Court Opinion

ID: 9928791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 22:10:41.208191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:48.298174
License: Public Domain

J-S43027-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellee           :
                                      :
              v.                      :
                                      :
 ISRAEL E. SANABRIA, JR.              :
                                      :
                   Appellant          :       No. 679 MDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 14, 2023
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0005974-2019

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellee           :
                                      :
              v.                      :
                                      :
 ISRAEL E. SANABRIA, JR.              :
                                      :
                   Appellant          :      No. 1081 MDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 14, 2023
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003824-2020

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellee           :
                                      :
              v.                      :
                                      :
 ISRAEL E. SANABRIA, JR.              :
                                      :
                   Appellant          :      No. 1082 MDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 14, 2023
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001822-2021
J-S43027-23

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                   :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                  :
                                                 :
                v.                               :
                                                 :
  ISRAEL E. SANABRIA, JR.                        :
                                                 :
                       Appellant                 :      No. 1083 MDA 2023

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 14, 2023
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001990-2021

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                   :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                  :
                                                 :
                v.                               :
                                                 :
  ISRAEL E. SANABRIA, JR.                        :
                                                 :
                       Appellant                 :      No. 1084 MDA 2023

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 14, 2023
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003289-2022

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

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                          FILED: JANUARY 31, 2024

       Appellant, Israel E. Sanabria, Jr., appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, following

his jury trial convictions for aggravated assault and false identification to law

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

                                           -2-
J-S43027-23

enforcement,1 and open guilty pleas to various other offenses. We affirm.

        The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On

April   14,   2023,    Appellant     appeared    before   the   court   for   a   guilty

plea/sentencing hearing on four trial court dockets, and for sentencing on a

fifth docket, following his jury trial convictions. Specifically, Appellant entered

an open guilty plea at docket No. 5974-2019, to driving under the influence

of alcohol or a controlled substance (“DUI”), driving under a suspended license

(“DUS”), and restrictions on alcoholic beverages. The court sentenced him to

72 hours to six months’ imprisonment for DUI, a consecutive 6-12 months’

imprisonment for DUS, and fines and costs for restrictions on alcoholic

beverages.     At docket No. 3824-2020, Appellant pled guilty to fleeing or

eluding a police officer, multiple counts of DUI, DUS, possession of a small

amount of marijuana, careless driving, and other traffic violations. The court

sentenced Appellant to 9-23 months’ imprisonment for fleeing or eluding, a

consecutive 90 days to 12 months’ imprisonment for DUI (with the remaining

DUI offenses merging for sentencing), and fines and costs for the remaining

offenses at this docket.

        At docket No. 1990-2021, Appellant pled guilty to DUS.                The court

sentenced Appellant to 6-12 months’ imprisonment.               At docket No. 3289-

2022, Appellant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1) and 4914(a).

                                           -3-
J-S43027-23

(methamphetamine) and DUS.        The court sentenced Appellant to 3-12

months’ imprisonment for the possession conviction and a consecutive 6-12

months’ imprisonment for the DUS conviction. The court ran all sentences for

each docket concerning the open guilty pleas consecutive to one another.

     At docket No. 1822-2021, concerning Appellant’s jury trial convictions,

the court explained:

        For purposes of determining the sentence for the
        aggravated assault conviction, the [c]ourt determined that
        serious bodily injury was inflicted on the victim, namely
        breaking the facial bones in the cranium of the victim, which
        increased the offense gravity score (“OGS”). The [c]ourt
        considered the arguments of counsel, the pre-sentence
        investigation [(“PSI”)], prior protection from abuse actions
        filed against [Appellant], a letter from the victim, portions
        of which were read aloud to the [c]ourt by the Assistant
        District Attorney, [Appellant’s] letters sent to the [c]ourt
        and [Appellant’s] remarks.

        The [c]ourt sentenced [Appellant] to [7½] years to 15 years
        in state prison for the aggravated assault charge. For the
        false identification to law enforcement charge, [Appellant]
        received a sentence of 4 months to one year consecutive to
        the other count. The sentences were to be consecutive to
        all the other informations[, consistent with the
        Commonwealth’s request at sentencing].

        The evidence at trial graphically depicted [Appellant’s]
        assault on the victim, his girlfriend. The Commonwealth
        presented a surveillance video which was obtained from the
        motel where [Appellant] and victim were staying. The
        surveillance camera was located in the hallway where the
        elevator was located.

