Court Opinion

ID: 9889836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 17:10:36.256723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:01.447622
License: Public Domain

J-S27007-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 SHAWN D. STRYKER                         :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 173 MDA 2023

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-36-CR-0000430-2021

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                     FILED OCTOBER 11, 2023

      Appellant, Shawn D. Stryker, appeals from the aggregate judgment of

sentence of 6 to 20 years’ incarceration, imposed after he pled guilty to six

counts of aggravated assault under 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702(a)(2), (a)(3), and

(a)(6), as well as single counts of recklessly endangering another person, 18

Pa.C.S. § 2705, and possessing an instrument of crime, 18 Pa.C.S. § 907(b).

On appeal, Appellant solely contends that the trial court abused its discretion

in fashioning his sentence. After careful review, we affirm.

      The trial court set forth a detailed summary of the facts and procedural

history underlying Appellant’s case, which we need not reproduce in full

herein. See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 3/27/22, at 1-7. We only briefly note

that Appellant’s convictions stemmed from a standoff with police during which

Appellant fired shots at two of the officers, who were thankfully unharmed.

Appellant was initially deemed incompetent to stand trial and was committed
J-S27007-23

to a state mental hospital for nearly one year before he was deemed to be

competent to proceed. Appellant pled guilty to the above-stated offenses on

September 16, 2022.         After a pre-sentence investigation report was

completed, the court sentenced Appellant on December 29, 2022, to the

aggregate term set forth supra, which included two, consecutive terms of 3 to

10 years’ imprisonment for two of his aggravated assault convictions.

Appellant received concurrent terms of 2 to 10 years’ imprisonment for his

remaining   aggravated    assault   offenses,   and   no   further   sentence   of

incarceration for his other convictions.

      Appellant filed a timely, post-sentence motion, which the court

ultimately denied. He then filed a timely notice of appeal, and he complied

with the trial court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of

errors complained of on appeal. The court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on

March 27, 2022. Herein, Appellant states one issue for our review:

      I. Was the trial court’s aggregate sentence of 6 to 20 years of
      incarceration so manifestly excessive under the circumstances of
      the instant case, especially considering [Appellant’s] severe
      mental health issues at the time of the incident, and was the
      imposition of consecutive sentences an abuse of the court’s
      discretion?

Appellant’s Brief at 6.

      Appellant’s issue implicates the discretionary aspects of his sentence.

      Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not
      entitle an appellant to review as of right. Commonwealth v.
      Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 912 (Pa. Super. 2000). An appellant
      challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke
      this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:

                                      -2-
J-S27007-23

         We conduct 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 sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether [the]
         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.[] § 9781(b).

      Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa. Super. 2006),
      appeal denied, … 909 A.2d 303 ([Pa.] 2006). Objections to the
      discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they
      are not raised at the sentencing hearing or in a motion to modify
      the sentence imposed. Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788,
      794 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, … 831 A.2d 599 ([Pa.]
      2003).

      The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must
      be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Commonwealth v. Paul,
      925 A.2d 825, 828 (Pa. Super. 2007). 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.”
      Sierra, supra at 912–13.

Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quoting

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

      Instantly, Appellant preserved his sentencing claim in his post-sentence

motion, he filed a timely appeal, and he has included a Rule 2119(f) statement

in his appellate brief, thereby meeting the first three requirements for review

of a discretionary-aspects-of-sentencing claim.        Regarding the fourth

requirement of stating a substantial question, Appellant contends that his

sentence is “clearly unreasonable” and “manifestly excessive” given the

imposition of consecutive terms of incarceration. Appellant’s Brief at 12. He

                                     -3-
J-S27007-23

insists that in imposing consecutive sentences, the court failed to consider his

“incompetency at the time of the offense and his drastic improvement while

receiving treatment and medication….” Id. at 13-14. We agree with Appellant

that his argument constitutes a substantial question for our review.         See

Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 339 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“[A]n

excessive sentence claim – in conjunction with an assertion that the court

failed to consider mitigating factors – raises a substantial question.”) (citation

omitted); Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super.

