Court Opinion

ID: 9910431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 17:08:47.821735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:55.164784
License: Public Domain

J-S44006-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  ROBERT TODD                                  :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1756 EDA 2023

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 17, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-09-CR-0001004-2023

BEFORE:      OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                            FILED DECEMBER 15, 2023

       Appellant, Robert Todd, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered

May 17, 2023, as made final by the denial of his post-sentence motion on May

31, 2023. We affirm.

       The facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.        On

November 2, 2022, Appellant

        stole copper piping from the Hammock Hotel (hereinafter “the
        Hotel”) in Levittown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, valued at
        $2,000[.00]. The Hotel’s owner, Nishant Ghael, advised that[,
        at the time Appellant stole the piping,] the Hotel was closed for
        business due to renovations and that he did not authorize
        Appellant to be on the property. Appellant entered the Hotel
        from an opening where an air conditioning unit was previously
        installed and ran from police when they arrived on scene.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/25/23, at 1.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S44006-23

       On May 17, 2023, Appellant entered a guilty plea to criminal trespass,

theft by unlawful taking, and receiving stolen property.1 That same day, the

trial court imposed a mitigated-range sentence of nine to 23 months’

incarceration. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion on May 25, 2023, which

the trial court denied on May 31, 2023. This timely appeal followed.

       Appellant raises the following issue on appeal:

        Did the trial court abuse its discretion in sentencing Appellant
        by imposing a manifestly excessive sentence and failing to
        consider all relevant factors?

Appellant’s Brief at 7.

       Appellant raises a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence.

This Court previously explained:

        It is well-settled that “the right to appeal a discretionary aspect
        of sentence is not absolute.” Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20
        A.3d 1215, 1220 (Pa. Super. 2011). Rather, where an appellant
        challenges the discretionary aspects of a sentence, we should
        regard his[, or her,] appeal as a petition for allowance of appeal.
        Commonwealth v. W.H.M., 932 A.2d 155, 162 (Pa. Super.
        2007). As we stated in Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d
        162 (Pa. Super. 2010):

              An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of
              his[, or her,] sentence must invoke this Court's
              jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:

                We conduct a four-part analysis to determine:
                (1) whether appellant [] filed a timely notice of
                appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether
                the issue was properly preserved at sentencing
                or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence,
                see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether appellant's
                brief has a fatal defect, [see] Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f);
____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3503, 3921, and 3925, respectively.

                                           -2-
J-S44006-23

              and (4) whether there is a substantial question
              that the sentence appealed from is not
              appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42
              Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).

       [Moury, 992 A.2d] at 170 [(citation omitted)].

Commonwealth v. Hill, 210 A.3d 1104, 1116 (Pa. Super. 2019) (original

brackets omitted).

      Herein, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, preserved his

sentencing challenge by filing a post-sentence motion, and included a Rule

2119(f) concise statement in his appellate brief. See Appellant's Brief at 9-10.

Thus, we turn to whether Appellant raised a substantial question.             A

substantial question exists when an appellant presents a colorable argument

that the sentence imposed is either (1) “inconsistent with a specific provision

of the sentencing code” or (2) is “contrary to the fundamental norms which

underlie the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d

581, 585 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 14 A.3d 825

(Pa. 2011).   This issue is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.      Id. at 587

(citation omitted). This Court will not look beyond the statement of questions

involved and the prefatory Rule 2119(f) statement to determine whether a

substantial question exists. Commonwealth v. Radecki, 180 A.3d 441, 468

(Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted). Moreover, for purposes of determining

what constitutes a substantial question, “we do not accept bald assertions of

sentencing errors,” but rather require an appellant to “articulat[e] the way in

                                     -3-
J-S44006-23

which the court's actions violated the sentencing code.” Commonwealth v.

Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247, 1252 (Pa. 2006).

      Appellant’s Rule 2119(f) statement lodges two claims, neither of which

raise a substantial question. First, Appellant claims that “the trial court failed

to consider all relevant factors such as [his] family history, age, or

rehabilitative needs.” Appellant’s Brief at 9. Ostensibly, Appellant's argument

implies that the trial court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors.

Our case law is clear, however, that claims of inadequate consideration of

mitigating factors do not raise a substantial question. See Commonwealth

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

v. Velez, 273 A.3d 6, 10 (Pa. Super. 2022) (noting that the “weight accorded

to the mitigating factors or aggravating factors presented to the sentencing

court is within the [sentencing] court's exclusive domain.”).

      Second, Appellant avers that the “sentence imposed by the trial court

was manifestly excessive and unreasonable.”           Appellant’s Brief at 10.

Appellant, however, failed to “sufficiently articulate[] the manner in which the

sentence imposed violate[d] a specific provision of the Sentencing Code or the

norms underlying the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Derrickson,

242 A.3d 667, 680 (Pa. Super. 2020); see also Commonwealth v. Mouzon,

812 A.2d 617, 627 (Pa. 2002) (“[O]nly where the appellant’s Rule 2119(f)

statement sufficiently articulates the manner in which the sentence violates

either a specific provision of the sentencing scheme set forth in the Sentencing

Code or a particular fundamental norm underlying the sentencing process, will

                                      -4-
J-S44006-23

such a statement be deemed adequate to raise a substantial question so as

to permit a grant of allowance of appeal of the discretionary aspects of the

sentence.”).   To the contrary, Appellant recognizes that the trial court

sentenced him in the mitigated range and offers no explanation of how, by

doing so, the trial court committed an error of law.

      Because neither of Appellant’s claims raise a substantial question, we

will not review the merits of his discretionary sentencing claim.

      Order affirmed.

      Judge Nichols joins.

      Judge Colins concurs in the result.

Date: 12/15/2023

                                     -5-