Court Opinion

ID: 9961001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 17:12:28.771976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:08.339916
License: Public Domain

J-S04040-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  NELSON OMAR LABOY-PIRELA                     :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1139 EDA 2023

   Appeal from the Amended Judgment of Sentence Entered May 1, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-39-CR-0003286-2022

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LANE, J.:                                  FILED APRIL 17, 2024

       Nelson Omar Laboy-Pirela (“Laboy-Pirela”) appeals from the amended

judgment of sentence imposed following his guilty plea to, inter alia, fleeing

or attempting to elude an officer.1 We affirm.

       In March 2023, pursuant to an open plea agreement, Laboy-Pirela

entered a guilty plea to the above offense, which stemmed from an incident

where he fled from a traffic stop. Laboy-Pirela agreed to the following facts

at the guilty plea hearing:

       . . . On July 15th of last year, at approximately 3:53 p.m., Trooper
       Patrick McMillan was on routine patrol . . . He was traveling in the
       left lane when he observed a white in color Toyota Corolla in front
       of his patrol vehicle. He witnessed a clear bottle being thrown
       from the passenger side window onto the roadway. He activated
       his emergency lights and sirens to initiate a traffic stop. The
       Toyota Corolla stopped on the shoulder . . . The trooper exited
       his vehicle and approached the Toyota on the passenger side. As
____________________________________________

1 See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3733(a).
J-S04040-24

     he got close to the Toyota, he observed the brake lights get
     activated, which based on the trooper’s experience, training[,]
     and education[,] was an indicator that the operator may attempt
     to flee from the stop. The Toyota Corolla then sped off at a high
     rate of speed.

            The trooper returned to his patrol unit and proceeded to
     pursue the fleeing car. As the Toyota Corolla approached [an]
     intersection . . . , the operator[, Laboy-Pirela,] lost control of the
     vehicle, hit a raised traffic island in the intersection, then turned
     right into oncoming traffic where it came to an uncontrolled
     position of final rest . . .

            Both the passenger and [Laboy-Pirela] fled the vehicle.
     [Laboy-Pirela] ran toward a cornfield . . . The trooper pursued
     [Laboy-Pirela]. The trooper entered the cornfield and gave chase
     while instructing [Laboy-Pirela] to stop. [Laboy-Pirela] kept going
     until he fell on the ground due to the thick vegetation.

            The trooper then got on top of [Laboy-Pirela] and demanded
     for [him] to put his hands behind his back several times, which he
     refused. [Laboy-Pirela] was face-down, and the trooper was
     straddling his back. He was repeatedly told to put his hands
     behind his back, struggled and did not comply. The trooper
     indicated to him that he would be tased, and, in fact, he was
     eventually tased after warnings[, a]t which time, he complied with
     the trooper’s commands and was taken into custody.

N.T., 3/2/23, at 8-10.

     Pursuant to the open plea agreement, the Commonwealth dismissed

four other charges and agreed that the sentences on the remaining charges

to which Laboy-Pirela pleaded guilty would run concurrently to one another.

The trial court ordered that a presentence investigation report (“PSI”) be

prepared in advance of the sentencing hearing.

     On April 14, 2023, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. At

the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of three to

                                     -2-
J-S04040-24

seven years in prison for fleeing or attempting to elude an officer, which fell

within the aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines.2

       Laboy-Pirela filed a post-sentence motion to reconsider sentence

arguing, inter alia, that a lesser sentence would better achieve the goals of

rehabilitation and protection of the community.         The trial court denied the

motion to reconsider sentence.3          Laboy-Pirela then filed a timely notice of

appeal, and both he and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

       Laboy-Pirela raises the following issue for our review:

       Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a
       manifestly excessive and unreasonable sentence which has a
       minimum sentence that is four (4) times higher than the
       sentencing guideline range as applied to [Laboy-Pirela] when the
       court failed to consider any significant mitigating factors, failed to
       apply, and review all the necessary factors as set forth in 42
       Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b) and 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c) and (d), or
       otherwise failed to set forth appropriate reasons for its radical
       deviation from the standard sentencing ranges?

