Court Opinion

ID: 9378792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 16:17:27.997673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:00.361068
License: Public Domain

J-A05015-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    GREGORY BEBEE                              :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1551 EDA 2021

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 9, 2019
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-51-CR-0000764-2019

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

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                              FILED MARCH 13, 2023

        Gregory Bebee entered an open guilty plea to three counts of possession

of a firearm by a person prohibited (F1),1 one count each of carrying a firearm

without a license (F3),2 and carrying a firearm in public on the streets of

Philadelphia (M1).3      The Honorable Scott DiClaudio sentenced Bebee to an

aggregate term of three to six years’ incarceration, followed by five years’

probation. Bebee filed a timely post-sentence motion, which was denied by

operation of law.4       On appeal, Bebee argues his sentence is harsh and
____________________________________________

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105.

2   Id. at § 6106.

3   Id. at § 6108.

4 Bebee did not filed a direct appeal from his October 9, 2019 judgment of
sentence and, instead, filed a pro se PCRA petition on March 4, 2020. The
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A05015-23

excessive. See Appellant’s Brief, at 4. After review, we affirm on the basis

of Judge DeClaudio’s opinion.

       There is no automatic right to appeal from a challenge to the

discretionary aspects of a sentence. See Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d

798, 807-08 (Pa. Super. 2013). Rather, when an appellant challenges the

discretionary aspects of his sentence, we must consider his brief on this issue

as a petition for permission to appeal. Commonwealth v. Yanoff, 690 A.2d

260, 267 (Pa. Super. 1997). Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary

aspects of sentencing issue,

       [this Court conducts] a four-part analysis to determine: (1)
       whether the appellant has 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
____________________________________________

court appointed William Joseph Ciancaglini, Esquire, as counsel. On March 5,
2021, Bebee’s appellate rights were reinstated nunc pro tunc, and Attorney
Ciancaglini was granted permission to withdraw. On July 27, 2021, Bebee
filed a pro se notice of appeal, and this Court issued a rule to show cause why
the appeal should not be quashed as untimely. See Order, 8/11/21, citing
Pa.R.A.P. 105(b); Pa.R.A.P. 121(f); Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). Bebee filed a pro se
response on August 19, 2021, and, on September 21, 2021, this Court entered
an order discharging the rule and referring the matter to the merits panel.
Thereafter, this Court, by per curiam order dated September 26, 2021,
directed the trial court to determine Bebee’s eligibility for court-appointed
counsel, and, if so eligible, to appoint counsel for Bebee within 30 days. On
March 16, 2022, the trial court appointed Peter Alan Levin, Esquire, to
represent Bebee on appeal. See Order, 3/16/22. On June 1, 2022, the trial
court ordered Bebee to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal, which Attorney Levin timely filed on behalf of Bebee
on June 15, 2022. In light of the procedural missteps here, where Bebee’s
appellate rights were reinstated nunc pro tunc, but counsel was permitted to
withdraw prior to filing a notice of appeal, and the trial court thereafter found
Bebee eligible for appointed counsel, we find Bebee’s pro se notice of appeal,
filed on July 27, 2021, timely filed.

                                           -2-
J-A05015-23

      sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. [720]; (3) whether appellant’s brief
      has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); 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).

Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quotation

marks and some citations omitted).          See also Commonwealth v.

Manivannan, 186 A.3d 472, 489 (Pa. Super. 2018) (requirement appellant

set forth reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal furthers purpose evident

in Sentencing Code of limiting challenges to trial court’s evaluation of

multitude of factors impinging on sentencing decision to exceptional cases).

      A substantial question exists “only when the appellant advances a

colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s action 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. Janda, 14 A.3d 147, 165 (Pa. Super. 2011) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Bullock, 868 A.2d 516, 528 (Pa. Super. 2005)).

Additionally, “we cannot look beyond the statement of questions presented

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).       Finally, 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 which the court’s

actions violated the sentencing code.” Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903

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

                                     -3-
J-A05015-23

     Here, Bebee     preserved his claim      in a       timely-filed    motion for

reconsideration of sentence, see Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence,

10/19/21, and we deem his appeal timely filed.           See supra at n. 4.       In

addition, Bebee has included in his brief a Rule 2119 statement of reasons

relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects

of his sentence.   See Appellant’s Brief, at 8.     Thus, we must determine

whether Bebee’s claim that the court “did not provide adequate reasons for

the sentence,” and imposed too severe a punishment in light of his “credible

character evidence showing that he is capable of being a positive contributing

member of the community with the support of his work[,]” raises a substantial

question. Id.

