Court Opinion

ID: 9364917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 17:08:18.580908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:41.322722
License: Public Domain

J-S40025-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    LUIS NEGRON-MARTINEZ                       :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 399 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 21, 2021
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
               Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0008079-2018

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:                            FILED JANUARY 20, 2023

        Appellant, Luis Negron-Martinez, appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed on December 21, 2021 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia

County after he entered an open guilty plea to third-degree murder, robbery,

and possessing instruments of crime (“PIC”).1 Appellant contends that the

trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider mitigating factors and

imposing excessive consecutive sentences totaling 29 to 62 years in prison.

Appellant also argues that his sentence was improperly impacted because the

trial court viewed disturbing photographs of the victim’s corpse. Upon review,

we affirm.

____________________________________________

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2503, 3701, and 907, respectively.
J-S40025-22

        In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court summarized the underlying

facts, stating:

        [Appellant] pled to the following facts. On July 28, 2018,
        [Appellant] shot and killed his paramour of about a year, Vianelba
        Tavera, in his basement apartment at 424 West Roosevelt
        Boulevard in Philadelphia. Surveillance video from the inside of
        his cluttered apartment showed [Appellant] repeatedly hit the
        decedent in the head with a large bottle and choked her for about
        a minute and [a] half. The decedent tried to run away but was
        trapped in a corner of the basement by a locked door and was
        unable to escape. After initially turning to the decedent with a
        large bottle in hand, [Appellant] stopped, searched for his gun,
        picked it up, and walked slowly toward the decedent. From about
        ten feet away, [Appellant] attempted to shoot the decedent two
        times; the gun jammed on his first shot and he missed [with] the
        second shot. [Appellant] moved even closer to the decedent who
        is cowering in the corner with her hands up. From about five feet
        away, [Appellant] shot the decedent once in the head, killing her
        instantly.

        After taking pictures of the decedent’s body on his phone,
        [Appellant] stole the decedent’s keys and fled the scene in the
        decedent’s 2013 Acura SUV. Two days later in Fairfax, Virginia,
        [Appellant] called 911 because he was experiencing a diabetic
        emergency and suicidal thoughts. After the paramedics examined
        him, [Appellant] claimed he did not know who owned the car.
        With [Appellant’s] consent, police officers searched the vehicle
        and recovered [Appellant’s] blood covered gun and the decedent’s
        purse. While being interviewed by a psychiatrist, [Appellant]
        confessed to shooting and killing the decedent.

        The Fairfax Police Department contacted the Philadelphia and New
        York City Police Departments and learned that the decedent’s
        family had reported her missing.[2] Philadelphia police did not find
        the decedent’s body, at this point at an advanced stage of
        decomposition, until almost a week later in [Appellant’s]
        apartment.

____________________________________________

2   The decedent was a resident of the Bronx.

                                           -2-
J-S40025-22

       Philadelphia police also recovered the three fired cartridge casings
       that were ejected from [Appellant’s] legally purchased gun.

Trial Court Opinion, 3/11/22, at 2-3 (citations to guilty plea hearing testimony

omitted).

       Appellant was arrested and charged with murder and related offenses.

On August 6, 2021, he entered a guilty plea as outlined above. Following

completion and review of a pre-sentence investigation and review of mental

health reports, the trial court sentenced Appellant on December 21, 2021, to

20 to 40 years in prison for third-degree murder and consecutive sentences

of eight to 20 years for robbery and one to two years for PIC, for an aggregate

term of imprisonment of 29 to 62 years. Following denial of post-sentence

motions, Appellant filed this timely appeal. Both Appellant and the trial court

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

       Appellant asks us to consider two issues in this appeal:

       1. Whether the trial court’s aggregate sentence of 29 to [62 3]
          years of incarceration was an abuse of discretion that did not
          adequately consider [Appellant’s] mitigating factors, which
          included his: acceptance of responsibility, willingness to forgo
          viable pre-trial issues, history of mental and physical abuse,
          mental health issues, limited prior offenses, and behavior while
          in custody. Further, this court’s imposition of consecutive
          sentences for third-degree murder, robbery, and PIC is an
          abuse of discretion that does not consider the mitigating
____________________________________________

3  In his post-sentence motion, in his Rule 1925(b) statement, and in his brief
filed with this Court, Appellant mistakenly indicates the sentence imposed for
robbery was eight to 16 years, rather than eight to 20 years. Consequently,
he also mistakenly indicates that his aggregate sentence is 29 to 58 years
when, in fact, the aggregate is 29 to 62 years. See Order of Sentence,
12/21/21 (Count 2).

                                           -3-
J-S40025-22

         circumstances of [Appellant’s] action, which was a single
         criminal event.

