Court Opinion

ID: 9908690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-11 17:09:41.044436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:29.491412
License: Public Domain

J-S31036-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    AARON WALKER                               :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 736 EDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 29, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division
                      at No(s): CP-46-CR-0005874-2021

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                       FILED DECEMBER 11, 2023

       Aaron Walker appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following

his guilty plea to one count each of corrupt organizations, dealing in proceeds

of unlawful activities, criminal use of communication facility, and sale or

transfer of firearms-first offense, and five counts of sale or transfer of

firearms-second/subsequent offense.1 Walker challenges the discretionary

aspects of his sentence. We affirm.

       In August 2022, Walker pled guilty to the above-referenced offenses.

The trial court summarized the factual basis of the plea as follows:

          As the factual basis for Walker’s guilty plea, he admitted
          that between December 19, 2019 and July 12, 2021, in
          Montgomery, Bucks and Philadelphia counties, he engaged
          in a criminal conspiracy with codefendants Nasim Smalls
          (hereinafter “Smalls”) and Tyrone Gresham (hereinafter
____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 911(b)(2), 5111(a)(1), 7512(a), 6111(g)(2), and
6111(h)(1), respectively.
J-S31036-23

        “Gresham”) for Gresham to purchase firearms for other
        people. Tyron Gresham purchased at least thirty-seven (37)
        firearms4 and affirmed on the official purchase paperwork
        that he was the actual buyer, which was a false statement.
        The firearms were real and operable. Walker’s role in the
        conspiracy was to drive Gresham to the gun stores on some
        of those occasions. In addition, Walker and others provided
        money for Gresham to purchase the guns. In committing
        the crimes to which he pleaded guilty, Walker engaged in
        racketeering activity, and he had a direct interest in the
        outcome of the conspiracy. Walker was under the age of
        twenty-one (21) at the time the firearms were purchased
        and therefore he was not legally able to purchase firearms.
        To carry out the purpose of the conspiracy (i.e. purchasing
        the firearms) Walker communicated with his codefendants
        via cell phone, took photographs of the firearms and
        contacted gun stores. Following a consent search after
        Walker’s arrest, police recovered two gun boxes that were
        associated with the purchases that Gresham made. Walker
        entered an open plea of guilty for six (6) specific illegal
        transfers of firearms and accepted responsibility for the
        overall gun trafficking organization through which Gresham
        successfully purchased a total of thirty-seven (37) guns.
        This organization was responsible for placing all thirty-seven
        (37) illegal guns into the community.
           4  As outlined in the affidavit of probable cause
           attached to the criminal complaint.

Trial Court Opinion, May 4, 2023, at 1-3 (internal citations to guilty plea

transcript and some footnotes omitted).

     In November 2022, the trial court held a sentencing hearing, where it

heard from Montgomery County Detective David Holtzman, Walker’s sister

Neiara Walker (“Neiara”), and Walker’s employer Khaleef Murray. Detective

Holtzman testified as the affiant in the case and as an expert in the illegal

transfer of firearms. He testified regarding Walker’s role in the conspiracy,

including that “Walker set up, arranged to go to the gun stores. He contacted

                                    -2-
J-S31036-23

the gun stores. He gave . . . Gresham a ride to the gun stores, he accompanied

him to the locations, provided him money to purchase the firearms, and

subsequently put the guns on the street.” N.T., Nov. 29, 2022, at 15.

      Neiara testified about the murder of Walker’s father and the impact the

murder had on Walker. Id. at 53-58. Murray testified that he has known

Walker since he was a child, had employed Walker at his car dealership prior

to his arrest, and would employ him again upon release from prison. Id. 50-

52. The trial court also heard Walker’s allocution, entertained argument from

the assistant district attorney and defense counsel, and reviewed a

presentence investigation report (“PSI”).

      The   five   convictions   for   the   sale   or   transfer   of   firearms-

second/subsequent offense were each subject to a five-year mandatory

minimum sentence. The trial court imposed three consecutive five-to-ten-year

sentences for three of the convictions. For the remaining two convictions, the

court imposed five-to-ten-year sentences concurrent to the sentences

imposed for the other convictions. For the sale or transfer of firearms-first

offense conviction, the court imposed a concurrent two-to-five-year sentence.

For the dealing in proceeds from unlawful activity and corrupt organizations

convictions, the court imposed one and a half to three-year concurrent

sentences. For the criminal use of a communication facility conviction, the

court imposed no further penalty. The aggregate sentence was 15 to 30 years’

imprisonment.

                                       -3-
J-S31036-23

      At sentencing, the trial court gave an extensive on-the-record

explanation of its reasons for the sentence:

             This Court has considered a great deal of information. We
         spent a lot of time together today. I’ve considered all of the
         information presented today in the courtroom. I have the
         benefit of a [PSI], which I read with great interest. I’ve
         considered the sentencing memoranda presented and the
         letters presented in support of Mr. Walker. I considered the
         arguments of counsel, and, again, the testimony and Mr.
         Walker’s statements. So I want the record to be clear that
         I’ve considered everything here. And I’ve also considered,
         while it’s not really a part of the record, [the assistant
         district attorney] made reference to it, I’ve considered the
         co-defendant, because I was the sentencing Judge in Mr.
         Smalls’ case. So I had the benefit of hearing his role in the
         organization and I imposed the sentence on him.