2015) (finding that Caldwell’s “challenge to the imposition of his consecutive

sentences as unduly excessive, together with his claim that the court failed to

consider his rehabilitative needs upon fashioning its sentence, presents a

substantial question”).

      In reviewing the merits of Appellant’s sentencing challenge, we are

mindful that,

      [s]entencing 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. 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
      sentencing 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. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1275 (Pa. Super. 2006).

      Instantly, in assessing Appellant’s claim that his aggregate term of

incarceration is excessive and unreasonable, we have reviewed the arguments

set forth in his brief, the Commonwealth’s response, the certified record, and

                                      -4-
J-S27007-23

the applicable law.     We have also examined the thorough opinion of the

Honorable Jeffery D. Wright of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster

County.   We conclude that Judge Wright’s analysis demonstrates that he

carefully considered the Sentencing Guidelines, the information set forth in

Appellant’s      presentence   report,    the   mitigating   circumstances   and

characteristics of Appellant, his rehabilitative needs, the seriousness of the

offenses, and the protection of the public.      See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b); 42

Pa.C.S. § 9781(d).      We discern no abuse of discretion in Judge Wright’s

decision to impose consecutive sentences, or in the aggregate term of

incarceration he fashioned in this case. Thus, we adopt Judge Wright’s opinion

as our own and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence for the reasons set

forth therein.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 10/11/2023

                                         -5-
                                                                                     01:31 PM
                                                               Circulated 09/13/2023 01.31

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY,
                                          COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
                         CRIMINAL

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

       v.                                          0430-2021
                                                   0430-2021

 SHAWN D.
       D. STRYKER

                           PA. R.A .P. 1925
                           PA.RA.P.    192$ OPINION
                                            OPINION
                                                                       1•-
 BY; WRIGHT, J
 BY:         J.                                             March     1"
                                                                       _, %
                                                                      2•   2022

       Shawn D. Stryker
                Stryker (" Appellant") has filed a
                        ("Appellant")            a direct appeal
                                                          appeal to the Superior
                                                                        Superior

 Court of Pennsylvania
 Court of Pennsylvania from
                       from the Judgment of
                            the Judgment of Sentence imposed on
                                            Sentence imposed on December
                                                                December

 29, 2022, as finalized by my January 23, 2023, Order denying
                                                      denying his Post Sentence
                                                                       Sentence

 Motion. This
         This Opinion is written pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania
                                             Rule 1925(a)        Pennsylvania

 Rules of Appellate Procedure. For                       below, the appeal
                               For the reasons set forth below,            is
                                                                    appeal is
 without merit and should be denied.

                                 BACKGROUND
      On January 3, 2021, West Hempfield Township Police Officers were

dispatched to 501 Goldfinch Drive, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to investigate a
                                                               investigate a

         incident. ((Criminal
domestic incident.   Criminal Complaint, Affidavit of Probable Cause, Jan. G,
                                                               Cause, Jan, 6,

2021, at ¶ 1).
           1), The 911 caller, Rebecca Valentine,
                                       Valentine, told the dispatcher
                                                           dispatcher that
                                                                      that

                         was ""unstable
Appellant, her paramour, was   unstable and
                                        ard armed with a rifle .... and a
                                                       a rifle          a

                                        1
                                        1
                  he was threatening "to
handgun" and that he                 "to harm
                                         harm himself and also pointed
                                                               pointed one of

    guns ...
the guns  .., at       (Id.) When Officers arrived at
              at her." (Id.)                       at the home, Ms. Valentine
                                                      the home,     Valentine

was leaving the residence but Appellant remained inside.
                                                 inside. (ld.,
                                                         (d.., at ,i3). The
                                                                  I 3),

responding Officers contacted Appellant by phone and spoke with him for

approximately seven minutes, asking him to put down any weapons he had and

to come outside to speak with them.
                              them. (id..J
                                     (d.) Appellant refused and the Officers

began evacuating the residents of neighboring properties for their safety.
                                                                   safety.    (Id.,
                                                                              (Id,

at ,i,i
     i,i 4-5).