        The video began with the victim running down the hallway
        with no shoes and no coat. She got into the elevator but
        [Appellant] came after her and got into the elevator. He
        could be heard slamming her against the elevator wall. The
        video then showed [Appellant] dragging the victim out of

                                    -4-
J-S43027-23

          the elevator by her hair. He threw her on the ground after
          he had calmly counted down from five before doing so.
          While she was on the ground, [Appellant] again calmly
          counted down from five while telling her to get up or he
          would kill her. He is then seen winding a lanyard attached
          to [a] satchel, which was full of coins, around his wrist and
          then swinging the satchel into the victim’s face as she tried
          to get up. As he struck the victim, coins were strewn
          throughout the lobby. [Appellant] counted down from five
          again and as [victim] finally got up and walked down the
          hallway with [Appellant], he could be heard saying, “see
          what you did.”

          The victim suffered fractures to her orbital bone and
          maxillary sinus. Her left ear was also re-injured from when
          she had presented at the emergency room early in the
          morning the previous day claiming she had fallen on ice.
          The victim testified at trial, however, that the initial ear
          injury was actually caused by [Appellant] and she lied about
          falling on ice.

          [Appellant] testified that he…thought he was helping the
          victim to keep her from doing drugs and to keep her from
          humiliating herself. He claimed he hit her in the face with
          the bag of coins to get her attention. He further testified
          that the victim had a childish mind. On cross examination,
          [Appellant] denied that he caused the victim’s injuries. He
          did admit that they had cocaine. Throughout his testimony
          he showed no remorse and he disparaged and blamed the
          victim.

          On April 21, 2023, [Appellant] filed a Post-Sentence Motion
          to Modify Sentence which the [c]ourt denied on April 2[5],
          2023. On May 3, 2023, [Appellant] filed his Notice of
          Appeal.[2] On June 9, 2023, [Appellant] filed his Statement
          of [Errors] Complained of on Appeal.
____________________________________________

2 Appellant filed a single notice of appeal listing all five underlying docket
numbers, in violation of Commonwealth v. Walker, 646 Pa. 456, 185 A.3d
969 (2018). This Court subsequently directed Appellant to file amended
notices of appeal at each underlying docket number, and Appellant complied.
Thereafter, Appellant moved to consolidate the appeals, and this Court
granted the consolidation request on August 14, 2023.

                                           -5-
J-S43027-23

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 7/6/23, at 3-5) (internal citations and footnotes

omitted).

      Appellant raises one issue for our review:

         Did the sentencing court err by imposing consecutive
         sentences on criminal charges filed under informations
         5974-19, 3824-20, 1990-21 and 3289-22 solely because
         [A]ppellant failed to accept responsibility for his behavior on
         unrelated criminal charges filed under information 1822-21?

(Appellant’s Brief at 4).

      Appellant argues that the court imposed consecutive sentences at all

dockets solely because Appellant failed to accept responsibility regarding his

jury trial convictions. Appellant asserts that at the sentencing hearing, he

spoke exclusively about his relationship with the victim concerning those

offenses. Appellant contends that he said nothing regarding the offenses to

which he pled guilty. After Appellant spoke, Appellant emphasizes that the

court expressly stated that it was imposing consecutive sentences at all

dockets based on Appellant’s lack of accountability for his behavior concerning

the jury trial offenses.    Appellant highlights the court’s comment that had

Appellant said nothing at all, the court would not have imposed consecutive

sentences. Appellant submits that he accepted responsibility for his actions

at the other criminal dockets to which he pled guilty. Appellant insists that

the court’s imposition of consecutive sentences on the dockets to which he

pled guilty is not logically connected to Appellant’s “poorly chosen in-court

comments” regarding the jury trial convictions.        (Id. at 12).    Appellant

                                      -6-
J-S43027-23

acknowledges that the court imposed an aggregate term of 7½ to 15 years’

imprisonment for his jury trial offenses.     Appellant challenges the court’s

imposition of consecutive sentences for the crimes to which he pled guilty

because those crimes are not logically related to Appellant’s jury trial

convictions or Appellant’s in-court comments regarding the jury trial

convictions. Appellant concludes the court abused its sentencing discretion,

and this Court must vacate and remand for a new sentencing hearing. We

disagree.

      A challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing is not

automatically reviewable as a matter of right. Commonwealth v. Hunter,

768 A.2d 1136 (Pa.Super. 2001), appeal denied, 568 Pa. 695, 796 A.2d 979

(2001). Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue:

         We 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).

Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal

denied, 589 Pa. 727, 909 A.2d 303 (2006) (internal citations omitted).