     We find Bebee has raised a substantial question. See Commonwealth

v. Proctor, 156 A.3d 261, 273 (Pa. Super. 2017) (claim sentencing court did

not set forth adequate reasons for sentence raises substantial question); see

also Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 776 (Pa. Super. 2009)

(same).   However,    upon   review,    we   find   no     abuse    of    discretion.

Commonwealth v. Taylor, 277 A.3d 577, 592-93 (Pa. Super. 2022)

(sentencing is vested in sound discretion of sentencing judge; sentence will

not be disturbed on appeal absent manifest abuse of discretion).

     Here, Judge DiClaudio imposed a sentence below the standard range of

the Sentencing Guidelines, considered a presentence investigation report and

relevant mitigating evidence on the record, and provided, at sentencing,

reasons for the sentence imposed. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/28/22, at 5-6

                                       -4-
J-A05015-23

(court noting Bebee’s sentence was mitigated by 36 months even after court

found Bebee had lied in open court under oath); N.T. Sentencing, 10/9/19, at

4, 46-48) (court stating guidelines are 6 years plus or minus 12 months; “I’m

giving him three times mitigation even after lying.”).

      We rely on Judge DeClaudio’s opinion to affirm the judgment of

sentence, and we direct the parties to attach a copy of that opinion in the

event of further proceedings.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/13/2023

                                     -5-
                                                                                 Circulated 02113/202311:55 AM

                                    IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                   FOR THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPmA
                                        CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH                                    COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
v.
                                                 1551 EDA 2021
GREGORY BEBBE                                    NO. CP-51-CR-0000764-2019
              FILED
             JUN 28 2022                       OPINION

             Appealsl_POlt Trial           Scott DiClaudio, J.
          Olfif.e of Judicial Records
            Defendant Gregory Bebbe appeals from his sentence entered on October 9, 2019,

subsequent to a guilty plea on July 16, 2019, for three counts of Possession of a Firearm by a

Person Prohibited, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105, one count of Carrying a Firearm Without a License, 18

Pa.C.S. § 6106, and one count of Carrying a Firearm in Public on the Street of Philadelphia, 18

Pa.C.S. § 6108. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sentence stating it is harsh and unreasonable.

For the reasons discussed herein, the Superior Court should affirm this Court's sentence and

uphold this Court's denial of Defendant's post-sentence motion.

     I.         FACTUAL IDSTORY'

     On October 26, 2018, around 6:00 p.m., Defendant was at a barber shop near 68th and Ogontz

Avenues in the City and County of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, when a young man holding his

chin entered the shop. N.T. Plea at 13, N.T. Sentencing at 19. The victim had been shot in the chin

and was bleeding profusely. N.T. Sentencing at 19. Defendant stated he did not know the young

man but saw that he was bleeding from his face. Id. at 36-3 7. One of the barbers in the shop called

-------··----
I This Factual History is taken from the Notes of Testimony Guilty Plea Volume l , dated July 16, 2019
(hereinafter "N.T. Plea"); Sentencing Volume I, dated October 9, 2019 (hereinafter "N.T. Sentencing").
for an ambulance. Id at 19. As those in the barber shop heard sirens coming towards them,

Defendant and the victim entered Defendant's vehicle and drove to the hospital although witnesses

testified that no words were spoken between Defendant and the victim. Id. About a block and half

away from the barber shop, as Defendant stopped at a stop sign, the two firearms the victim had

removed from his pocket and placed on the back seat, fell to the floor and made a thud. Id at 38-

39. Defendant looked back at the noise and said, "Shit, that's too much." Id Defendant then pulled

over and placed the firearms under the hood of the car. Id After dropping the victim off at the

hospital, Defendant apparently returned to the barber shop.

    When officers responded to a report of a shooting and a person with a firearm on October 26,

2018 around 6 p.m., Defendant was on scene, and admitted to two police officers that he hid two

revolvers that the victim possessed. N.T. Plea at 13. Defendant stated he took the revolvers from

the victim's pockets and hid them under the hood of the vehicle before driving the victim to the

hospital. Id. at 14. The two revolvers were ultimately placed on a property receipt. Id.