       The Sheriff's Emergency Response Team
                                        Team ((SERT)
                                               SERT) eventually responded
                                                                responded to

the area and SERT Negotiators again made contact with Appellant by
                                                                by phone.

(ld.,at
(d. at ,,i,
          i, 7-10).                        by the SERT Negotiators, Appellant
             7-10), After repeated demands by                       Appellant

eventually emerged from the residence.       However, when he exited, he pointed aa

rifle toward the SERT members.
                      members. (kl..
                                (d.   at, 11). A
                                    L at,      A SERT member fired toward

Appellant and Appellant
              Appellant retreated
                        retreated into the residence. Appellant proceeded to
                                                      Appellant proceeded to

fire shots on the SERT members from inside the home. Approximately
                                                     Approximately one hour

later, Appellant again exited the home and was taken into custody.    (Td.)
                                                                      (Id.)

       Appellant was charged the following offenses:    two counts of Aggravated

Assault- Attempts to Cause or Causes Serious
Assault-Attempts                     Serious Bodily Injury to
                                             Bodily Injury    Designated
                                                           to Designated

Individuals, Felonies in the First Degree; two counts of Aggravated
                                                         Aggravated Assault-

Attempts to Cause or Causes Bodily Injury to Designated
                                             Designated Individuals, Felonies in

the Second Degree; two counts of Aggravated Assault- Causes Fear of
                                            Assault-Causes

                                         2
                                         2
Imminent Serious Bodily Injury to Designated Ind1v1duals,
                                             Individuals, Felonies of the

Second Degree; one count of Recklessly Endangering
                                       Endangering Another Person,
                                                           Person, a
                                                                   a

Misdemeanor of the Second Degree; and one count of Possession of a Firearm,
                                                                 a Firearm,

aa Misdemeanor of the First Degree.1
                            Degree.1

        On April 5, 2021, counsel for Appellant, Samuel C.
        On                                              C Stretton, Esquire, filed

aa Motion requesting aacompetency evaluation, alleging,
                                              alleging, inter alia, that

Appellant's ""mental
Appellant's   mental status [had]        very fragile,"
                            [had] become very fragile," that
                                                        that Appellant
                                                             Appellant

"believe[d] he was appointed by
                             by God
                                God as a Six- Star General to do
                                       a Six-Star             do battle with the

Evil World," and that Appellant was
                                was ""obsessed
                                      obsessed with auditory and visual

hallucinations." ((Motion
hallucinations."   Motion of the Defendant, Shawn Stryker, For a
                                                               aCompetency
                                                                 Competency

Examination, Apr. 5, 2021, at ,,l,i
                                 i,i 1-2). I
                                           I granted the Motion on April
                                                                   April 15,
                                                                         15, 2021.

        On October 25, 2021, following a
        On                             a stipulation of counsel regarding
                                                                regarding

Appellant's competency evaluation, IIentered an order accepting
                                                      accepting the report
                                                                    report of

the evaluating physician and finding Appellant incompetent to proceed.      My
                                                                            M
October 25th Order committed Appellant for involuntary inpatient treatment and

required Appellant
         Appellant to
                   to be
                      be reevaluated no more than    days later,
                                             than 90 days later, and every
                                                                     every 90
                                                                           90

days thereafter until such time as Appellant regained competency
                                                      competency to proceed.
                                                                    proceed.

                         conferring with
On April 25, 2022, after conferring with Appellant's Counsel and the
                                                                 the Assistant
                                                                     Assistant

District Attorney assigned to the matter regarding Appellant's
                                                   Appellant's refusal to take

1   In violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A.
    I                  Pa.C.S.A. §
                                 5 2702(a)(2); 18 Pa.CS.A.5
                                                  Pa.CS.A.§ 2702(a)(3);
                                                            2702(a)(3); 18
Pa.C.S.A. §
Pa.C.S.A.                  Pa.CS.A.§ 2705; and 18 Pa.C.S.A.
          5 2702(a)(6); 18 Pa.CS.A.5              Pa.C.S.A. §5 907(b).
                                                               907(b).
                                     3
                                     3
any medication, I
                I entered an Order allowing Appellant's
                                            Appellant's treating physicians to
                                                        treating physicians

administer the appropriate medication to Appellant to
                                                   to treat and overcome his
psychosis.