      2. [Whether] the trial court’s sentence was improperly impacted
         by the disturbing photographs of the victim’s corpse, even
         though the Appellant was not charged with abuse of a corpse
         or other similar crimes and had no interaction with the victim’s
         corpse after the killing.

Appellant’s Brief at 9 (some capitalization omitted).

      We begin by setting forth our standard of review. In Commonwealth

v. Patterson, 180 A.3d 1217 (Pa. Super. 2018), this Court reiterated:

      [T]he proper standard of review when considering whether to
      affirm the sentencing court’s determination is an abuse of
      discretion. . . . [A]n abuse of discretion is more than a mere error
      of judgment; thus, a sentencing court will not have abused its
      discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment exercised
      was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice,
      bias or ill-will. In more expansive terms, our Court recently
      offered: An abuse of discretion may not be found merely because
      an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but
      requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality,
      prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly
      erroneous.
      The rationale behind such broad discretion and the concomitantly
      deferential standard of appellate review is that the sentencing
      court [is] in the best position to determine the proper penalty for
      a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual
      circumstances before it.

Id. at 1231-32 (quoting Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 169–170

(Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted)).

      Appellant does not challenge the legality of the sentence imposed; he

challenges only the discretionary aspects of his sentence.            As this Court

observed in Commonwealth v. Crawford, 257 A.3d 75 (Pa. Super. 2021):

                                        -4-
J-S40025-22

     The right to appeal the discretionary aspects of one’s sentence is
     not absolute, and the jurisdiction of this Court must be properly
     invoked. To raise a substantial question, an appellant must satisfy
     the following four-part test:

        (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, see 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. The determination of whether a particular
        issue raises a substantial question is to be evaluated on a
        case-by-case basis.     Generally, however, in order to
        establish a substantial question, the appellant must show
        actions by the sentencing court inconsistent with the
        Sentencing Code or contrary to the fundamental norms
        underlying the sentencing process.

Id. at 78 (quoting Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215, 1220-21 (Pa.

Super. 2011)).

     Our review of the record confirms that Appellant filed a timely notice of

appeal and that he properly preserved the issue in his motion to reconsider

the sentence. Further, he has included a Rule 2119(f) statement in his brief

filed with this Court.   Therefore, we must determine whether there is a

substantial question that Appellant’s sentence is not appropriate under the

Sentencing Code.

     A substantial question is raised when an 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.”

                                    -5-
J-S40025-22

Patterson, 180 A.3d at 1232 (quoting Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d

526, 533 (Pa. Super. 2011)).

      In his first issue, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its

discretion by failing to consider various mitigating circumstances and imposing

consecutive sentences for crimes arising from a single event. In support of

his contention, he cites cases in his Rule 2119(f) statement in which a

substantial question was raised (1) where the trial court considered only the

seriousness of the offense; (2) where the trial court relied on impermissible

hearsay; and (3) where the trial court may have relied in whole or in part on

impermissible considerations. Appellant’s Brief at 16 (citing Commonwealth

v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 773 (Pa. Super. 2009); Commonwealth

v. Crork, 966 A.2d 585 (Pa. Super. 2009); and Commonwealth v. Cruz,

402 A.2d 536 (Pa. Super. 1979)). However, Appellant fails to demonstrate

that the sentences imposed in his case were either “inconsistent with a

specific provision of the Sentencing Code” or “contrary to the fundamental

norms which underlie the sentencing process.” Patterson, 180 A.3d at 1232.

He simply argues that the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors and

that the court’s decision to run the sentences consecutively was “largely

punitive.” He suggests that the court’s failure to consider mitigating factors

requires this Court to vacate the sentence. Appellant’s Brief at 17.

      Quoting Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900 (Pa. Super. 2013),

in Patterson we noted,

                                     -6-
J-S40025-22

       “[T]his Court has held on numerous occasions that a claim of
       inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a
       substantial question for our review.” See also Commonwealth
       v. Kraft, 737 A.2d 755, 757 (Pa. Super. 1999), appeal
       denied, 560 Pa. 742, 747 A.2d 366 (1999) (determining
       appellant’s claim that sentence of incarceration for [driving under
       suspension] violation was excessive because sentencing court
       failed to adequately consider certain mitigating factors did not
       raise substantial question).

Id. at 1233 (quoting Disalvo, 70 A.3d at 903) (additional citations omitted).

See also Crawford, 257 A.3d at 79 (citing Commonwealth v. Cannon, 954

A.2d 1222, 1228-29 (Pa. Super. 2008) and Commonwealth v. Eline, 940

A.2d 421, 435 (Pa. Super. 2007)). Consistent with these cases, and as stated

in Commonwealth v. Radecki, 180 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2018), “we

conclude that Appellant failed to raise a substantial question with respect to

his excessiveness claim premised on the imposition of consecutive sentences

and inadequate consideration of mitigating factors.” Id. at 469. Moreover,

as reflected in the transcript of the sentencing hearing, the trial court clearly

considered mitigating factors, and also considered Appellant’s pre-sentence

investigation report (“PSI”)4 and mental health reports.         See Notes of

Testimony (“N.T.”), Sentencing Hearing, 12/21/21, at 8-16.

