court is required to
      consider the particular circumstances of the offense and the
      character of the defendant. In considering these factors, the court
      should refer to the defendant’s prior criminal record, age, personal
      characteristics and potential for rehabilitation. And, of course, the
      court must consider the sentencing guidelines. The sentence
      should call for confinement that is consistent with the protection
      of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact

                                      -6-
J-S25023-23

     on the life of the victim and on the community, and the
     rehabilitative needs of the defendant.

Commonwealth v. Bowens, 265 A.3d 730, 764 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citations

and quotation marks omitted).

     “To determine an appropriate penalty, the sentencing court may

consider any evidence it deems relevant.” Commonwealth v. King, 182

A.3d 449, 455 (Pa. Super. 2018). However,

     the court violates the defendant’s right to due process if, in
     deciding upon the sentence, it considers unreliable information, or
     information affecting the court’s impartiality, or information that
     it is otherwise unfair to hold against the defendant. Information
     outside of the record, not subject to review and dispute by the
     parties, is not properly considered.

Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted).

     Instantly, the record does not support Appellant’s claim. The trial court

explained it “only referenced the uncharged crime of Robbery when sentencing

Appellant to explain its downward departure from the sentencing guidelines.”

Trial Court Opinion, 11/20/22, at 11 (emphasis added). The court also pointed

out that evidence of the robbery was presented at trial:

     Philadelphia Police Officer Brian Gable’s testimony during trial
     provided necessary evidentiary proof to link Appellant to the
     conduct. Officer Gable testified that on July 16, 2017, while on
     patrol in a marked police vehicle, he received a radio call that a
     man was being beaten up inside a home by two (2) black males
     armed with guns.

     He arrived at the scene shortly thereafter and observed Appellant,
     who matched the description of one of the males from the radio
     call, walking down the street. At that same time, Officer Gable
     observed a man with a torn shirt who yelled, screamed, pointed
     toward Appellant and said, “that’s the male that robbed me.”

                                    -7-
J-S25023-23

      Officer Gable then made a U-turn to catch up with Appellant at
      which time he observed Appellant reach into his waistband,
      remove a firearm, point it downward at his side, and drop it onto
      the street. Officer Gable then caught up to Appellant and
      subsequently arrested him.

      Not only did Officer Gable testify that the assault victim pointed
      to Appellant and stated he was the person who assaulted and
      robbed him, but there was also a video presented during trial to
      corroborate his statements. There was therefore testimony which
      provided evidentiary proof linking Appellant to the uncharged
      crime of Robbery. [The trial court] properly could have considered
      the conduct as a factor in sentencing.

Trial Court Opinion, 11/20/22, at 11-12. We agree. Thus, Appellant’s first

lacks merit.

      In his second issue, Appellant asserts the trial court improperly

sentenced him as a repeat offender, and “considered as an additional

sentencing factor his past convictions[.]” Appellant’s Brief at 14. Appellant

argues his criminal history was factored into the sentencing guidelines and,

therefore, the trial court erred in sentencing under the REVOC. Id. According

to Appellant, the trial court double-counted factors already taken into account

by the guidelines. Id. Appellant quotes the trial court stating:

      I don’t think [] that is necessarily appropriate here when doing
      individual sentencing. You do have a bad record and especially
      from [the] 1996 incident and some other things cited by the
      Commonwealth. I find it hard to believe that you didn’t know that
      you couldn’t possess a gun because I’m sure state parole told you
      …. [T]he problem with the guns is they get used[;] even though
      there were no bullets in this [gun], they can easily be gotten.

Id. at 15 (quoting N.T., 4/29/19, at 19).

                                     -8-
J-S25023-23

      Appellant argues, “In fashioning its sentence, the court relied on

[Appellant’s] ‘bad’ record, as well as a 1996 conviction, as factors upon which

it imposed the sentence.”     Id. at 15-16.     Appellant claims this “double

counting is not permitted as a matter of Pennsylvania law.” Id. at 16.

      To the contrary, the trial court explained:

      Appellant was appropriately identified under the Prior Record
      Score Categories in 204 Pa. Stat. Ann. 303.4 as a REVOC and this
      [c]ourt was well within the confines of the law when it considered
      during sentencing Appellant’s prior convictions as outlined in
      Appellant’s presentence investigation ….

      For Appellant to be properly categorized as a REVOC, he first
      needed to have two (2) or more previous four-point convictions or
      adjudications. Here, Appellant had a juvenile adjudication of
      delinquency to Rape, a felony of the first degree, and a conviction
      of Aggravated Assault, a felony of the first degree, both of which
      were four-point offenses.      Additionally, Appellant’s current
      conviction needed to carry an Offensive Gravity Score of nine (9)
      or higher. As Appellant’s conviction of Persons Not to Possess,
      Use, Manufacture, Control, Sell or Transfer Firearms carried an
      Offense Gravity Score of eleven (11), Appellant was appropriately
      categorized as a REVOC.

Trial Court Opinion, 11/20/22, at 9-10. The court further stated:

      During Appellant’s sentencing, [the court] considered several
      different factors in fashioning Appellant’s sentence:

         I’ve considered the presentence [investigation report],
         mental health reports, prior record score, the facts, and
         circumstances of this case as well as the sentencing
         guidelines, the [S]entencing [C]ode, what the attorneys
         have had to say as well as what [Appellant] has had to say.
         And what I’m going to do is … I’m going to give a sentence
         of 7½ to 15 years, which is below the guidelines, and I’m
         taking into account the facts and circumstances of this case
         and what occurred.

                                     -9-
J-S25023-23

      N.T. 4/29/2019, at 17-18. … [The c]ourt explained that a
      guidelines sentence was not “necessarily appropriate” despite
      Appellant’s “bad record,” which included a 1996 incident in which
      Appellant was convicted of Aggravated Assault and other related
      charges.

Id. at 10. Finally, the trial court recognized Appellant’s prior convictions were

factored into his prior record score:

      As [the c]ourt previously explained, Appellant’s prior record score
      was properly calculated as a REVOC. The record thus reflects that
      [the c]ourt properly considered Appellant’s prior convictions in
      conjunction with Appellant’s mental health report, the facts and
      circumstances of the case the sentencing guidelines, the purposes
      of the sentencing code, arguments from counsel, and what
      Appellant said to the [c]ourt….

Id. at 10-11.

      Upon review, we discern no error or abuse of discretion by the trial

court’s consideration of Appellant’s criminal record. Appellant’s second issue

does not merit relief.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/16/2023

                                        - 10 -