Laboy-Pirela’s Brief at 5 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

____________________________________________

2 The trial court also found Laboy-Pirela eligible for the Recidivism Risk
Reduction Initiative (“RRRI”) making his minimum sentence for fleeing and
attempting to elude an officer twenty-seven months in prison, pending
successful completion of the program.

3 In its sentencing order, the trial court imposed concurrent sentences for the

remaining convictions, which included driving with a suspended license. In
his post-sentence motion, Laboy-Pirela additionally claimed that the trial court
imposed an illegal sentence for that conviction. On May 1, 2023 the trial court
granted that portion of the post-sentence motion, partially vacated the
judgment of sentence, and resentenced Laboy-Pirela for driving with a
suspended license to a fine of $1,000.

                                           -3-
J-S04040-24

      Laboy-Pirela’s issue presents a challenge to the discretionary aspects of

his sentence. We consider a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence

to be a petition for permission to appeal, as the right to pursue such a claim

is not absolute. See Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912, 916 (Pa.

Super. 2010). Before we reach the merits of a challenge to the discretionary

aspects of sentence, this Court must conduct a four-part analysis determining:

      (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, [see] 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
      9781(b).

Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation

omitted).

      In the instant case, Laboy-Pirela filed a post-sentence motion to

reconsider and modify his sentence, a timely notice of appeal, and included in

his brief a Rule 2119(f) statement.    However, we must initially determine

whether the issues he raises in his Rule 2119(f) statement were properly

preserved for this Court’s review.

      In his Rule 2119(f) statement, Laboy-Pirela purported to raise the

following issues:

            []Laboy-Pirela is requesting the review of his sentence for
      the fleeing and eluding charge based upon his belief that the
      sentencing court abused its discretion when it imposed a harsh
      and excessive sentence contrary to the fundamental norms of the
      sentencing guidelines. The sentence imposed was nearly the
      maximum legally allowable sentence and was more than twice the

                                     -4-
J-S04040-24

       standard sentencing range as applied to []Laboy-Pirela. The
       deviation from the guideline range must be supported by
       appropriate and factually justifiable reasons and the defendant
       does not believe that the court presented such justification.

Laboy-Pirela’s Brief at 9.

       Our review of Laboy-Pirela’s post-sentence motion to reconsider and

modify his sentence discloses that he did not raise a claim that the sentencing

court failed to adequately state the reasons for his sentence on the record.

See Post-Sentence Motion, 4/21/23, at unnumbered 1-5.              The sentencing

hearing transcript further discloses that Laboy-Pirela did not raise this issue

at the time of sentencing. See N.T., 4/14/23, at 14-18. Thus, Laboy-Pirela

did not give the sentencing judge an opportunity to reconsider or modify his

sentence on this basis. See Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788, 794

(Pa. Super. 2003).       Accordingly, this issue is waived.4   See id.; see also

Commonwealth v. Reeves, 778 A.2d 691, 692-93 (Pa. Super. 2001)

(holding that, by failing to raise the specific claim that the trial court failed to

state reasons for sentence on the record in post-sentence motion, the trial

court was deprived of opportunity to consider claim and thus the claim was

waived on appeal).

____________________________________________

4 We note that, even if Laboy-Pirela had preserved this issue for our review,

we would have concluded that it lacked merit, as the record reflects that the
trial court provided a statement of reasons for Laboy-Pirela’s sentence on the
record at the time of sentencing, including the danger to bystanders he caused
while fleeing Trooper McMillan, and his lengthy criminal record, which includes
an escalating pattern of dangerous offenses. See N.T., 4/14/23, at 12-16.

