Court Opinion

ID: 9914240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-29 20:09:05.444955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:48.756131
License: Public Domain

J-S07034-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellee              :
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
 THOMAS MICHAEL FRISCH, JR.              :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :       No. 1860 EDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 9, 2022
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-64-CR-0000208-2020

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellee              :
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
 THOMAS MICHAEL FRISCH, JR.              :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :       No. 1861 EDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 9, 2022
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-64-CR-0000210-2020

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                        FILED DECEMBER 29, 2023

     Appellant, Thomas Michael Frisch, Jr., appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered in the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas, following his

guilty plea to two counts of homicide by motor vehicle, two counts of driving

under the influence (“DUI”), and one count of aggravated assault by motor
J-S07034-23

vehicle.1 We affirm.

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

The Commonwealth charged Appellant with multiple offenses at docket No.

210-2020, in relation to a collision on April 8, 2020, during which Appellant’s

vehicle entered the opposing lane of traffic and struck a vehicle head on,

resulting in the deaths of the two occupants in the vehicle Appellant struck.

The responding officer noted that Appellant demonstrated multiple indicia of

impairment. Appellant was taken for a blood test but the facility was unable

to successfully draw blood from Appellant’s veins and a test could not be

completed. A urine screen conducted on April 11, 2020, approximately 30

hours    after   the   accident,    showed     a   positive   result   for   methadone,

amphetamines, benzodiazepines, and THC.

        At docket No. 208-2020, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with

multiple offenses in relation to another collision which occurred on May 22,

2020. On this occasion, Appellant was driving erratically, struck a guard rail,

and collided head on with a vehicle traveling in the opposing lane of traffic,

resulting in serious injuries to the driver of the other vehicle. The responding

police officer noted that Appellant displayed several signs of impairment.

Appellant submitted to a blood test, which showed the presence of fentanyl,

norfentayl, ketamine, norketamine, trazodone, THC, methadone, and EDDP,

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3732(a), 3802(d)(2), and 3732.1(a), respectively.

                                           -2-
J-S07034-23

the metabolite of methadone.

       On May 3, 2022, Appellant pled guilty to aggravated assault by motor

vehicle and DUI at docket No. 208-2020, and two counts of homicide by motor

vehicle and one count of DUI at docket No. 210-2020.                Although the

Commonwealth agreed to drop certain charges in exchange for the plea, there

was no agreement as to sentencing.             On June 9, 2022, the court imposed

sentences in the aggravated range to be served consecutively, resulting in an

aggregate sentence of 111 months to 312 months’ incarceration.2 Appellant

filed a timely post-sentence motion, which the court denied on June 17, 2022.

On July 15, 2022, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal at each docket. On

July 20, 2022, the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal, and Appellant complied on

August 10, 2022. On October 28, 2022, Appellant filed a motion in this Court

to consolidate the appeals, which this Court granted on November 1, 2022.

____________________________________________

2 For Appellant’s homicide by vehicle convictions, the court utilized an offense

gravity score (“OGS”) of 8 based on Appellant’s DUI conviction arising from
the same criminal incident. This OGS is higher than a conviction for homicide
by vehicle, without a contemporaneous DUI conviction. See 204 Pa.Code
303.15 (providing that OGS for homicide by vehicle where DUI conviction also
results from criminal incident is 8; whereas, homicide by vehicle with no
additional factors present is 6). Likewise, for Appellant’s aggravated assault
by vehicle conviction, the court utilized an OGS of 7 based on Appellant’s DUI
conviction arising from the same criminal incident, which is higher than the
OGS for aggravated assault by vehicle without a contemporaneous DUI
conviction. See id. (providing that OGS for aggravated assault by vehicle
where DUI conviction also results from criminal incident is 7; whereas,
aggravated assault with no additional factors present is 5).

                                           -3-
J-S07034-23

      Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

         1. Is the enhanced sentence imposed on the conviction for
         homicide by vehicle and aggravated assault by vehicle
         illegal?

         2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by imposing
         manifestly excessive sentences, and disproportionate to the
         circumstances, both individually and in the aggregate,
         placed at the highest level of the aggravated range of the
         sentencing guidelines, by failing to consider the mitigating
         circumstances and analyze or consider the rehabilitative
         needs of [Appellant], impact upon the community and actual
         need for the protection of the public under 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
         9721(b) of the Pennsylvania Sentencing Code and by
         disregarding    or   failing   to   consider    [Appellant’s]
         characteristics including his age, serious addiction and
         mental health issues, acceptance of responsibility, and
         expression of remorse?

