Court Opinion

ID: 9911722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 18:09:24.050318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:54.596034
License: Public Domain

J-S35010-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  DANIEL HERBERT ROETING                       :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 424 MDA 2023

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 1, 2023
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0005187-2021

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                       FILED: DECEMBER 20, 2023

       Daniel Herbert Roeting appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed

following his conviction of theft by unlawful taking. Roeting argues that the

trial court imposed an excessive sentence. We affirm.

       Given that Roeting does not challenge his conviction on appeal, only a

brief factual summary is necessary. On September 27, 2021, Roeting stole his

father’s firearm. The Commonwealth charged Roeting with theft by unlawful

taking. The case proceeded to a jury trial, after which Roeting was found

guilty. Thereafter, the trial court deferred sentencing pending the preparation

of a presentence investigation report. Ultimately, after considering the

presentence investigation report, Roeting’s rehabilitative needs, Roeting’s

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S35010-23

prior criminal history, the fact he has received multiple treatment services,

and the protection of the community, the trial court sentenced Roeting to 33

months to 6 years in prison. The trial court specifically noted that Roeting was

ineligible to participate in the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive. Moreover,

the trial court did not make Roeting eligible for the boot camp program.

Roeting filed a post-sentence motion to reconsider his sentence, which the

trial court denied. This timely appeal followed.

      On appeal, Roeting raises the following question for our review:

      Was the trial court’s sentence of 33 months to 6 years of
      incarceration so manifestly excessive as to constitute too severe
      a punishment and clearly unreasonable under the circumstances
      of this case, as it was not consistent with the protection of the
      public, the gravity of the offense, and the rehabilitative needs of
      [] Roeting and the [trial c]ourt did not impose an individualized
      sentence which took into consideration [] Roeting’s circumstances
      and instead based such sentence solely upon [] Roeting’s lack of
      remorse and lack of accountability and did the [trial c]ourt further
      abuse its discretion in not recommending that [] Roeting
      participate in boot camp?

Appellant’s Brief at 6.

      Roeting   challenges   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. Moury, 992 A.2d 162,

170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted). Prior to reaching the merits of a

discretionary sentencing issue, this Court conducts a four-part analysis:

      (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

                                     -2-
J-S35010-23

      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).

Moury, 992 A.2d at 170 (citation and brackets omitted).

      Here, Roeting filed a timely appeal and preserved his claim in his post-

sentence motion. Roeting also included a separate Rule 2119(f) Statement in

his brief; accordingly, we will review his Rule 2119(f) statement to determine

whether he has raised a substantial question. See Commonwealth v.

Provenzano, 50 A.3d 148, 154 (Pa. Super. 2012) (stating that “we cannot

look beyond the statement of questions presented and the prefatory 2119(f)

statement to determine whether a substantial question exists.” (citation

omitted)).

      “The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” Commonwealth v. Edwards, 71 A.3d

323, 330 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted). “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.” Id. (citation omitted).

      In his Rule 2119(f) statement, Roeting argues that the trial court

imposed a manifestly excessive sentence, improperly focused on his lack of

remorse, and did not properly considering his age and drug and alcohol history

in denying him entry into the boot camp program. See Appellant’s Brief at 10-

                                     -3-
J-S35010-23

12. Roeting’s claim raises a substantial question. See Commonwealth v.

Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (noting that “an

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

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

omitted)).

      Our standard of review of a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a

sentence is well settled:

      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. Watson, 228 A.3d 928, 936-37 (Pa. Super. 2020)

(citation omitted).

      Roeting contends the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a

manifestly excessive sentence. See Appellant’s Brief at 13, 16, 18-19. Roeting

suggests that this sentence was too severe a punishment based upon the

circumstances of the crime and was inconsistent with the protection of the

public and his rehabilitative needs. See id. at 13. Roeting points out that the

trial court improperly focused on his lack of remorse, as he was allowed to

maintain his innocence of the charge and exercise his right to a trial. See id.

at 16, 18. Roeting further claims that the trial court should have considered

his need for drug and alcohol treatment in rendering the sentence. See id. at

                                     -4-
J-S35010-23

17; see also id. at 18 (noting that his drug and alcohol abuse started at the

age of 15 and was responsible for his prior probation and parole violations).