                                           -5-
J-S04040-24

     We next consider the remaining claim raised in Laboy-Pirela’s Rule

2119(f) statement, namely, that his sentence for the offense of fleeing or

attempting to elude an officer was harsh and excessive. Laboy-Pirela did not

explicitly claim that his sentence was either harsh or excessive in his post-

sentence motion. Indeed, the only statement he made in the post-sentence

motion which relates in any manner to the length of his sentence was his

“belie[f] . . . that a lesser sentence would both protect the community and

allow for adequate rehabilitation.”   See Post-Sentence Motion, 4/21/23, at

unnumbered 2. The remainder of the post-sentence motion concerned Laboy-

Pirela’s belief that he had expressed true remorse for his crimes, had taken

substantial steps to rehabilitate himself, and wished to be made eligible for

the state drug treatment program. See id. at 2-3.

     Nevertheless, we can infer from the scant statements made in the post-

sentence motion that Laboy-Pirela sought to challenge the length of his

sentence. Accordingly, as he has complied with the technical requirements to

challenge the discretionary aspects of his sentence         for this limited

discretionary sentencing claim, we will review Laboy-Pirela’s Rule 2119(f)

statement to determine whether he has presented a substantial question for

our review.

     We determine what constitutes a substantial question on a case-by-case

basis. See Commonwealth v. Glass, 50 A.3d 720, 727 (Pa. Super. 2012).

A substantial question exists “only when the appellant advances a colorable

                                      -6-
J-S04040-24

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.

      A claim that a sentence is excessive, even if it is within the statutory

limits, can raise a substantial question for appellate review.              See

Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 624 (Pa. 2002).               However, a

bald allegation of excessiveness is insufficient to raise a substantial question.

See id. at 627.   Instead, an appellant making an excessiveness claim raises

a substantial question when he sufficiently articulates either: (1) the manner

in which the sentence violates either a specific provision of the sentencing

scheme set forth in the Sentencing Code; or (2) a particular fundamental norm

underlying the sentencing process. See Mouzon, 812 A.2d at 624; see also

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

banc). To meet this sufficiency requirement:

            [T]he Rule 2119(f) statement must specify where the
      sentence falls in relation to the sentencing guidelines and what
      particular provision of the Code is violated (e.g., the sentence is
      outside the guidelines and the court did not offer any reasons
      either on the record or in writing, or double-counted factors
      already considered). Similarly, the Rule 2119(f) statement must
      specify what fundamental norm the sentence violates and the
      manner in which it violates that norm (e.g., the sentence is
      unreasonable or the result of prejudice because it is 500 percent
      greater than the extreme end of the aggravated range). If the
      Rule 2119(f) statement meets these requirements, we can decide
      whether a substantial question exists.

Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721, 727 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en

banc).

                                      -7-
J-S04040-24

      In his Rule 2119(f) statement, as set forth above, Laboy-Pirela did not

specify the particular provision of the Sentencing Code that he contends was

violated. Nor did he specify the particular fundamental norm that the sentence

purportedly violates and the manner in which the sentence violates that norm.

Instead, he vaguely claimed that his sentence is “contrary to the fundamental

norms of the sentencing guidelines” and that “[t]he sentence imposed was

nearly the maximum legally allowable sentence and was more than twice the

standard sentencing range.”      Laboy-Pirela’s Brief at 9.     Based on these

statements, we conclude that Laboy-Pirela’s Rule 2119(f) statement amounts

to a bald assertion that his sentence was excessive. See Commonwealth v.

Fisher, 47 A.3d 155, 159 (Pa. Super. 2012) (finding no substantial question

presented where appellant merely claimed the sentence was “manifestly

unreasonable . . . in excess of the guidelines without sufficient justification”);

see also Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720, 733 (Pa. Super.

2003) (finding no substantial question presented where appellant merely

claimed the sentence was unreasonable and resulted in prejudice because of

the extreme end of the sentencing ranges). Accordingly, we decline to review

the merits of Laboy-Pirela’s discretionary sentencing claim.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                      -8-
J-S04040-24

Date: 4/17/2024

                  -9-