Court Opinion

ID: 9910433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 17:08:48.592633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:56.372763
License: Public Domain

J-S39023-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  MANUEL ANDRES SANTANA DEL                    :
  ROSARIO                                      :
                                               :   No. 1737 MDA 2022
                       Appellant               :

    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 14, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-54-CR-0000320-2022

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                  FILED: DECEMBER 15, 2023

       Manuel Andres Santana Del Rosario appeals from the judgment of

sentence imposed on his convictions for two counts of aggravated assault and

one count each of possessing instruments of crime (“PIC”), simple assault,

and recklessly endangering another person (“REAP”).1 He challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence as well as both the discretionary aspects and

legality of his sentence. We affirm.

       The trial court aptly summarized the facts relevant to this appeal as

follows:
           The evidence at [the jury] trial included testimony from the
           victim Edwin Candelario. According to Mr. Candelario, he
           operated a stand at Renninger’s Market, a flea market-type
           of establishment, where he sold household goods and
           sports-related items. [Rosario] was a customer at the stand,
____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1), 2702(a)(4), 907(a), 2701(a)(1), and 2705,

respectively.
J-S39023-23

       and, as of February 4, 2022, [Rosario] owed Candelario
       about $80.00 for items that he had purchased. Early that
       day, [Rosario] was in contact via cellphone with Candelario.
       [Rosario] insisted on paying Candelario $50.00 toward his
       debt, and that Candelario travel to [Rosario’s] home to
       receive the money. Candelario agreed.

       Candelario and his girlfriend drove to [Rosario’s] home in
       Mahanoy City, Schuylkill County that morning, and upon
       arrival at the home they were met outside by [Rosario] who
       invited them into the home. Upon their entry into the home,
       [Rosario] placed $50.00 on a table for Candelario to
       retrieve. Candelario picked up the money and he and his
       girlfriend left the home. However, [Rosario] followed
       Candelario and his girlfriend to their vehicle where he made
       a comment to Candelario’s girlfriend which annoyed
       Candelario. The latter told [Rosario] that if he needed to say
       something it should be said to Candelario. [Rosario] then
       asked Candelario to come back into his home so they could
       finish talking.

       Candelario agreed, and he and his girlfriend re-entered
       [Rosario’s] home, whereupon [Rosario] pulled out a gun,
       stuck it in Candelario’s face, grabbed Candelario by the
       neck, and told him to sit down. Candelario sat on a couch,
       with his girlfriend sitting next to him. [Rosario] sat in a chair
       directly in front of Candelario with the gun in his hand.
       Candelario asked [Rosario] what the problem was, and why
       [Rosario] had a gun pointed at him. Candelario told
       [Rosario] that they could just forget “about this,” and that
       “this never happened.”

       [Rosario] responded in Spanish, “Rat,” and told Candelario
       to get on his knees. Candelario got on his knees on the floor.
       [Rosario] then told Candelario to put his hands on his head,
       which he did. Candelario was then hit on the head by
       [Rosario], and he fell toward his girlfriend’s lap. As
       Candelario was trying to return to his original position,
       [Rosario] threw a punch at Candelario’s face with his fist.
       Candelario blocked the punch, got up and hurried to the
       front door of the premises in an effort to exit the house.
       Candelario found that the front door was locked. As
       Candelario was trying to unlock the door, he was shot once
       in the arm and once in [the] area of the rib cage by
       [Rosario].

                                     -2-
J-S39023-23

       Candelario was able to escape from the house, but [Rosario]
       followed him to the street where, Candelario testified,
       [Rosario] shot at him again. Candelario ran to the Mahanoy
       City police station, which was located close to [Rosario’s]
       home, and banged on the door. Chief of Police Thomas
       Rentscher answered the door to the police station, saw
       Candelario bleeding profusely and got him inside the station
       where Candelario received emergency treatment, including
       the application of a tourniquet by the Code Enforcement
       Officer. Emergency medical services were summoned, and
       Basic and Advance Life Support personnel treated
       Candelario at the police station. He was subsequently life-
       flighted to Geisinger Medical Center where he remained as
       a patient for over a week. According to Candelario, he had
       not made any threats toward [Rosario], nor did he possess
       a weapon while at [Rosario’s] home the day of the shooting.

       Dr. Robert Garvin, a vascular surgeon at Geisinger Medical
       center testified that Candelario was treated surgically for a
       right upper extremity arterial injury, namely a radial artery
       tear in the forearm and hemorrhage, to control the bleeding
       and attempt to repair the injury to the artery. According to
       Dr. Garvin, the injury to the artery was serious, and without
       successful treatment posed a risk of death, or loss of limb
       or function to Candelario. Doctor Garvin determined during
       surgery that the artery was too damaged for the broken
       ends to be “brought together,” so the decision was made to
       “tie them off.” Candelario underwent several medical
       procedures thereafter to close the wound, and was released
       from the doctor’s care after his last visit on March 2, 2022.