    II.      PROCEDURAL IDSTORY

          On October 27, 2018, Defendant, Gregory Bebbe, was arrested and charged with Carrying

a Firearm without a License, Carrying a Firearm on the Public Streets of Philadelphia, and three

counts of Possession of a Firearm by a Prohibited Person.' On July 16, 2019, Defendant pied

.guilty. On October 9, 2019, this Court sentenced Defendant to three (3) to six (6) years

incarceration for the Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited with five (S) years probations

on the remaining charges. Defendant filed a Motion to Reconsider on October 16, 2019. This

Court, by operation of law, denied the motion on February 14, 2020. Defendant did not file a direct

appeal. On March 4, 2020, Defendant filed a pro-se PCRA Petition. PCRA Counsel was appointed,

118 Pa.   C.S. § 6106, 18 Pa. C.S § 6108, 18 Pa. C.S. § 6105.

                                                        2
and counsel filed an amended petition on August 30, 2020. On March 5, 2021, this Court granted

Defendant's PCRA and reinstated Defendant's direct appellate rights nunc pro tune. On March 6,

2021, Defendant filed a pro-se Motion to Reconsider Sentence. On July 26, 2021, by operation of

law, this Court denied the motion. On July 27, 2021, Defendant filed a prose appeal. On February

7, 2022, Appellate Counsel was appointed. On June 1, 2022, this Court filed a 1925(b) order.' On

June 15, 2022, Defendant filed a Statement of Errors Complained of On Appeal.

       Ill.      DEFENDANT'S ST ATEMENT OF MATIERS COMPLAINED OF ON

                 APPEAL

    Defendant raises the following issue in his Statement of Errors:

              The Court was in error in denying the defendant's Motion to Reconsider Sentence as the
              sentence of3-6 years was harsh and unreasonable for the following reasons:
                     I. The defendant completed trade school and was employed full time.
                     2. The defendant had a good record of employment at Pro Com roofing and at
                         Munn roofing.
                     3. His supervisor, Charles Venezia. testified in defendant's behalf at the
                         sentencing hearing. Mr. Venezia describe the defendant as a really good
                         worker, he doesn't goof off, and is trustworthy.
                     4. The defendant is a father of four and was granted custody of his children in
                         2018.
                     5. Before his arrest in 2018, he had no police contact for nine years.
                     6. He successfully completed state parole without any issues.

Def.'s Statement of Matters Complained of On Appeal at 2 (Hereinafter "Def. SOE").

       IV.        DISCUSSION

              For the reasons discussed below, the alleged error has no merit.

                 a. Sentence was not unreasonable and harsh.

              Defendant alleges that this Court abused its discretion because it imposed a harsh and

unreasonable sentence because this Court did not take into account that:

3
 The delay in the appointment of appellate counsel and the filing of the 1925b order was due to a breakdown in
court operations.

                                                       3
          The defendant completed trade school and was employed fu11 time. Toe defendant had a
          good record of employment at Pro Com roofing and at Munn roofing. His supervisor,
          Charles Venezia, testified in defendant's behalf at the sentencing hearing. Mr. Venezia
          describe the defendant as a really good worker, he doesn't goof off, and is trustworthy. The
          defendant is a father of four and was granted custody of his children in 2018. Before his
          arrest in 2018, he had no police contact for nine years. He successfully completed state
          parole without any issues.

Defs SOE at 2.

          The right to appellate review of the discretionary aspects of a sentence is not absolute.

Sentencing falls within the purview of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a manifest

abuse of that discretion. "An abuse of discretion involves a sentence which was manifestly

unreasonable, or which resulted from partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will. It is more than just an

error in judgment." Commonwealth v. Crork, 966 A.2d 585, 590 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009). The trial

court may also make any reasonable inferences deduced from the evidence at trial. Commonwealth

v,   Downing, 990 A.2d 778, 793 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). In addition,

        [w)hen a sentencing court deviates from the sentencing guidelines, it is important that
       the court reflect a consideration of the sentencing guidelines, the background and
       character of the defendant, the circumstances of the crime, and impose a sentence that
       is consistent with the protection of the public and the rehabilitative needs of the
       defendant.
Commonwealth v. Cruz Ortega, 539 A.2d 849, 852 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988).