      When appealing the discretionary aspects of a sentence, an appellant

must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by including in his brief a separate concise

statement demonstrating a substantial question as to the appropriateness of

                                      -7-
J-S43027-23

the sentence under the Sentencing Code. Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 571

Pa. 419, 812 A.2d 617 (2002); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). “The determination of what

constitutes a substantial question must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.”

Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830 A.2d 1013, 1018 (Pa.Super. 2003). “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.” Commonwealth

v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768 (Pa.Super. 2015) (en banc) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526, 533 (Pa.Super. 2011)).

      Additionally:

         Pennsylvania law affords the sentencing court discretion to
         impose [a] sentence concurrently or consecutively to other
         sentences being imposed at the same time or to sentences
         already imposed. Any challenge to the exercise of this
         discretion does not raise a substantial question. In
         fact, this Court has recognized the imposition of
         consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences may
         raise a substantial question in only the most extreme
         circumstances, such as where the aggregate sentence
         is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes
         and the length of imprisonment.

Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal

denied, 621 Pa. 692, 77 A.3d 1258 (2013) (emphasis added) (internal

citations and quotation marks omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Hoag,

665 A.2d 1212, 1214 (Pa.Super. 1995) (stating appellant is not entitled to

“volume discount” for his crimes by having all sentences run concurrently).

                                    -8-
J-S43027-23

     Assuming an appellant can invoke our jurisdiction to review the claim,

this Court reviews discretionary sentencing challenges based on the following

standard:

        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. An abuse of
        discretion is more than just an error in judgment and, on
        appeal, the trial court will not be found to have abused its
        discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment
        exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of
        partiality, bias or ill-will.

Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54, 55 (Pa.Super. 2003) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Hess, 745 A.2d 29, 30-31 (Pa.Super. 2000)).

        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. Simply
        stated, the sentencing court sentences flesh-and-blood
        defendants and the nuances of sentencing decisions are
        difficult to gauge from the cold transcript used upon
        appellate review. Moreover, 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. Even with the advent of the
        sentencing guidelines, the power of sentencing is a function
        to be performed by the sentencing court. Thus, rather than
        cabin the exercise of a sentencing court’s discretion, the
        guidelines merely inform the sentencing decision.

Commonwealth v. Walls, 592 Pa. 557, 564-65, 926 A.2d 957, 961-62

(2007) (internal quotation marks, footnotes, and citations omitted).

     “[A] court is required to consider the particular circumstances of the

offense and the character of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804

                                    -9-
J-S43027-23

A.2d 1, 10 (Pa.Super. 2002), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148, 125 S. Ct. 2984,

162 L.Ed.2d 902 (2005).        “In particular, the court should refer to the

defendant’s prior criminal record, his age, personal characteristics and his

potential for rehabilitation.” Id. If the sentencing court has the benefit of a

PSI report, the law presumes the court was aware of the relevant information

regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along

with any mitigating factors.     Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362

(Pa.Super. 2005).

      Instantly, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and preserved his

sentencing challenge in a post-sentence motion and Rule 2119(f) statement.

See Evans, supra. Although Appellant relies on Austin, supra to support

his assertion of a substantial question, we agree with the Commonwealth that

Appellant has failed to raise a substantial question warranting our review. As

Austin makes clear, any challenge to the imposition of consecutive sentences

raises a substantial question only in the “most extreme circumstances, such

as where the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature of

the crimes and the length of imprisonment.”      See Austin, supra at 808.

Here, the court imposed an aggregate term of approximately 10 years and

seven months’ imprisonment to 23 years and five months’ imprisonment. We

cannot say the court’s aggregate sentence for the multitude of Appellant’s

crimes across all five underlying dockets was unduly harsh here. See id.

      Even if Appellant raised a substantial question for our review, however,

                                    - 10 -
J-S43027-23

he would not be entitled to sentencing relief.      The trial court addressed

Appellant’s issue as follows:

         …[Appellant’s] character was fully brought to light through
         his allocution. He demonstrated that he is completely
         without remorse and feels justified beating a woman
         because the woman was bad and brought it on [herself].

         Despite the advice of his legal counsel to be brief,
         [Appellant] spoke for half an hour as was noted by the
         [c]ourt. Throughout the entire thirty minutes, [Appellant]
         denigrated the victim. Some of what he said included claims
         that the victim was prostituting, drug trafficking, setting
         people up to be robbed. [Appellant] stated that the victim
         was homeless by choice and injected $250 to $500 of drugs
         a day. [Appellant] further claimed that the victim stole
         thousands and thousands of dollars from him and he had
         suffered in a lot of ways. He also claimed that he did not
         cause her major injuries.