       Investigating police officers who examined the scene of the
       shooting identified bullet strikes to the inside of the door to
       [Rosario’s] home, and interviewed [Rosario] and his wife
       who had been present at the time of the shooting. [Rosario]
       admitted at trial that he had shot Candelario, and that he
       had ordered Candelario to get on his knees at gunpoint.
       However, [Rosario] claimed that he would not have shot
       Candelario if [Candelario] had allowed [Rosario] to search
       him for weapons, [if Candelario] had not hit [Rosario] as he
       was getting up from the floor when [Rosario] had the gun
       pointed at Candelario, or if Candelario had not reached
       toward his pocket as he was trying to get out of the front

                                    -3-
J-S39023-23

          door.[2] No evidence produced at trial indicated that
          Candelario possessed any weapon the day of the shooting.

Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, filed 2/13/23, at 2-5. The jury found Rosario

guilty of the above-referenced crimes. The trial court sentenced him to seven

to 15 years’ incarceration for aggravated assault followed by one year of

reporting probation, a consecutive sentence of one year of probation for PIC,

and a concurrent term of one year of probation for REAP.3 This timely appeal

followed.

       Rosario raises the following issues:

          1. Did the Commonwealth fail to establish sufficient
             evidence to support a conviction for the charge of
             aggravated assault?

          2. Did the [c]ourt err by imposing an aggravated range
             sentence    without    considering    the   mitigating
             circumstances raised in the pre-sentence report and by
             [Rosario]?

          3. Did the charges [sic] of recklessly endangering arise from
             the same event as the aggravated assault for sentencing
             purposes and should a separate sentence not have been
             imposed?

Rosario’s Br. at 5 (suggested answers omitted).

       Rosario’s first issue challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for

aggravated assault. However, in his appellate brief, he concedes that “[t]he

Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction of
____________________________________________

2 Rosario testified that the victim hit Rosario in his face while the victim was

kneeling on the floor. See N.T., Trial, at 286, 287.

3 The court imposed no further penalty for aggravated assault with a deadly

weapon and the simple assault conviction merged for sentencing purposes.

                                           -4-
J-S39023-23

aggravated assault and the argument is without merit.” Id. at 20 (emphasis

added). As he has in effect abandoned this claim, it cannot afford him relief.

      In his next issue, Rosario challenges the discretionary aspects of his

sentence, claiming that the court imposed an aggravated sentence without

considering the mitigating circumstances.

      We review a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence for an

abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656, 661

(Pa.Super. 2015). Such challenges are not automatically appealable. Rather,

we must first determine whether: 1) the appellant has filed a timely notice of

appeal; 2) the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to

reconsider and modify sentence; 3) the appellant’s brief has a fatal defect;

and 4) there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not

appropriate under the Sentencing Code. See Commonwealth v. Moury, 992

A.2d 162, 170 (Pa.Super. 2010). “Objections to the discretionary aspects of a

sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing

or raised in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing.”

Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2005).

      Rosario has met the first requirement of the above test. However, he

did not preserve his issue at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider or modify

his sentence. The claim is waived. See id.

      In his final issue, Rosario argues his convictions for REAP and

aggravated assault should have merged for sentencing purposes. He claims

                                     -5-
J-S39023-23

REAP is a lesser included offense of aggravated assault and therefore he “can

only be sentenced on the aggravated assault.” Rosario’s Br. at 23-24.

      “A claim that crimes should have merged for sentencing purposes raises

a challenge to the legality of the sentence.” Commonwealth v. Cianci, 130

A.3d 780, 782 (Pa.Super. 2015) (citation omitted). “[O]ur standard of review

is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Id. (citation omitted).

      “No crimes shall merge for sentencing purposes unless the crimes arise

from a single criminal act and all of the statutory elements of one offense are

included in the statutory elements of the other offense.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9765.

      Rosario’s claim lacks merit. The crime of aggravated assault requires

causing or attempting to cause serious bodily injury, while REAP requires a

showing of actual danger of death or serious bodily injury. See 18 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 2702(a)(1); cf. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705 (defining REAP as “recklessly

engag[ing] in conduct which places or may place another person in danger of

death or serious bodily injury”). Because all the elements of REAP are not

included in aggravated assault, REAP is not a lesser included offense of

aggravated assault. The crimes should not have merged for sentencing

purposes. See Commonwealth v. Edwards, 256 A.3d 1130, 1138 (Pa.

2021) (“Since all of the statutory elements of REAP are not contained in

aggravated assault, they do not merge for sentencing purposes”). We affirm

the judgment of sentence.

                                     -6-
J-S39023-23

     Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 12/15/2023

                                 -7-