Court Opinion

ID: 9758345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:23:06.969984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:49.731843
License: Public Domain

JACOBS, Judge:
This is an appeal from judgments of sentence imposed on appellant Leonard E. Andrews following his pleas of guilty to three charges of robbery, three charges of aggravated assault and one charge of violating the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. His sole contention is that his sentences1 “should be reduced so as to more *3appropriately reflect the totality of the circumstances of the case.” Appellant’s Brief at 4. We affirm.
It is well-settled that the sentence to be imposed upon a convicted defendant is within the sole discretion of the sentencing judge, whose discretion is very broad. Commonwealth v. Kaminski, 244 Pa. Super. 388, 368 A.2d 776 (filed December 15, 1976), and cases therein cited. Provided that the sentence imposed is within statutory limits, we should not find an abuse of discretion unless the sentence is so manifestly excessive as to inflict too severe punishment. E.g., Commonwealth v. Person, 450 Pa. 1, 297 A.2d 460 (1972); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 235 Pa.Super. 185, 340 A.2d 515, allocatur refused, 235 Pa.Super. xxvii (1975); Commonwealth v. Riggins, 232 Pa.Super. 32, 332 A.2d 521 (1974).
While appellant was not the lone perpetrator of the three robberies and aggravated assaults, his sentences were more severe than those imposed on the other individuals involved. A court, however, is not required to impose a like sentence on all participants. Commonwealth v. Burton, 451 Pa. 12, 301 A.2d 675 (1973); Commonwealth v. Johnson, supra. “The sentencing judges, after considering all the facts related to each defendant, is justified in imposing different sentences.” Commonwealth v. Burton, supra, 451 Pa. at 15, 301 A.2d at 677 (citation omitted).
Here, the lower court, after reviewing the presentence investigation report, imposed sentences within the statutory limits. Although appellant may have shown “remorse and repentance, and a willingness to make amends,” we cannot conclude that these sentences are manifestly excessive. The sentences therefore will not be disturbed.
Judgments affirmed.
*4SPAETH, J., files a dissenting opinion in which HOFFMAN, J., joins.

. Appellant was sentenced to serve six to twelve years imprisonment on two of the robbery charges, five to ten years imprisonment on the third robbery charge and two of the aggravated assault charges, one *3to three years imprisonment on the third aggravated assault charge, and one year probation on the charge of violating the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. The sentences on all seven charges are to run concurrently.