Court Opinion

ID: 9963100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 16:10:57.317421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:40.887180
License: Public Domain

J-A07040-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  ZACHARY WISE SHOWERS                         :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 932 MDA 2023

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 17, 2023
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-06-CR-0003542-2021

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., SULLIVAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                          FILED: APRIL 24, 2024

       Zachary Wise Showers appeals from the May 17, 2023 judgment of

sentence of 2 to 8 years’ imprisonment imposed following the revocation of

his probation and resentencing for one count of aggravated indecent assault

– complainant less than 13 years of age.1 After careful review, we affirm the

judgment of sentence.

       The relevant facts of this case, as gleaned from the certified record, are

as follows: While he was a juvenile, Appellant engaged in the repeated sexual

assault of the female victim, his biological sister, when she was between 9

and 13 years old. See Affidavit of Probable Cause, 12/2/21 at 1.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3125(a)(7).
J-A07040-24

      The   trial court summarized the procedural history of this case as

follows:

            On March 3, 2022, in accordance with a negotiated
            plea agreement, [Appellant] was sentenced to eight
            (8) years of probation on one count of aggravated
            indecent assault[.] On June 9, 2022, a bench warrant
            was issued for alleged violations of probation and on
            May 17, 2023, [Appellant] was brought before the
            court for a Gagnon II hearing. [Appellant] admitted
            to violating his probation for failure to report as
            directed, failure to notify of a change of address,
            failure to obtain permission to travel, failure to
            complete urine screens, failure to participate in
            counseling and treatment, failure to abide by the sex
            offender rules and having a new arrest (DUI). After
            hearing the recommendations and arguments of
            counsel, [Appellant] was resentenced [on May 17,
            2023] to two (2) years to eight (8) years of
            incarceration. On May 23, 2023, a timely post[-
            ]sentence motion was filed. On June 8, 2023, a
            hearing on the post[-]sentence motion was held and
            the motion was denied. A [] notice of appeal was filed
            on June 27, 2023. The court did not order a 1925(b)
            statement because counsel for [Appellant] filed [a
            Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement] concurrently
            with the notice of appeal.

Trial court opinion, 7/7/23 at 1 (citation and extraneous capitalization

omitted).

      Preliminarily, we note that the filing of a post-sentence motion does not

toll the appeal period for a probation revocation sentence. See Pa.R.Crim.P.

708(E) (“The filing of a motion to modify sentence will not toll the 30-day

appeal period.”).   Accordingly, Appellant was required to file his notice of

appeal 30 days after his May 17, 2023 resentencing, or by June 16, 2023.

See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (“the notice of appeal…shall be filed within 30 days after

                                     -2-
J-A07040-24

the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken.”). Because the instant

notice of appeal was not filed until June 27, 2023, this Court issued an order

on September 11, 2023, directing Appellant to show cause why the appeal

should not be quashed as untimely. Appellant failed to respond to the Rule to

Show Cause order.

      It is well settled that an appellate court may excuse an untimely notice

of appeal where there has been a “breakdown in the processes of a court.”

See Pa.R.A.P. 105 comment. This Court has found that a breakdown occurred

where the trial court, at the time of sentencing, either failed to advise the

appellant of his post-sentence and appellate rights or misadvised him. See

Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927, 929 (Pa.Super. 2003) (declining

to quash facially untimely appeal from judgment of sentence following a

probation revocation when the trial court misadvised the appellant of the time

limits for filing an appeal pursuant to Rule 708).

      Instantly, the record reveals that the trial court’s June 8, 2023 order

denying Appellant’s post-sentence motion failed to advise Appellant that his

notice of appeal must be filed by June 16, 2023; in fact, the order did not

contain any advice regarding appeal rights at all. Accordingly, we find that

there was a breakdown in the processes of the court and excuse the untimely

filing of Appellant’s notice of appeal.

      On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

            Did the sentencing court abuse its discretion by
            resentencing Appellant to a sentence of two (2) to

                                          -3-
J-A07040-24

                  eight (8) years while failing to consider mitigating
                  factors, his pre and post[-]conviction circumstances
                  including his record of self-improvement; the nature
                  and circumstances of the charges, specifically
                  Appellant’s status as a juvenile at the time of the
                  offenses and giving undue weight to the Sentencing
                  Guidelines[?]