         At the conclusion of his allocution, the [c]ourt stated:

            One of the first things you said was my attorney
            doesn’t want me to say much. And, again, had you
            listened to counsel today, you may have done better.
            Had you stood up and said you had nothing to say,
            you likely would have done better today had you
            followed his good advice.

            But instead you decided to, once again, for reasons
            that make no sense to this [c]ourt, throw [the victim]
            under the bus. And for reasons that make no sense
            to this [c]ourt tried to deny the fact that you struck a
            helpless woman on her knees in the face with a
            weapon. How you can possibly stand before this
            [c]ourt and look at me straight faced and say you
            ought not to be held accountable for striking the
            woman in the head and breaking her facial bones, it’s
            shocking to this [c]ourt that you could take that
            position.

            And as a result of that, the sentence I’m about to
            impose will run consecutively to the others. And,

                                     - 11 -
J-S43027-23

          again, I want to be clear, you did that to yourself this
          very day. Because that wasn’t going to happen except
          to see someone so lacking in remorse for such
          outrageous and horrible conduct to a woman, a
          helpless woman in our society.

       To which [Appellant] replied, “she’s not helpless.”

       The [c]ourt went on to observe that [Appellant] is 43 years
       of age and completed 12 years of … school and received a
       high school diploma. He has incredibly poor work history
       only having worked productively for two years in his 43
       years. The [c]ourt further noted that [Appellant] has a prior
       record that included felony stalking, harassment, threat to
       use weapon of mass destruction, and numerous indirect
       criminal contempts from violating five different PFAs where
       [Appellant] violently attacked numerous women.

       The presentence report was considered as well as the
       sentencing guidelines including the enhanced guideline for
       the serious bodily injury that the victim suffered. The
       [c]ourt emphasized the sheer lack of remorse that
       [Appellant] continued to fail to show and his continued
       manipulation of the victim. Based on this, the [c]ourt
       ordered that the sentences imposed on the two counts were
       to run consecutive to each other and consecutive to the
       other criminal informations.

       All of the sentences imposed were within the standard
       guideline range. The [c]ourt carefully considered all of the
       statutory factors and fashioned an individualized sentence.
       Based upon [Appellant’s] own words as well as his pre-
       sentence investigation, it was evident that [Appellant’s] past
       mental health treatment has not helped [Appellant]
       recognize his culpability for his own behavior. Because of
       his utter remorselessness and lack of insight, [Appellant]
       poses a threat to society and particularly women when he is
       not incarcerated.

       In his Post-Sentence Motion, [Appellant] contends that
       running the unrelated “driving charges” and the assault
       conviction consecutive to one another “unfairly punishes
       him for charges that were unrelated to one another.” The
       [c]ourt, however, is not required to impose the minimum

                                   - 12 -
J-S43027-23

         possible confinement. … As has been often stated, there is
         no “volume discount” on multiple convictions by the
         imposition of concurrent sentences.

(Trial Court Opinion at 7-9) (internal citations and footnote omitted).

      At the outset, we observe that the court imposed consecutive sentences

for each of Appellant’s open guilty plea dockets before Appellant spoke at

sentencing regarding the jury trial offenses.    Thus, Appellant’s remarks at

sentencing compelled the court to impose the sentences for the jury trial

convictions consecutive to the previously-imposed consecutive sentences for

the open guilty pleas. To the extent Appellant suggests that the court only

imposed consecutive sentences across the open guilty plea dockets based on

Appellant’s remarks, the record belies that claim.

      Further, the record supports the court’s statements that Appellant

demonstrated a complete lack of remorse concerning his actions against the

victim of his aggravated assault conviction. It is of no moment that Appellant’s

comments at sentencing related only to the jury trial convictions and not the

offenses to which Appellant pled guilty. Appellant’s comments made clear to

the court that a lengthier sentence of incarceration was necessary to protect

the public.   (See N.T. Sentencing, 4/14/23, at 63) (court indicates that

Appellant is “a woman beater” and “someone that our society must be

protected from” and “a lesser sentence would depreciate the seriousness of

the crime”). See also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b) (providing court shall consider

when sentencing protection of public, gravity of offense as it relates to impact

                                     - 13 -
J-S43027-23

of victim and on community, and rehabilitative needs of defendant). The court

also had the benefit of a PSI report, so we can presume the court considered

all relevant factors. See Tirado, supra. On this record, we cannot say that

the court abused its broad sentencing discretion.          See Walls, supra;

McNabb, supra. Therefore, even if Appellant had preserved his sentencing

claim, it would merit no relief. Accordingly, we affirm.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 1/31/2024

                                    - 14 -