         3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and impose a
         manifestly excessive sentence, in each case, by running the
         sentences imposed for DUI consecutive to the offenses of
         homicide by vehicle and aggravated assault by vehicle?

(Appellant’s Brief at 6).

      Preliminarily, we note that “[i]ssues not raised in the trial court are

waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).

Additionally, issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) concise statement of errors

will be deemed waived. Commonwealth v. Castillo, 585 Pa. 395, 403, 888

A.2d 775, 780 (2005). Regarding preservation of challenges to a sentence,

our Supreme Court has held:

         Where a claim concerns the sentencing court’s exercise of
         discretion in fashioning a sentence, the defendant must
         preserve and present the claim at trial by way of a
         contemporaneous objection and/or a post-trial motion and
         on appeal through the process provided by 42 Pa.C.S. §

                                     -4-
J-S07034-23

         9781(b) and Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). Where a claim concerns the
         sentencing court’s authority to impose a sentence, it is
         reviewable as of right on direct appeal, without regard to
         preservation of the claim. [A] determination that a claim
         implicates the legality of a sentence ... operates to revive a
         claim otherwise insufficiently preserved below, and is
         reviewable by this Court on permissive appeal.

Commonwealth v. Weir, 662 Pa. 402, 417, 239 A.3d 25, 34 (2020) (internal

citations omitted).

      In determining whether a claim concerns the legality of the sentence or

the discretionary aspects of the sentence, our Supreme Court has stated:

         [T]he inquiry is whether, assuming the appellant’s claim
         prevails, the result would be that the trial court lacked
         authority to impose the sentence at issue. If so, then the
         appellant’s challenge implicates the legality of his sentence.
         Conversely, if the challenge is not to the existence of certain
         authority but to the exercise of that authority, then the
         challenge goes to the discretionary aspects of a sentence,
         not to its legality.

Commonwealth v. Prinkey, ___ Pa. ___, ___, 277 A.3d 554, 563-64

(2022). The Court further outlined four broad categories of challenges that

implicate the legality of the sentence:

         First, a claim that a sentence was imposed pursuant to a
         facially unconstitutional sentencing statute is a legality
         challenge because, if the claim prevails, the sentence was
         imposed under statutory authority that never lawfully
         existed….

         The second category encompasses allegations that a
         sentence was imposed without the fulfillment of statutory
         preconditions to the court’s sentencing authority…. Here
         too, a successful challenge means that the court issued a
         sentence that it lacked the statutory authority to impose. In
         other words, if the sentencing statute at issue conditions the
         court’s authority to impose a sanction upon the existence of

                                      -5-
J-S07034-23

         attendant circumstances, and if those circumstances were
         not present, then the court lacked statutory authority to
         impose the sentence, even though the unfulfilled conditions
         may not raise an issue of constitutional dimension….

         The third category of legality challenges encompasses those
         claims that allege a violation of a substantive restriction that
         the Constitution places upon a court’s power to apply the
         statutory sentence to the defendant. Here, the linchpin is
         that there is a constitutional barrier to the court’s ability to
         wield the sentencing power granted by a facially
         constitutional statute, not that the trial court exercised its
         statutory power in a way that violated the Constitution. If
         either the United States Constitution or the Pennsylvania
         Constitution places a restriction upon the power of a court
         to impose a particular sentence in certain circumstances,
         and if the appellant’s claim is that those circumstances exist
         in his or her case, then the challenge necessarily sounds in
         legality….

         Finally, a sentence is illegal where the statutory support for
         the underlying conviction is void ab initio…. This fourth class
         of legality challenges is distinct from the others inasmuch as
         it implicates the validity of the conviction.

Id. at 562-63 (internal citations omitted).

      Here, Appellant concedes that he raised his first issue for the first time

on appeal.    Nevertheless, Appellant asserts that this issue is not waived

because his claim involves the legality of the sentence. Specifically, Appellant

argues that his sentences for homicide by vehicle and aggravated assault by

vehicle are illegal because the court relied on an OGS which was increased

because of Appellant’s contemporaneous DUI conviction pursuant to 204

Pa.Code 303.15. Nevertheless, Appellant insists that under 75 Pa.C.S.A. §

3732(b) and 3732.1(b), DUI is not listed as an offense for which the

Sentencing Commission is permitted to impose a sentencing enhancement

                                      -6-
J-S07034-23

when that offense is committed in the same criminal incident as homicide by

vehicle or aggravated assault by vehicle.3 As such, Appellant contends that

____________________________________________

3 See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3732, which defines the offense of homicide by vehicle,

and provides in relevant part:

          (b) Sentencing.─

              (1) In addition to any other penalty provided by law, a
              person convicted of a violation of subsection (a) may be
              sentenced to an additional term not to exceed five years’
              confinement if at trial the prosecution proves beyond a
              reasonable doubt that the offense occurred in an active
              work zone.