Appellant’s brief at 4 (extraneous capitalization omitted).

       “In an appeal from a sentence imposed after the court has revoked

probation, we can review the validity of the revocation proceedings, the

legality of the sentence imposed following revocation, and any challenge to

the discretionary aspects of the sentence imposed.”                 Commonwealth v.

Wright, 116 A.3d 133, 136 (Pa.Super. 2015) (citation omitted).                         A

“[r]evocation of a probation sentence is a matter committed to the sound

discretion of the trial court and that court’s decision will not be disturbed on

appeal in the absence of an error of law or an abuse of discretion.”

Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033, 1041 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation

omitted), appeal denied, 109 A.3d 678                    (Pa. 2015).    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. Bullock, 170 A.3d 1109, 1123 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citation

omitted), appeal denied, 184 A.3d 944 (Pa. 2018).

       Here, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing

to consider various mitigating factors in fashioning his standard-range

                                               -4-
J-A07040-24

probation revocation sentence, including the “nature and circumstances of the

original charge[,]” his rehabilitative needs, “the positive actions of the

Appellant during his admittedly brief time on probation[,]” and the fact that

his crime occurred when he was a juvenile. Appellant’s brief at 11, 13-16.

      Where an appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence,

as is the case here, the right to appellate review is not absolute.

Commonwealth v. Conte, 198 A.3d 1169, 1173 (Pa.Super. 2018), appeal

denied, 206 A.3d 1029 (Pa. 2019). On the contrary, an appellant challenging

the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction

by satisfying the following four-part test:

            (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether
            appellant preserved his issue; (3) whether appellant’s
            brief includes a concise statement of the reasons
            relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the
            discretionary aspects of sentence; and (4) whether
            the concise statement raises a substantial question
            that the sentence is appropriate under the sentencing
            code.

Commonwealth v. Carrillo-Diaz, 64 A.3d 722, 725 (Pa.Super. 2013)

(citations omitted).

      As noted, Appellant’s untimely notice of appeal has been excused by this

Court due to a breakdown in the in court processes. Additionally, Appellant

preserved his sentencing claim in his May 23, 2023 post-sentence motion and

has also included a statement in his brief that comports with the requirements

of Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f).   See Appellant’s brief at 5-6.   Accordingly, we must

determine whether Appellant has raised a substantial question.

                                      -5-
J-A07040-24

      “The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.”      Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d

932, 935 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 76 A.3d 538

(Pa. 2013). “A substantial question exists only when 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. Glass, 50 A.3d 720, 727 (Pa.Super. 2012)

(citation omitted), appeal denied, 63 A.3d 774 (Pa. 2013).

      “This Court repeatedly has held that a claim of inadequate consideration

of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review.”

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

omitted). In Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa.Super. 2015),

appeal denied, 126 A.3d 1282 (Pa. 2015), a panel of this Court reiterated

that, “ordinarily, a claim that the sentencing court failed to consider or accord

proper weight to a specific sentencing factor does not raise a substantial

question.” Id. at 769. Likewise, in Commonwealth v. Cannon, 954 A.2d

1222 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 964 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2009), we held

that a claim that the trial court failed to consider, inter alia, the defendant’s

rehabilitative needs and age did not present a substantial question for review.

Id. at 1228-1229.

                                      -6-
J-A07040-24

       Based on the foregoing, we find that Appellant’s argument fails to raise

a substantial question, and, therefore, he has not preserved his challenge to

the discretionary aspects of sentencing. Accordingly, we affirm the May 17,

2023 judgment of sentence.2

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 04/24/2024

____________________________________________

2  Even if Appellant had raised a substantial question for this Court’s
consideration, we would find no abuse of discretion. As the trial court properly
noted in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, it thoroughly considered and weighed
numerous factors in resentencing Appellant to a term of 2 to 8 years’
imprisonment, a probation revocation sentence whose minimum was actually
one year less than requested by the Commonwealth. See trial court opinion,
7/7/23 at 5. Specifically, the trial court noted that it considered, inter alia,
Appellant’s prior record score and offense gravity score; his age at both the
time of the offense and at the Gagnon II hearing; the background of this
case and the information provided by the supervising probation officer;
Appellant’s employment obligations; and his rehabilitative needs. Id. at 5-6.

                                           -7-