             So, Mr. Walker, the first thing I’ll say to you is I’m very
         sorry for the loss of your father. It is very clear that that
         impacted your life, as one would expect, in a very tragic and
         negative way. Your sister’s testimony was very powerful in
         that regard. You were a very young person. You’re not a
         child, young child, but as a teenager, very close with your
         dad, and his death by gun violence I know set you on a
         trajectory that, perhaps, you could not have anticipated . .
         . in the earlier days of your life. And it’s clear from all of the
         other information that I’ve reviewed that things did change
         for you, and they changed for the absolute worse. And that’s
         something you’re going to have to deal with throughout the
         rest of your life, and there’s nothing that the Court can do
         about that. But I recognize it. I recognize how devastating
         that kind of event can be in somebody’s life, especially
         someone who’s young.

            I have looked at all aspects of this case. And I think that
         [defense counsel], perhaps, said it best: Mr. Walker took
         what was started by someone else and ran with it. In this
         case, Mr. Walker’s brother, Nasim Smalls, and Tyrone
         Gresham started something. I might analogize it to a
         lemonade or a snack stand. And Mr. Walker took it and ran
         with it and turned it into a conglomerate ready to be
         franchised. I mean, he just ran with it.

                                       -4-
J-S31036-23

       The difference between what went on in this organization at
       the end of 2019 and . . . then throughout 2020 compared
       to 2021 when Mr. Walker was very clearly running things,
       the difference is massive. A dozen phone calls, ten phone
       calls in those early days compared to 604 phone calls. Doing
       research [on] gun shops. Finding out what the inventory
       was. What was available. Where one can get it. How one
       can get it. What the hours are. It’s pretty stunning. And
       while I suppose I can sit back and agree with [defense
       counsel] that that shows a level of skill and an acumen in
       the business operation here that’s impressive, it’s
       impressive, but it’s illegal and causes so much danger to the
       community. And I can’t ignore that.

          This operation, by [the] end of it, run by you, Mr. Walker,
       put a lot of guns into our community and has the potential
       through today and beyond to wreak havoc in our
       community.

          I don’t think that [the assistant district attorney] is
       overstating it when she talks about what can happen,
       putting guns in the hands of juveniles, in young adults.

          Any of us, just look at the newspapers, watch the news
       on television, you lived in a community where this was part
       and parcel of daily life. You’ve lived it. I don’t need to tell
       you. You’ve lived it. Gun violence is rampant. It’s gotten to
       epidemic proportions. And it happens in our community
       because there are people who are willing to violate the law
       and turn this into a business to make money and jeopardize
       countless lives. I cannot ignore that. That poses a danger to
       the community. And your actions pose a danger to the
       community.

          It’s clear from the testimony that I heard, that by the end
       of this operation, Mr. Walker was the one running it. He’s
       the one that set up the sales. He’s the one that contacted
       the stores. He’s the one that gave rise to Mr. Gresham, the
       purchaser. He’s the one who provided the money for the
       purchases, who received the guns, and then ultimately was
       the one who put them in the hands of other people, and it
       is not lost on this Court that there are still thirty guns out
       there.

          So I look at that, and I look at a very young man, 22
       years old, who has a life in front of him, and I need to

                                    -5-
J-S31036-23

          balance all of those things. So I’m going to balance those
          things by imposing a sentence that I believe reflects the
          seriousness of these crimes.

              And I’m going to tell you right now that five to ten doesn’t
          do it. Didn’t do it for your brother. And it’s not going to do
          it here. But I am mindful of the fact that you are a young
          man who will have a life in front of you. And my hope would
          be that you can take the time that you are going to serve in
          prison and use it wisely and use it productively so that when
          you come out, you can take the considerable skills that I
          know you have and your family knows you have and put it
          into something lawful and positive and be a productive law-
          abiding member of society. That’s my hope for you, and I
          imagine it’s your family’s hope for you, and it’s your lawyer’s
          hope for you.

             I believe that the sentence I am imposing is necessary[,]
          that [there is] undue risk that the defendant would commit
          another crime, that he is in need of correctional treatment,
          and I think most importantly, any lesser sentence would
          depreciate the seriousness of the crimes before this Court.

N.T., Nov. 29, 2022, 76-80.

       Walker filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied.

Walker filed an appeal and raises the following issue:

          Was [Walker’s] sentence manifestly excessive where the
          trial court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 15-30
          years of incarceration well in excess of the standard
          recommended range suggested by the sentencing
          guidelines and focused solely on the perceived severity of
          the crime while ignoring [Walker’s] lack of a significant
          criminal history and excellent prospects for rehabilitation?