              (1.1) In addition to any other penalty provided by law, a
              person convicted of a violation of subsection (a) who is
              also convicted of a violation of section 1501 (relating to
              drivers required to be licensed), 1543 (relating to driving
              while operating privilege is suspended or revoked), 3316
              (relating to prohibiting text-based communications),
              3325 (relating to duty of driver on approach of
              emergency vehicle) or 3327 (relating to duty of driver in
              emergency response areas and in relation to disabled
              vehicles) may be sentenced to an additional term not to
              exceed five years’ confinement.

              (2) The prosecution must indicate intent to proceed
              under this section in the indictment or information which
              commences the prosecution.

              (3) The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing,
              pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 2154 (relating to adoption of
              guidelines for sentencing), shall provide for a sentencing
              enhancement for an offense under this section when the
              violation occurred in an active work zone or the individual
              was also convicted of a violation of section 1501, 1543,
              3316, 3325 or 3327.

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3732(b).
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -7-
J-S07034-23

the Sentencing Commission exceeded its limited authority by including a DUI

conviction as an additional factor which increases the OGS for these offenses.

Appellant asserts that this claim implicates the legality of the sentence

because it falls into the third category set forth in Prinkey. We disagree.

       This Court recently considered a similar issue in Commonwealth v.

Mont, 266 A.3d 646 (Pa.Super. filed October 22, 2021) (unpublished

memorandum),4 appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 278 A.3d 300 (2022). In Mont,

the appellant claimed the Sentencing Commission exceeded its authority by

assigning a disproportionately higher OGS for the offense of possessing a gun

with an altered manufacturer’s number than that for the offense of altering or

obliterating marks of identification. On appeal, this Court analyzed whether

the appellant’s claim implicated the legality of his sentence. This Court noted

that claims that the sentencing court used the incorrect OGS involve the

discretionary aspects of sentencing and must be properly preserved.          This

Court acknowledged that the appellant was challenging the Sentencing

Commission’s promulgation of the guidelines rather than the sentencing

court’s application of the guidelines but found this distinction to be negligible.

____________________________________________

This language is mirrored nearly verbatim in 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3732.1, which
defines the offense of aggravated assault by vehicle, except that it states that
a defendant may be sentenced to an additional term not to exceed two years’
confinement. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3732.1(b).

4 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (stating we may rely on unpublished decisions filed in

this Court after May 1, 2019 for their persuasive value).

                                           -8-
J-S07034-23

The appellant’s claim, while styled as a challenge to the legality of the

sentence, was essentially just an argument that the court should have used a

lower OGS for his crimes. The Mont Court concluded that the appellant’s

claim was more akin to a question involving the application of the sentencing

guidelines rather than a challenge to the sentencing court’s authority to

impose the sentence.        As such, the appellant’s claim did not implicate the

legality of the sentence and was waived for failure to preserve the issue before

the trial court.

       As in Mont, Appellant claims that his sentence is illegal because the

Sentencing Commission exceeded its authority in promulgating the OGS for

his convictions. Although styled as a challenge to the legality of the sentence,

Appellant is essentially arguing that the OGS for his convictions should have

been lower, which does not bring into question the court’s authority to impose

the sentence. See id. See also Prinkey, supra. Thus, Appellant has failed

to establish that his first claim implicates the legality of his sentence, and it is

waived for failure to preserve the issue at the trial court level.5 See Pa.R.A.P.

302(a); Castillo, supra.

       In his second and third issues combined, Appellant claims the court

imposed a manifestly excessive sentence by sentencing Appellant to the

____________________________________________

5 Moreover, we note that the court did not apply a five-year sentencing
enhancement under Section 3732(b) or 3732.1(b).         Rather, the court
increased the OGS for Appellant’s crimes of homicide by vehicle and
aggravated assault by vehicle under 204 Pa.Code 303.15.