      After it was determined that he had regained competency W  proceed,
                                                              to proceed,

Appellant entered an open guilty plea to all charges on September 16, 2022.      II

deferred sentencing and
                    and ordered a
                                a Pre-Sentence Investigation
                                               Investigation ((PSI),
                                                               PSI).        On

December 29, 2022, following receipt of Appellant's PSI, IIsentenced Appellant
                                                                     Appellant

to an aggregate
      aggregate term of 6
                        6to
                          tD 20 years SCI as follows:

             Count 1, aggravated assault, serious bodily injury,
                                John Bardo, 3
             attempted, Officer John        3to 10 years SCI, plus costs.

             Count 2, ag assault, serious bodily
                                          bodily injury,  attempted, Nelson
                                                  injury, attempted,
             Moreno, 33 to 10 years, plus costs, consecutive to Count 1.
                                                                       1

             Counts
             Counts 33 through 6, attempted               bodily injury
                                    attempted ag assault, bodily injury
             attempted, 22 to 10 years SCI each, concurrent with each
             other, concurrent W
                               to Count 2, plus costs.

             Count 7, REAP, costs.     Count 8, possession
                                                possession of aa weapon,
             costs.

(Notes
(Notes of Testimony, Sentencing          Dec. 29, 2022.
                     Sentencing Hearing, Dec.              12:18-13:3).
                                                  2022. at 12:18-13:3).

      During the Sentencing Hearing, 1provided
                                     1provided the reasoning
                                                   reasoning behind the

sentence imposed, explaining:

             Mr. Stryker, under thethe law, II must look at the sentencing
                                                                  sentencing
             options, which are consistent with the protection
                                                          protection of the
                                                                         the
             public, the
                      the gravity
                          gravity of the underlying crimes as they relate to
                                                                           to
             our community
                    community and, of course, I         I look at your
             rehabilitative needs.
                                neds.     In doing so I've considered the
             nature andand circumstances of thethe underlying crimes, thethe
             information I I have about you from your statement to me,

                                            4
                                            4
your daughter's statement,
your daughter's statement, the
                           the arguments
                               arguments ofof counsel
                                              counsel and,  of
                                                       and, of
course,  the presentence investigation as well as
sentencing
sentencing guidelines, which must  be applied as
                             must be           as aa matter
                                                     matter of
law.
law.

I've considered all of these factors and impose sentence for
the following reasons: The   The [Appellant]
                                  [Appellant] is 51 years of age,age,
which
which shows sufficient
                    sufficient maturity to understand the         the
significance
significance of              The [Appellant]
              of his acts. The   [Appellant] is   intelligent enough
                                               is intelligent enough
to understand the significance of his acts, since he obtained
his GED,
    GED. The
           The [Appellant]
                [Appellant] has a  a criminal history consisting of,
                                                                   of,
by my count, six prior adult convictions. I've considered
the presentence report in detail, the guidelines of the
sentencing code. I've considered the penalties authorized by       by
the legislature.       I've
                       I've considered the character of the
 [Appellant], argument of your attorney as well as, again, your
statement and the statement of your daughter. I've read
and
and considered the psychological
                              psychological and   and psychiatric
                                                          psychiatric
evaluations attached to the PSI.

Because of prior contacts with the Court, II believe society
                                                        society
needs to be protected and there needs to be a   adeterrent and
there's also the undue risk if given a
                                     a sentence of probation or
partial   confinement,   he will     commit another crime.
               is warranted because a
Incarceration is                       a lesser sentence would
depreciate the seriousness of the crimes.

