Court Opinion

ID: 9865416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 17:08:41.56869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:21.017331
License: Public Domain

J-S29011-23

 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  DANIEL HARRISON MOLL                         :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 216 MDA 2023

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 8, 2022
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Union County
                Criminal Division at CP-60-CR-0000005-2022

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  DANIEL HARRISON MOLL                         :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 217 MDA 2023

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 8, 2022
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Union County
                Criminal Division at CP-60-CR-0000006-2022

BEFORE:      MURRAY, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                          FILED SEPTEMBER 25, 2023

       Daniel Harrison Moll (Appellant) appeals the discretionary aspects of his

sentences following his nolo contendere pleas to strangulation and aggravated

cruelty to animals.1 We affirm.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2718(a)(2), 5534(a)(4).
J-S29011-23

       On January 6, 2022, the Commonwealth filed two criminal informations

against Appellant. At CP-60-CR-0000006-2022 (CR 6), the Commonwealth

alleged that on September 12, 2021, Appellant “did place his hands around

the neck of [his wife, the] victim, … and applied pressure causing the victim’s

difficulty breathing….”      CR 6, 1/6/22, at 1.   According to the information,

Appellant shoved the victim’s face into couch cushions, covering her nose and

mouth.    Id.    Appellant next removed the victim from their residence, and

drove her around in his vehicle. Id. During the drive, Appellant continued

assaulting the victim by “slamming her head into the car window, grabbing a

fist full of hair in order to control the victim and prevent her from leaving.”

Id. The information charged Appellant with two counts of strangulation, and

one count each of kidnapping – inflict bodily injury/terrorize; unlawful restraint

– serious bodily injury; simple assault; and summary harassment.2 Id. at 1-

2.

       At CP-60-CR-0000005-2022 (CR 5), the information alleged that on

September 13, 2021, Appellant drove with his three dogs to Commerce Park

Drive, White Deer Township. Criminal Information, 3/6/22. Appellant parked

and locked his vehicle, leaving the dogs inside and the windows rolled up. Id.

____________________________________________

2 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2901(a)(3), 2902(a)(1), 2701(a)(1), 2709(a)(1).

                                           -2-
J-S29011-23

As result, one of the dogs died.3 Id. As a result, the Commonwealth filed the

following three charges against Appellant:

       Count 1 was aggravated cruelty to animals – causing serious
       bodily injury or death, a felony of the third degree[, see 18
       Pa.C.S.A. § 5534(a)(2)]. Count 2 was neglect of animals –
       sustenance/water, a misdemeanor of the third degree[, see id.
       § 5532(a)(1)]. Count 3 was cruelty to animals, a misdemeanor
       of the second degree[, see id. § 5533(a)]….

Trial Court Opinion, 2/7/23, at 1.

       On April 19, 2022, Appellant entered negotiated nolo contendere pleas

at CR 5 and CR 6. At CR 5, Appellant pled nolo contendere to aggravated

cruelty to animals,

       with the remaining charges being dismissed, the sentence for
       Count 1 would be a minimum of RS to nine (9) months, and the
       [trial court] would determine whether the sentence was
       consecutive or concurrent to [the sentence at CR 6]….

Trial Court Opinion (CR 5), 2/7/23, at 1-2 (some capitalization modified). At

CR 6, Appellant pled nolo contendere to strangulation – blocking the nose and

mouth,

       with the remaining charges being dismissed, the sentence for
       [strangulation] would be a minimum at the bottom of the standard
       range (24 months), and the [c]ourt would determine whether
       the sentence was consecutive or concurrent to [CR 5]….

Trial Court Opinion (CR 6), 2/7/23, at 1 (emphasis added).

____________________________________________

3 The information did not include additional details such as how long the dogs

remained in the vehicle.

                                           -3-
J-S29011-23

        On July 8, 2022, as part of the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced

Appellant at both CR 5 and CR 6. For his conviction of aggravated cruelty to

animals (CR 5), the trial court sentenced Appellant to nine months to three

years in prison, with time-served credit for 296 days. The trial court dismissed

the remaining charges at CR 5 in accordance with the plea agreement. N.T.,

7/8/22, at 4.     For his conviction of strangulation – blocking the nose and

mouth (CR 6), the trial court sentenced Appellant to two to five years in prison.

The trial court imposed this sentence consecutive to Appellant’s sentence at

CR 5.

        Appellant timely filed post-sentence motions. On December 7, 2022,

the clerk of courts issued an order denying Appellant’s post-sentence motion

by operation of law. Order, 12/7/22. Appellant timely appealed.4 Appellant

and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

        Appellant presents the following question:

        Did error occur where [Appellant] received consecutive, rather
        than concurrent sentences?