Walker’s Br. at 4.2
____________________________________________

2 Walker filed in this Court a pro se letter in which he alleged counsel was
ineffective. We remanded to the trial court to determine whether there was
an irreconcilable conflict between Walker and his counsel such that he was
entitled to new counsel. Order, Aug. 15, 2023. Following remand, new counsel
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -6-
J-S31036-23

       Walker argues the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced

him to 15 to 30 years’ incarceration because it improperly focused on the

nature of the offenses without considering Walker’s expression of remorse,

acceptance of responsibility, lack of a significant criminal record, difficult

childhood, and “excellent prospects for rehabilitation and future employment.”

Id. at 7. He points out that if he had not been subject to the mandatory five-

year minimum sentence for the sale or transfer of a firearm convictions, the

standard guideline range for the convictions would have been 24 to 36 months’

incarceration.

       Walker claims the trial court improperly focused on the seriousness of

the crime and its impact on the community while ignoring other relevant

factors. He maintains the court failed to adequately explain how the sentence

“was responsive to the standards embodied in the Sentencing Code, 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9701, et seq.” Id. at 10. Walker maintains the court’s focus on

the nature of the offense and the impact on the community to the exclusion

of all other relevant factors was an abuse of discretion. In addition to the

factors listed above, Walker notes that he was 21-years-old at the time of the

PSI; he had been employed as a home health aide for his grandmother,

worked construction for two years, and purchased and resold old cars; he

enjoyed his family’s support, and would live with family when released from

prison; and he had secured employment at a car dealership. He further
____________________________________________

entered an appearance in this Court. New counsel has informed this Court that
he does not intend to file a new brief.

                                           -7-
J-S31036-23

pointed to the testimony of his sister regarding the impact his father’s murder

had on him. He argues that his “involvement in criminality was an aberration

for a young man with a demonstrated work ethic who had excelled in school

and sports until his world collapsed when he lost the guidance of his father.”

Id. at 14. He likens his case to Commonwealth v. Coulverson, 34 A.3d 135

(Pa.Super. 2011).

      There is no absolute right to appeal the discretionary aspects of a

sentence. Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1042 (Pa.Super.

2013) (en banc). Rather, before addressing a challenge to the discretionary

aspects of a sentence, this Court must determine whether the appellant: (1)

filed a timely notice of appeal; (2) properly preserved the sentencing issue at

sentencing or in a motion to reconsider or modify sentence; (3) included in

the appellate brief a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for appeal;

and (4) has asserted a substantial question that the sentence is not

appropriate under the Sentencing Code. See Commonwealth v. Austin, 66

A.3d 798, 808 (Pa.Super. 2013); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). “[I]f the appeal

satisfies each of these four requirements, we will then proceed to decide the

substantive merits of the case.” Austin, 66 A.3d at 808 (citation omitted).

      Walker filed a timely notice of appeal, preserved the issue in a post-

sentence motion, and included in his appellate brief a concise statement of

reasons relied upon for appeal. Further, Walker raises a substantial question

in his statement of reasons—the court erred because it “relied solely on the

seriousness of [Walker’s] crime and its impact on the community” and failed

                                     -8-
J-S31036-23

to consider all relevant sentencing factors when imposing the “unduly harsh”

sentence, including, among other things, his rehabilitative needs. Walker’s Br.

at 8; see Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 340 (Pa.Super. 2015)

(finding a challenge to consecutive sentences as excessive, combined with a

claim that the court failed to consider rehabilitative needs and mitigating

factors, presented a substantial question).

      “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.” Commonwealth v. Snyder, 289 A.3d 1121, 1126 (Pa.Super.

2023) (quoting Commonwealth v. Edwards, 194 A.3d 625, 637 (Pa.Super.

2018)). “An abuse of discretion occurs where ‘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.’” Id. (citation

omitted).

      In imposing a sentence, the sentencing court must consider “the

protection of the public, the gravity of the 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 presume a court that has the

benefit of a PSI has been adequately apprised of all relevant sentencing

information. Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903, 908 (Pa.Super. 2008).

      In Coulverson, the trial court imposed a sentence of 18 to 90 years’

incarceration. 34 A.3d at 139. The defendant argued the maximum sentence,

which included multiple consecutive statutory maximum sentences, was

                                       -9-
J-S31036-23

clearly unreasonable. We agreed. We reasoned that the trial court’s

acknowledgement of the PSI was “perfunctory,” and it “focused its

consideration entirely on the severity of [the defendant’s] offenses and the

victims’ impact statements.” Id. at 150. We pointed out that “[i]ts discussion

evinced no consideration whatsoever of the dysfunction that marked [the

defendant’s] own life, his cooperation and remorse, his attempts at reclaiming

a productive role in society, or the possibility that, with appropriate mental

health treatment, he might succeed at rehabilitation after serving a substantial

term of [18] years’ incarceration.” Id.

      Walker’s claim lacks merit. Contrary to his contention, the trial court

considered all factors presented, including his traumatic adolescence and

rehabilitative prospects. However, the court also considered the seriousness

of the crime and its impact on the community and, in balancing the sentencing

factors, it imposed an aggregate sentence of 15 to 30 years’ incarceration.

Unlike the sentence imposed by the trial court in Coulverson, the sentence

here was individualized and was not clearly unreasonable. Based on the

record, we cannot say the court abused its discretion.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                     - 10 -
J-S31036-23

Date: 12/11/2023

                   - 11 -