You are in need of correctional treatment that would
be most effectively provided by your commitment to an
institution.
institution,

Mr.
Mr,  Stryker, you are alive today for one reason and one
 reason only. On January 3, 2021, Officer John Bardo and
Officer Nelson Moreno allowed you to live. After you took two
shots at them, they would have been entirely Justified to
return that fire to what was, according to the file, a
                                                     a very clear
and easy target. They didn't do it. They showed restraint.
They showed the result of thorough training and, most of all,
they showed mercy. For that I    I am in
                                       n awe and for that, for
every day you have been alive since January 3, 2021 and
every day you live after, you should show gratitude.

                                  55
(I.d.,_at
(ld,  at 10: 25-12: 17) ((emphasis
                          emphasis supplied).

      Appellant's trial counsel also spoke at the Sentencing Hearing,
                                                             Hearing, noting:
                                                                      noting:

          I've known Mr.
                     Mr. Stryker for a
                                     a long time. I've represented him
          on some earlier matters.

          When I I first met him, he
                                   he had a
                                          a nice business, had aa number
          of people working for
                              for him and, you know, on the whole,
                                                            whole, some
           DU!s, but
           DU!s,  but aaresponsible
                        responsible person.
                                      person. As you
                                                   you can
                                                        can see
                                                            see ...    met
                                                                . . he met
          aa woman and got involved with her. She got him involved
          with crystal meth and he was off and running. As      As you saw
          from the presentence report, he          using almost every
                                             he is using               day
                                                                 every day
           until he was arrested nin these matters,

          Also, because of the use of crystal meth or in addition to it,  it,
           he developed a  a psychosis, which continued long long after he
          stopped   using crystal
          stopped using           meth. During
                          crystal meth.   During that
                                                 that time
                                                       time period, leading
                                                            period, leading
           up to these events, IIwas talking to him regularly
                                                      regularly and he
                                                                     he was
          telling me about God and he's God's general and he had iD       to
          fight battles. you can talk totD him rationally at one level and
          at another level, he's out there.

                                               #

          He was evaluated and at some point they found him
                                                                  by
          incompetent. They did the best thing they could for him by
          getting him in
                      in Norristown.

         At some point when he didn't take the medication, Your
         Honor, 1
                1 felt, very wisely, ordered him to take the medicine.
         And when he did, tit was like aa change. People
                                                  People at Norristown
         were shocked how much he changed so quicky when the
         medicine did take effect.

         I've
         I've talked to him aa number of times since then
                                                       then and he
                                                                 he has
         certainly gained aa different perspective.    He
                                                       He said he just
                                                                    just
         wasn't thinking dearly.
                          clearly. That's not an excuse,
                                                 excuse. Im
                                                          I'm not trying
         to make an excuse.

                                          #%

                                          6
                                          6
          It's aa serious case. You can't go around shooting
                                                        shooting at police
                                                                    police
          officers. Lucky no one was injured, killed. Lucky     he wasn't
                                                          Lucky he
          killed in
          killed  in this particular matter. Not acceptable,
                                                 acceptable,

          On the other hand, driven by mental illness to a
                                                         a large
                                                           large extent.

          As
          As you know, originally, the doctor told me to do an insanity
                                                               insanity
          defense.

          I
          I said no, I
                     I don't think he is insane.      IIthink he needs
          to accept responsibility, which he has done. That's' a
                                                               a
          good thing.

(4,-A 6: 16-9: 13)
(g,at          13) (emphasis
                   (emphasis supplied).
                             supplied).

      On January 6, 2023, Appellant filed a
                                          a Post Sentence Motion to Modify
                                                                    Modify and

Reconsider the Sentence,   I denied Appellant's
                           I denied Appellant's Motion on January 23, 2023.
                                                          January 23,

Appellant thereafter filed aa Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court from the

December 29, 2022, Judgment of Sentence. On February 2, 2023,
                                                        2023, I
                                                              I entered an

Order directing Appellant to
                          to file aa statement
                                     statement of errors complained
                                                         complained of on appeal
                                                                          appeal

pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b)
                                                     1925(b) and requiring
                                                                 requiring the

Commonwealth to
             to file aa response. Appellant
                                  Appellant filed
                                            filed his Statement of Errors on

February 10, 2023, and the Commonwealth responded on February
                                                     February 21,
                                                              21, 2023.