Appellant’s Brief at 7.

        Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentences.      “A

challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing is not automatically

reviewable as a matter of right.” Commonwealth v. Grays, 167 A.3d 793,

____________________________________________

4 Appellant filed a separate notice of appeal at each docket, consistent with

our Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969
(Pa. 2018). This Court consolidated the appeals sua sponte.

                                           -4-
J-S29011-23

815 (Pa. Super. 2017).       Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary

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).

Grays, 167 A.3d at 815-16 (citation omitted).

      Appellant timely filed notices of appeal, preserved his issue in post-

sentence motions, and included in his brief a statement of his reasons for

relied upon for allowance of appeal, in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f).

Accordingly, we assess whether Appellant presents a substantial question.

Grays, 167 A.3d at 816.

      Appellant argues that the additional nine-month minimum term

resulting from the imposition of consecutive sentences, “serves no appropriate

purpose.”   Appellant’s Brief at 11.    Appellant asserts, “The spontaneous

testimony of an unexpected witness indicated that Appellant is already well

on his way to reform.” Id.

      Appellant’s claims regarding the trial court’s failure to consider certain

mitigating evidence and the imposition of consecutive sentences raises a

substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770

(Pa. Super. 2015) (“Appellant’s challenge to the imposition of his consecutive

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

                                     -5-
J-S29011-23

consider his rehabilitative needs upon fashioning its sentence, presents a

substantial question.”).   Accordingly, we review the merits of Appellant’s

sentencing issue.

      Appellant argues

      the trial court was able to witness an extremely rare occurrence:
      An incarcerated defendant, facing his own sentence, who spoke
      up from the audience to attest to the positive qualities and
      progress of [Appellant].

Appellant’s Brief at 13.    Appellant claims a concurrent sentence would

acknowledge that Appellant’s reform began before his punishment was

imposed, and he “was displaying positive qualities around those who also need

reform.” Id.

      We review Appellant’s challenge to the discretionary aspects of his

sentence mindful that:

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

omitted). The imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences is

within the sound discretion of the sentencing court. Commonwealth v.

Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 133 (Pa. Super. 2013).

      [T]he sentence imposed should call for confinement that is
      consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the

                                     -6-
J-S29011-23

       offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on
       the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b).

       We note that our review discloses the trial court had the benefit of a

presentence investigation report. N.T. (Sentencing), 7/8/22, at 2.

       Where … the sentencing court has the benefit of reviewing a pre-
       sentence investigation report, we can assume the sentencing
       court was aware of relevant information regarding the defendant’s
       character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating
       statutory factors.

Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912, 919 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quotation

marks and citation omitted).

       At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel presented mitigating

evidence on Appellant’s behalf. See id. at 2-4. After sentencing, the trial

court advised Appellant, and defendants in unrelated cases, of their post-

sentence rights. Id. at 6. At that time, one of the other defendants, Mr.

Blair,5 asked to speak on Appellant’s behalf. Id. at 6, 8. Mr. Blair advised the

court of Appellant’s remorse and assistance since his incarceration. Id. at 8.

According to Mr. Blair, Appellant told him the death of his dog was an accident,

and that he loved his wife, the victim. Id. Thereafter, the trial court informed

defense counsel, “I anticipate a Motion to Modify, and we will take a look at

this when we have more time to look into it.” Id. at 10.

____________________________________________

5 Mr. Blair’s first name is not in the transcript.

                                           -7-
J-S29011-23

      Appellant filed a motion to modify based on Mr. Blair’s expression of

support.    Post-Sentence Motion, 7/18/22, at 1.     Appellant claimed, “The

[c]ourt can and should consider a diminishment of sentence, particularly as

the plea agreement allowed for concurrent sentences.” Id. at 2. Appellant

was denied relief.

      Upon review, we discern no abuse of the trial court’s sentencing

discretion. Appellant’s plea agreement expressly permitted the imposition of

consecutive sentences. The transcript of the sentencing hearing confirms the

trial court considered Appellant’s presentence investigation report, mitigating

evidence, and Mr. Blair’s comments (upon which Appellant based his post-

sentence motion). Nonetheless, the trial court denied relief. The trial court

observed:

      [T]he sentence imposed is within the legal limits of the law and
      was within the terms of the plea agreement in which Appellant
      agreed.   Furthermore, the sentence is not unreasonable or
      manifestly excessive as the minimum could have been in excess
      of the imposed eight (8) years.

Trial Court Opinion, 2/7/23. We agree. Appellant’s sentencing claim does not

merit relief.

      Judgments of sentence affirmed.

                                     -8-
J-S29011-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 09/25/2023

                          -9-