____________________________________________

4 “Where the sentencing court had the benefit of a [PSI], we can assume the
sentencing court was aware of the relevant information regarding the
defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating
statutory factors.” Radecki, 180 A.3d at 471 (quoting Commonwealth v.
Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 937 (Pa. Super. 2013)).

                                           -7-
J-S40025-22

      Even if his discretionary aspect of sentencing claim raised a substantial

question, Appellant would not be entitled to relief. As the trial court noted:

      When imposing a sentence, a trial court “shall follow the general
      principle that the sentence imposed should call for confinement
      that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of
      the offense [. . . ] and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.”
      Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9721(b). It is well-settled that sentencing is a
      matter vested in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not
      be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion. An abuse of
      discretion is not merely an error in judgment, but a defendant
      must establish that the sentencing court misapplied the law or
      exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias, or
      ill-will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.

Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 3/11/22, at 3 (citations omitted).

      Here, the trial court explained that it “considered every factor required

under the sentencing code and imposed a sentence that was not only

necessary for the protection of the public, but one that also reflected the

significant threat [Appellant] posed to the community.” Id. at 5. The court

also considered the pre-sentence and mental health reports, Appellant’s

acceptance of responsibility by pleading guilty, and Appellant’s prior record

score of zero, but reiterated its obligation to consider all sentencing factors.

Id. The court also commented that Appellant’s acceptance of responsibility

by pleading guilty was “the only reason this court did not impose the statutory

maximum.”     Id. at 6 (citing N.T., Sentencing Hearing, 12/21/21, at 44).

Based on our review of the record, it is clear that Appellant has failed to

“establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or

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

                                      -8-
J-S40025-22

bias or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.” Disalvo, 70

A.3d at 903 (citation omitted).5 Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate

an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, Appellant would not be

entitled to relief on his first issue, even if he had raised a substantial question.

Appellant’s first issue fails.

       Appellant’s second issue is related to the first in that Appellant contends

the trial court’s sentence was improperly impacted by the court’s viewing of

disturbing photographs of his victim’s corpse. As with his first issue, Appellant

has failed to present a substantial question for our review, again relying on

cases that are inapposite. See supra. However, even if Appellant presented

a substantial question, he would not be entitled to relief.

       The trial court appropriately dismissed Appellant’s claim for lack of

merit, stating:

       This court’s sentence was not impacted by the Commonwealth’s
       inclusion of a photo of the decedent’s bloated and maggot infested
       corpse, N.T. 12/21/21 at 8; see Commonwealth’s Sentencing
       Memo at 4.        Sentencing courts routinely view gruesome
       photographs at sentencing and are “presumed to be capable of
       identifying and properly disregarding all but the most prejudicial
       and inflammatory evidence.” Commonwealth v. Vanderslice,
____________________________________________

5 We note Appellant’s contention that the trial court failed to consider as a
mitigating factor Appellant’s agreement to forego his “viable pre-trial
suppression issues.” See Appellant’s Brief at 14; see also Appellant’s Reply
Brief at 1-2. Appellant fails to appreciate, as the Commonwealth recognizes,
that “as [Appellant] affirmed at his guilty plea hearing, by entering his plea,
he waived his right to challenge all non-jurisdiction defects except the validity
of his plea and the legality of his sentence.” Commonwealth Brief at 9 (citing
Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609 (Pa. Super. 2013)). His
decision to forego pre-trial issues is of no moment.

                                           -9-
J-S40025-22

       260 A.3d 125, [2021 WL 2907853 at *10 (Pa. Super. July 8,
       2021)] (unpublished memorandum)[6] (additional citations
       omitted). This court’s sentence was impacted by the incredibly
       serious nature of [Appellant’s] crimes and not by one photograph
       of the decedent’s body in an advanced state of decomposition.
       This court imposed a well-reasoned and just sentence, and
       [Appellant’s] claim fails.

Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 3/11/22, at 6-7 (citations and some

capitalization omitted).      We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s

imposition of Appellant’s sentence. Appellant’s second issue fails.

       Appellant has failed to present a substantial question meriting review of

either of his issues. Even if a substantial question were presented, he is not

entitled to relief. Therefore, we shall not disturb the sentence imposed by the

trial court.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 1/20/2023

____________________________________________

6 See R.A.P. 126(b) (Non-precedential decisions of the Superior Court filed
after May 1, 2019 may be cited for their persuasive value).

                                          - 10 -