                                  DISCUSSION
      In
      In his Statement of Errors, Appellant argues that the
                                                        the ""basis
                                                              basis for the appeal
                                                                            appeal

sis an abuse of discretion, even though
                                 though [the
                                        [the sentence imposed] was below the

guidelines." ((1925(b)
guidelines."   1925(b) Statement of the Defendant, Shawn Stryker,      10,
                                                         Stryker, Feb. 10,

2023, at ,i
         i 3). Appellant claims that IIerred because I "did not
                                                            not factor in,
                                                                       in, at the

                                        77
time of sentencing, the severe mental illness that [he]
                                                   [he] had suffered from at the

time of his misconduct." 9L
                         gt

      "Sentencing is a
                     a matter vested i
                                     in the sound discretion of the

sentencing judge, and aasentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a
                                                                        a

manifest abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v.
                                            y, Griffin,         932,
                                               Griffin, 65 A.3d 932,

937
937 (    Super. 2013).
     Pa. Super.
    (Pa.        2013).    Pn
                          An ""abuse
                               abuse of
                                     of discretion
                                        discretion is     shown merely
                                                   is not shown merely by
                                                                       by

an error in Judgment." gL. Instead, "the
                                    "the appellant must establish, by
                                                                   by

reference to
reference to the record, that
             the record, that the sentencing court
                              the sentencing court ignored
                                                   ignored or
                                                           or misapplied
                                                              misapplied

the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias

or '
   11I
     Nill, or arrived at aamanifestly unreasonable
   11will,                                                    9L
                                      unreasonable decision." gL

      In discussing
         discussing the
                    the rationale behind granting
                        rationale behind granting such deference to the
                                                  such deference    the

sentencing court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated:
                      Pennsylvania Supreme

          [Tlhe sentencing court isis in the best position to
          [T]he
          determine the  proper penalty
                    the proper  penalty for aa particular offense
                                               particular offense
          based   upon an evaluation of the individual
          circumstances before itit .... ..,. Simply stated, the
          sentencing court sentences flesh-and-blood
          sentencing                     flesh-and- blood defendants
          and the
          and  the nuances
                    nuances of sentencing decisions
                                              decisions are
                                                        are difficult
                                                             difficult to
          gauge from
                  from the cold
                            cold transcript
                                 transcript used
                                              used upon appellate
                                                          appellate
          review.     Moreover, the sentencing court enjoys enjoys an
          institutional advantage to appellate review, bringing
                                                            bringing to
          its decisions an expertise, experience,
                                          experience, and judgment
          that
          that should
                should not       lightly disturbed.
                         not be lightly   disturbed. Even with with the
          advent of
          advent    of the
                       the sentencing guidelines, the power   power of of
          sentencing °1s
          sentencing    ls aa function to be   be performed by   by the
          sentencing court.

Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
             , Walls
                Wal,, 926 A.2d 957, 961-62
                          A.2d 957, 961-62 (Pa.
                                           (Pa. 2007).
                                                2007).

                                            8
                                            8
      The sentencing court also has the discretion to impose
                                                      impose its sentences

concurrent or consecutive to
                          bo other sentences being imposed at the same

time. C=monwealth
time. Commonwealth v. Johnson-Daniels,
                   y, Johnson - Daniels, 167
                                         167 A.3d
                                             A.3d 17,
                                                  17, 28
                                                      28 (Pa. Super.
                                                         (Pa. Super.

2017). When the court relies on the defendant's prior criminal history
                                                               history

and finds that the defendant ISa high risk to
                                           to re-offend and aadanger
                                                              danger to

the public, consecutive sentences are not clearly unreasonable.   See
.Commonwealth v. Klueber, 904 A.2d 911,911
Commonwealth v,                    911,911 (Pa.
                                           (Pa. 2006).