         Here, a timely notice of appeal was filed, and the issue was preserved in a post-sentence

motion. Defendant claims that the sentence was unduly harsh is without merit. This Court

detailed the reasons for the sentence. Defendant, in his allocution, told multiple stories about

what happened the night of the shooting. As the Court summarized,

          But [Defendant] knew [the victim] and he hid the guns on purpose under the hood, which
         is different from what he was trying to convey, which is the difference between a probation
         or a county sentence, and when you lie to a judge at sentencing, it's a problem. I'm still
         going to mitigate, and I am going to mitigate substantially, but you can't lie to me in open
         court and try to sustain those lies. Those are not little lies. I didn't know him. He's a stranger.
         That's a big lie, and they fell, and I didn't know what they were and I took them out and I
         hid them is another pretty big lie in terms of mitigation.

                                                     4
 N.T. Sentencing at 42-43.

         Defendant admitted he did not tell the truth to the Court about knowing the victim, and that

 the firearms fell out of the victim's pocket. Id. 40-41. Defendant further admitted that he knew the

 victim, he had previously offered him a job, and that Defendant had taken the firearms from the

 victim and placed them under the hood of his car. Id. at 41. The fact that the Court found Defendant

 less than credible due to the multiple versions of his story was a significant factor in the Court's

 sentencing. The Court stated:

        Here's where J am going to go, Ms. McLaughlin,4 I'm going to go with what my instinct
        was, not that he had the gun, not that he was involved in the shooting, but he knew that the
        guy had guns, and he hid them for his friend or acquaintance, and I'm accepting all of that,
        but there is a certain sentence for that when you're a convicted felon, and it's not probation
        and it's not a county sentence, and he's lucky I can take a deep breath. Some judges would
        be not completely displeased and give him a guideline sentence for lying multiple times.
        Jin still going to mitigate substantially. His guidelines are what?

        MS. MCMULLEN:5 72 to 90.

        THE COURT: His guidelines are six years plus or minus 12. I'm going to give him that full
        mitigation to 12 months, and I'm going to give him another 12 months mitigation, and then
        I'm giving him another 12 months mitigation. So I'm giving him three times mitigation
        even after lying. So his sentence is three to six years, and you should consider yourself
        fortunate by my taking three years off the guidelines ..... That's on Count 1. On Count 2,
        five years probation, concurrent. On Count 3, five years probation concurrent. Tampering
        with evidence, that's nolle pros'd, and so it's three to six years with credit for time served.
        He is not RRRI eligible .... I don't take this lightly. If you had not lied, you would have
        been in a better position. Your lawyer probably told you I'm reasonable, but you just can't
        lie in open court under oath. Jt cost you about a year, maybe a year and a half. I was
        considering 11 V, to 23, but the lying was just problematic.

N.T. Sentencing at 46-47.

        Defendant was sentenced to three (3) to six (6) years with 5 years of probation, which is

within the sentencing guidelines of seventy-two (?2) months to ninety (90) months.6 The Court

• Brandi Mclaughin, Esq. represented Defendant during sentencing.
5
  Kolleen McMullen, Esq. represented the Commonwealth during sentencing.
• Six (6) years to seven and a half(7 Y,) years.

                                                   5
noted that the sentence was mitigated by thirty-six (36) months even after the Court found

Defendant lacked credibility. Id at 47. Accordingly, this Court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Defendant's Post-Sentence Motion.

   V.       CONCLUSION

        For the abovementioned reasons, the trial court's judgement and sentence should be

affirmed.

                                                   BY THE COURT:

                                                  SCOTT DICLAUDIO, J.

                                            6
Commonwealth v. Gregory Bebbe
CP-51-CR-0000764-2019

                               PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I am this day caused to be served the foregoing this person(s), and in the
manner indicated below:

Attorney for the Commonwealth:
                                      ATIN: Appeals Unit
                                      District Attorney's Office
                                      Three South Penn Square
                                      Philadelphia, PA 19107

Type of Service:               (      ) Personal '1 First class mail

Attorney for Defendant:

                                      Peter A Levin, Esquire
                                      l 927 Hamilton St
                                      Philadelphia, PA 19130

Type of Service:                      ( ) Personal ( ¥First class mail

                                                      TJ �ey, Esquire
                                                      Law Clerk to Hon. Scott Di Claudio

                                                  7
APPENDIXB
   1,--=��        The Philadetphia Courts
             � Criminal Electronic Filing System
   June 15, 2022 09:02am
                                IMPORTANT NOTICE
  Peter A. Levin
                                The legal paper you electronically presented for filing has been received by the Clerk of Court. The
                                following information will assist you in tracking the status or the pleading:
 Usemame:plevin