                                           -9-
J-S07034-23

highest end of the aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines for each of

the offenses and ordering that they be served consecutively. Appellant asserts

that the court based its decision almost exclusively on its perception that

Appellant lacked remorse due to Facebook posts that Appellant made, even

though the posts were from two years prior to sentencing when Appellant was

still under the influence of his addiction. Appellant contends that the court

failed to consider Appellant’s actions since he made the Facebook posts,

including accepting full responsibility for his offenses, taking steps to control

his addiction, writing several letters of apology to the families of the victims,

and cooperating with the victims’ families in a civil litigation.

       Appellant also asserts that the court further ignored other mitigating

factors such as Appellant’s age, personal characteristics, and struggle to

overcome cancer and addiction throughout his life. Appellant insists that the

court’s only aim was to punish Appellant without giving due consideration to

Appellant’s rehabilitative needs.          Appellant further argues that the DUI

sentences should not have been imposed consecutive to the homicide by

vehicle and aggravated assault by vehicle charges because the DUI charges

stemmed from the same conduct as the greater offenses and the OGS’s for

the greater offenses were already increased by the related DUI convictions.6

Appellant maintains that the sentence imposed does not comport with

____________________________________________

6Appellant concedes that DUI does not merge with homicide by vehicle or
aggravated assault by vehicle. (See Appellant’s Brief at 49 n.9).

                                          - 10 -
J-S07034-23

confinement necessary and consistent with the goals of the Sentencing Code,

and what was necessary to protect the public, reflect the gravity of the

offense, and Appellant’s rehabilitative needs.    Appellant concludes that the

court abused its sentencing discretion, and this Court should vacate the

judgment of sentence. We disagree.

      “Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an

appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d

103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264, 129 S.Ct. 2450, 174

L.Ed.2d 240 (2009). Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary aspects of

sentencing issue:

         [W]e conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether
         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
         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. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal

denied, 589 Pa. 727, 909 A.2d 303 (2006) (quoting Commonwealth v.

Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2005)).

      When appealing the discretionary aspects of a sentence, an appellant

must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by including in his brief a separate concise

statement demonstrating a substantial question as to the appropriateness of

the sentence under the Sentencing Code. Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 571

                                     - 11 -
J-S07034-23

Pa. 419, 812 A.2d 617 (2002); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). “The requirement that an

appellant separately set forth the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal

furthers the purpose evident in the Sentencing Code as a whole of limiting any

challenges to the trial court’s evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging

on the sentencing decision to exceptional cases.” Phillips, supra at 112

(emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

      “The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.”      Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830

A.2d 1013, 1018 (Pa.Super. 2003). “A substantial question exists only when

the 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. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768 (Pa.Super. 2015)

(en banc) (quoting Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526, 533 (Pa.Super.

2011)).

      “[A]n excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that

the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.”

Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal

denied, 629 Pa. 636, 105 A.3d 736 (2014). See also Commonwealth v.

Trimble, 615 A.2d 48 (Pa.Super. 1992) (holding defendant’s claim that court

failed to consider factors set forth under Section 9721(b) and focused solely

on seriousness of defendant’s offense raised substantial question).

                                     - 12 -
J-S07034-23

      Additionally:

         Pennsylvania law affords the sentencing court discretion to
         impose [a] sentence concurrently or consecutively to other
         sentences being imposed at the same time or to sentences
         already imposed. Any challenge to the exercise of this
         discretion does not raise a substantial question. In fact, this
         Court has recognized the imposition of consecutive, rather
         than concurrent, sentences may raise a substantial question
         in only the most extreme circumstances, such as where the
         aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature
         of the crimes and the length of imprisonment.

Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal

denied, 621 Pa. 692, 77 A.3d 1258 (2013) (internal citations and quotation

marks omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Hoag, 665 A.2d 1212, 1214

(Pa.Super. 1995) (stating appellant is not entitled to “volume discount” for his

crimes by having all sentences run concurrently).

      Assuming an appellant can invoke our jurisdiction to review the claim,

this Court reviews discretionary sentencing challenges based on the following

standard:

         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. An abuse of
         discretion is more than just an error in judgment and, on
         appeal, the trial court will not be found to have abused its
         discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment
         exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of
         partiality, bias or ill-will.

Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54, 55 (Pa.Super. 2003) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Hess, 745 A.2d 29, 30-31 (Pa.Super. 2000)).

      “[A] court is required to consider the particular circumstances of the

                                     - 13 -
J-S07034-23

offense and the character of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804

A.2d 1, 10 (Pa.Super. 2002), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148, 125 S. Ct. 2984,

162 L.Ed.2d 902 (2005).        “In particular, the court should refer to the

defendant’s prior criminal record, his age, personal characteristics and his

potential for rehabilitation.” Id. If the sentencing court has the benefit of a

[pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”)] report, the law presumes the court was

aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and

weighed     those   considerations    along    with   any    mitigating     factors.

Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362 (Pa.Super. 2005).

      When considering the propriety of imposing an aggravated range

sentence, this Court has observed:

          [T]he guidelines were implemented to create greater
          consistency and rationality in sentencing. The guidelines
          accomplish the above purposes by providing a normal for
          comparison, i.e., the standard range of punishment, for the
          panoply of crimes found in the crimes code and by providing
          a scale of progressively greater punishment as the gravity
          of the offense increases….

          The provision of a “norm” also strongly implies that
          deviation from the norm should be correlated with facts
          about the crime that also deviate from the norm for the
          offense, or facts relating to the offender’s character or
          criminal history that deviates from the norm and must be
          regarded as not within the guidelines contemplation. Given
          this predicate, simply indicating that an offense is a serious,
          heinous or grave offense misplaces the proper focus. The
          focus should not be upon the seriousness, heinousness or
          egregiousness of the offense generally speaking, but, rather
          upon how the present case deviates from what might be
          regarded as a “typical” or “normal” case of the offense under
          consideration.

                                      - 14 -
J-S07034-23

         An aggravated range sentence … will thus be justified to the
         extent that the individual circumstances of [an appellant’s]
         case are atypical of the crime for which [he] was convicted,
         such that a more severe punishment is appropriate.

Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843, 848 (Pa.Super. 2006) (internal

citation omitted).

      Instantly, Appellant’s assertion that the sentence imposed was

manifestly excessive in conjunction with his claim that the court failed to weigh

his rehabilitative needs and/or consider mitigating factors raises a substantial

question. See Raven, supra. Likewise, his sentencing claim that the court

failed to consider the factors set forth under Section 9721(b) and focused

solely on the seriousness of his offenses raises a substantial question. See

Trimble, supra.      Accordingly, we proceed to address the merits of these

sentencing challenges.

      Here, the court had the benefit of a PSI report, defense counsel’s

arguments, statements from Appellant and his mother, letters written on

Appellant’s behalf, and a mental health evaluation of Appellant. Thus, we can

presume that the court was fully aware of and considered mitigating factors

such as Appellant’s background, history of cancer and substance abuse, and

his more recent progress in addressing his addiction. See Tirado, supra.

      In its sentencing order, the court explained:

         The … sentence is in the aggravated range due to the court’s
         beliefs and findings in [Appellant]’s [PSI report], further due
         to [Appellant] showing no remorse evident by his Facebook
         posting, repeat pattern of drug induced criminal behavior,
         committing these offenses while pending disposition in

                                     - 15 -
J-S07034-23

         Lackawanna County, prior convictions that are not
         calculated in the prior record score, and a lesser sentence
         would depreciate the seriousness of the crimes.

(Sentencing Order, filed 6/9/22, at 3).

      The court noted that Appellant already had a DUI charge pending when

he caused the two accidents in this case, which resulted in the deaths of two

individuals and the serious injury of another. The court further noted that

immediately following the first accident involving the deceased victims,

Appellant made a Facebook post blaming the victims for the collision,

demonstrating a lack of accountability and remorse for his actions even in the

face of such serious consequences. Further demonstrating Appellant’s lack of

accountability, Appellant continued to engage in the same criminal conduct

after the first accident, causing another accident resulting in serious injuries

to another.   At sentencing, the court recognized that Appellant’s addiction

played a big part in his criminal actions but noted that Appellant’s history and

actions in this case demonstrated a lack of commitment to recovery and

showed that Appellant poses a risk to the community.         The court further

acknowledged Appellant’s subsequent progress with recovery, reviewed the

letters of remorse Appellant sent to the victims and their families, and

considered Appellant’s rehabilitative needs. Ultimately, however, the court

determined that the circumstances of this case warranted a sentence in the

aggravated range.     Although Appellant claims the court should not have

considered the Facebook posts which Appellant made while under the

                                     - 16 -
J-S07034-23

influence, the record shows the court also considered Appellant’s later

progress with recovery. On this record, we discern no abuse of discretion in

court’s determination that a sentence in the aggravated range was

appropriate. See Fullin, supra; McNabb, supra. Accordingly, Appellant is

not entitled to relief on his challenge to the discretionary aspects of

sentencing, and we affirm.

     Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 12/29/2023

                                   - 17 -