      Finally, the ""Supreme
                     Supreme Court has determined that where the trial

court is informed by aapre-sentence report, it is
                                               is presumed that the court

is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations,
s                                                  considerations, and that

were the court has been s
                        so informed, its discretion should not be

disturbed." Commonwtlalth v Ventura,
            Commonwtlalth v. Ventura, 975      1128, 1133 (Pa.
                                      975 A.2d 1128,      (Pa. Super.
                                                               Super.

Ct 2009) (citing
0                Co moonwealth
         (citing f.D mmonwealth ,
                                v. Dev erg, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa.
                                   Dyers,                    1988)).
                                                        (Pa. 1988)).

      Instantly, as noted
                    noted above, Appellant concedes that the sentencing
                                                             sentencing

guidelines for Counts 11and 22 provide aastandard sentencing range of 48

to 60 months incarceration. Appellant also acknowledges         both
                                           acknowledges that on both

Counts 11and 2, IIimposed a
                          aminimum sentence of 36 months-which
                                                  months- which is

in
n the mitigated range.   Although IIalso imposed guideline-range
                                                 guideline- range

sentences on Counts 3
                    3through 8, IImade all periods of incarceration

concurrent to those imposed on Counts 1     2. Further,
                                      1 and 2  Further, because

Appellant fired shots at two Officers, Appellant undoubtedly poses
                                                             poses a
                                                                   agrave
                                                                     grave

                                    9
                                    9
risk to the public and my decision to impose consecutive sentences on

       Iand 2
Counts 1and 2 is not
                 not clearly unreasonable.

      Appellant claims that IIdid not factor in
                                             n the severe mental illness

that he allegedly suffered from at
                                at the time of his misconduct.     However,
                                                                   However,

the transcript of the Sentencing Hearing demonstrates that IIcarefully

considered Appellant's rehabilitative needs and the psychological and

psychiatric evaluations provided
                        provided to me.     In
                                            in addition tD being intimately
                                               addition to       intimately

familiar with the facts of the case and with Appellant's
                                             Appellant's mental health from

my 'involvement
my  involvement with the matter prior to Appellant's decision to enter aa

guilty plea, I
             I relied on all of the information presented to me in the PSI

when fashioning Appellant's sentence.

      Interestingly,
      Interestingly, although
                     although Appellant claims
                                        daims on appeal that he was

clearly suffering from aasevere psychosis during the pertinent
                                                     pertinent times, his

own trial
    trial counsel admitted at sentencing that he chose not to pursue
                                                              pursue

an insanity defense because counsel did not think that Appellant
                                                       Appellant was

"insane." Instead, trial counsel emphasized that Appellant needed to

"accept responsibility" for his actions.

      For these reasons, Appellant simply has no basis to claim that II

manifestly abused the discretion afforded to me to fashion aasentence

that IIdeemed appropriate.     I
                               I correctly applied the sentencing guidelines

and relied on the psI
                  PSI In
                      in imposing aa mitigated- range sentence that
                                     mitigated-range

acknowledged the grave danger that Appellant created by firing at Police

                                       10
Officers who risked their lives to try to help him and who showed mercy
                                                                  mercy

in
n sparing his life.

                             CONCLUSION
      For these
      For                each of the
          these reasons, each    the errors that
                                            that Appellant complains of
                                                 Appellant complains

are without merit and the
                      the appeal should be
                                        be denied. Accordingly,
                                                   Accordingly, IIenter

the
the following:

                                   11
   THE COURT OF COMMON PLUS OP LANCASTIIR COUNTY, PIINNSYLVANIA
IN THI!                                           PLNNSYLVANIA
                         CRIMINAL

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               ••
                                             ••

       V.
                                                  0430-2021
                                            :
 SHAWN Q
       O STRYKER
         STRYKER

                                      ORD!R
      AND NOW, this    _ZL
                        7,1 day
                            'day of March, 2023, the Court hereby submits
                             1

this Opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania
                                             Pennsylvanla Rules of Appetliite
Procedure.

ATTEST:

Copies to:
Coples       Diana C. Kelleher, Esquire, Public Defender's Office
             Andrew Gonzalez, Esquire, District Attorney's Office