  -�p
 Yndate Information             Docket No.: CP-51-CR-0000764-2019

  ("'O    Main Menu             Caption: Comm.       v. Bebee.   Gregll!Y.1

                                Date Presented to the Clerk of Court for Filing: June   15. 2022 09:02 AM
  .. J.2g_Qff                   Type of Filing/Legal Paper: Statement Of Matters Complained On Apl!.!l!.l

 CP-51 ·CR-0000764-             E-File No.: 2206030455
 2019
 EFile #: 2206030455           Confirmation No.: 4853E474C
 Status: Pending
 Started: 06/15/22             Personal Reference No.: H[A
 Court: CR
                               Filing Fee: ll-.Qg_
* Required Field.
                               Please be advised that the above legal paper will not be deemed to have been "filed" until it has
       ----·----
U$Cf Accepts/Agrees       to
                               been reviewed and accepted by the Clerk of Court.

Ru[es/Agreeme.nt.              Philadelphia Criminal Rule 576 (c) provides that if payment has been received prior to or at the date
                               and time of submission, and the legal paper is not rejected by the Clerk of Court, the date and time
Isa CONTACT Uj                 ot acceptance shall be the date and time of submission. If payment is received after the date and
By phOn• (216) 663-7517        time of submission, and the legal paper Is not rejected by the Clerk of Court. the filing date and time
                               of a legal paper shall be the date and time payment is received. It a legal paper is rejected. as
                               authorized by law, the Clerk of Court shall Inform the filer whether the legal paper may be modified
                               or a new legal paper must be submitted.

                               You will be notified by email when your legal paper has been approved or rejected by the Clerk or
                               Court. If you do not receive an approval or rejection email within two (2) business days you may
                               contact the Motions Unit at (215) 683-7518 to determine the status or your electronic filing.

                               At any time, you may check the status of your electronic filing by fogging in to the Electronic Filing
                               Web Site at http:1/courts.phila.gov using the Court-issued User Name and Password.

                               Philadelphia Criminal Rule 576 requires that the filer maintain the original of a sworn or verified
                               document contained in an electronic filing (e.g., affidavit) or contained within an electronic fifing
                               (e.g •• verification), and shall make it available upon direction of the court or request or the signatory
                               or opposing party.

                               All parties are requested to review the Important Information contained in the Disclaimer which
                               displays immediately before accessing the Criminal Electronic Filing System

                               Thank You.
                               Eric Feder
                               Deputy Court Administrator

                               Go back to main men\!

                               -----Z-
Peter A. Levin
Attorney at Law
 #09221
1927 Hamilton Street
Philadelphia, PA 19130
(215)563-3454

                         IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

                   FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

                             CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                         CP 51-CR- 0000764-2019
    VS.

GREGORY BEBEE

             STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE         scorr DICLAUDIO, JUDGE OF THE SAID COURT:

   The above named defendant, by his attorney, Peter A. Levin, respectfully notes the

following matters to be raised on appeal, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate

Procedure 1925(b):

                            Background

   The defendant's attorney, William Ciancaglini, filed an amended PCRA petition on

August 30, 2020 requesting that Defendant's appellate rights be restored nune pro

tune.

   The defendant's appellate rights were reinstated nun pro tune on March 5, 2021.

The defendant's attorney, William Ciancaglini, was permitted to withdraw on March 5,

2021.

   No counsel was appointed to represent the defendant.

    On March 6, 2021, the defendant filed a prose motion for reconsideration of

sentence.
   On July 26, 2021, the motion was denied by operation of Jaw.

   On July 27, 2021, the defendant filed a notice of appeal.

    Present counsel was appointed on February 7, 2022.

                              ISSUE TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL

The Court was in error in denying the defendant's Motion to Reconsider

Sentence as the sentence of 3-6 years incarceration was harsh and unreasonable for

the following reasons:

1. The defendant completed trade school and was employed full time.

2. The defendant had a good record of employment working at Pro Com roofing and at

Munn roofing.

3. His supervisor, Charles Venezia, testified in defendant's behalf at the sentencing

hearing. Mr. Venezia described the defendant as a really good worker, he doesn't goof

off, and is trustworthy.

4. The defendant is a father of four and was granted custody of his children in 2018.

5 .. Before his arrest in 2018, he had no police contact for nine years.

6 .. He successfully completed state parole without any issues.

Respectfully submitted,

                            '-----'
Pete�
Attorney-at-Law