Moreover, Roeting highlights that he was eligible for the boot camp program

and that the trial court made him ineligible for the program without an

explanation. See id. at 17-18.

     The trial court addressed Roeting’s claims as follows:

           In sentencing [Roeting] in the instant matter, the [trial]
     court was guided by an extensive presentence investigation.
     Contrary to [Roeting’s] current assertions, in fashioning sentence,
     the [trial] court gave thoughtful consideration to: the penalties
     authorized by the Legislature; the sentencing guidelines and all of
     the applicable ranges, including the standard, aggravated, and
     mitigated ranges; the facts and circumstances of the current
     offenses; the pre-sentence investigation and all attachments
     thereto, including court documentation regarding the current
     charges, a drug and alcohol evaluation conducted by staff at the
     Lancaster County Prison, documentation from Wellness
     Counseling,     documentation     From     Rehab     After   Work,
     documentation from White Deer Run, documentation from Drug
     and Alcohol Treatment Services, and records of the Lancaster
     County Probation Department; the comments made by the
     attorney for the Commonwealth; the comments of [Roeting’s]
     attorney; the position of [Roeting]; [Roeting’s] rehabilitative
     needs; the need for there to be a deterrence; and, the need for
     the protection of the entire community. The court also noted that
     [Roeting] refused to participate in the presentence investigation
     report and, as such, the court was provided with limited
     information regarding [Roeting’s] background. (N.T., Sent., pp.
     11-12).

           The court extensively considered and discussed [Roeting’s]
     age, his extensive prior criminal record, his extensive drug and
     alcohol concerns, his multiple failed attempts at rehabilitation, his
     sporadic employment history, and his lack of remorse or
     acceptance of responsibility. (N.T., Sent., pp. 1-15).

           As reflected in the aforementioned comments and
     considerations noted by the [trial] court, th[e trial] court believes

                                     -5-
J-S35010-23

      that a sentence in the standard range was appropriate and that
      any lesser sentence would depreciate the seriousness of this
      conduct.

             Lastly, [Roeting] alleges that the court abused its discretion
      in not recommending him for participation in the motivational boot
      camp program based solely upon his lack of remorse and lack of
      accountability.

      61 Pa.C.S.A. § 3904(b) provides,

            The sentencing judge shall employ the sentencing
            guidelines to identify those defendants who are
            eligible for participation in a motivational hoot camp.
            The judge shall have the discretion to exclude a
            defendant from eligibility if the judge determines that
            the defendant would be inappropriate for placement
            in a motivational boot camp. The judge shall note on
            the sentencing order whether the defendant has been
            excluded from eligibility for a motivational boot camp
            program.

      61 Pa.C.S.A. § 3904(b).

            Contrary to [Roeting’s] current assertion, this court
      considered the totality of the considerations noted above in
      determining the [Roeting] would be inappropriate for placement
      in a motivational boat camp, including, but not limited to, the
      severity of the conduct alleged, the extensive prior criminal
      record, and repeated history of failure in rehabilitative
      programming.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/5/23, at 6-7.

      Here, the trial court considered the presentence investigation report.

See N.T., 2/1/23, at 3, 7, 12-13; see also Presentence Investigation Report

at 1-17. As such, the trial court was properly apprised of and considered all

relevant factors in fashioning Roeting’s sentence, and there is no indication

that the trial court ignored any factors. See Watson, 228 A.3d at 936 (stating

                                       -6-
J-S35010-23

that where the trial court is informed by a presentence investigation report, it

is presumed that the court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and

considerations, and that where the court has been so informed, its discretion

should not be disturbed). Moreover, in rendering the sentence, the trial court

highlighted Roeting’s lack of remorse throughout trial, specifically noting his

failure to cooperate with the pre-sentence investigation report, and rejected

his attempt to blame others for his own conduct. See N.T., 2/1/23, at 14. In

addition, the trial court explained its reasons for not making Roeting eligible

for the boot camp program. See 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 3904(b). In light of the

foregoing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence.

See Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957, 961 (Pa. 2007) (stating that

“the sentencing court enjoys an institutional advantage to appellate review,

bringing to its decisions an expertise, experience, and judgment that should

not be lightly disturbed.”).

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 12/20/2023

                                      -7-