Court Opinion

ID: 9372039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 17:07:50.348302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:31.855560
License: Public Domain

J-S36037-22

                                   2023 PA Super 27

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    DALISHIA DANIKA SALTER                     :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 253 WDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 30, 2016
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-02-CR-0016990-2014

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.

OPINION BY COLINS, J.:                              FILED: February 17, 2023

        Dalishia Danika Salter appeals nunc pro tunc from the judgment of

sentence imposed after a jury found her guilty of aggravated assault,

endangering the welfare of a child, simple assault, recklessly endangering

another person, and falsely reporting to law enforcement.1 For these offenses,

Salter was sentenced to a total of seven-and-one-half to fifteen years of

incarceration, with Count I, the aggravated assault conviction, specifically

receiving an aggravated sentence. On appeal, Salter solely contends that the

lower court abused its discretion in determining that an aggravated sentence

was necessary at Count I. In particular, Salter faults the lower court’s reliance

on her apparent failure to display emotion and/or remorse at trial. We affirm.

____________________________________________

   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(9); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304(a)(1); 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
2701(b)(2); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705; and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4906(a), respectively.
J-S36037-22

     As eloquently and completely summarized by the court:

     During the late evening of September 12, 2014, [Salter] brutally
     assaulted her infant son, [D.B.], who was eleven (11) months old
     at the time of the assault. After she beat [D.B.], [Salter] put him
     outside in the dark, in a car seat, on the back porch of her
     Wilkinsburg home, next to the garbage. [Salter] then sent text
     messages to David Bryant, the father of the child at approximately
     11:30 p.m., which stated the following:

     “Beat df out ya son big ass knot bleedn putn him outside u want
     dat piece of shit take em cuz bet ima kill him bitch!!!!!!” (11:34[
     p.m.] )

     “He will be outside bitch” (11:46[ p.m.] )

     “On god! Prob die n too idgaf FUCK U AND HIM STG BETTER TAKE
     EM TO DA.” (11:48[ p.m.] )

     David Bryant was at a friend's house in Wilkinsburg when he
     received the text messages from [Salter]. David Bryant previously
     had dated [Salter] for a number of years. The two had a
     tumultuous and volatile relationship, and they were no longer
     together at the time of the incident. [Salter’s] text messages
     caused David Bryant to become concerned for his son, so he went
     to [Salter’s] home and found his injured son outside on the back
     porch, right where [Salter] had said that she left him.

     When he arrived at the back porch of [Salter’s] home, David
     Bryant began video recording what he saw on his cell phone. The
     video captures [D.B.], alone and crying outside on the porch, as
     well as David Bryant's emotional reaction to finding his injured
     son. David Bryant can be heard sobbing and banging on the door.
     He eventually kicked down the door of [Salter’s] house after she
     failed to answer the door. The video captures what happens inside
     of the apartment, while the audio reveals David Bryant in a
     distressed and panicked state. As he is crying, he is heard
     repeatedly saying to [Salter], “you hit my fucking son!?”[,] “you
     beat my son like that yo!?[”,] “you hit my son like that!?”[, and]
     “you put your hands on my fucking son!?” In response to David
     Bryant's questions about beating [D.B.], [Salter] is heard
     repeatedly stating, “I don't care,” “Oh well,” “I told you to get
     him,” “Bitch I don't care.” David Bryant testified that he was “not

                                    -2-
J-S36037-22

     thinking straight” and left the house. He called an ambulance,
     contacted his sister, and spoke with the police on the phone that
     night. The text messages sent by [Salter], and the video taken by
     David Bryant, were provided to the police that night by Tennille
     Webb, David Bryant's sister.

     At approximately 1:00 a.m. on the morning of September 13,
     2014, multiple officers from the Wilkinsburg Police Department
     were dispatched to [Salter’s] residence after receiving a report of
     “possible child abuse that had occurred” at the home. When the
     officers entered [Salter’s] apartment, they encountered [Salter]
     in the living room, which was located approximately 25 to 50 feet
     away from the bedroom where [D.B.] was now located. The
     officers noticed that, although [Salter’s] lip was bloody and
     swollen, she was “very calm” and did not appear to be in any “kind
     of distress at that time.” The officers entered the master bedroom
     and observed [D.B. lying] on an adult bed, which did not have any
     safety railings surrounding it. The child was crying and was in
     obvious distress, and officers “immediately noticed he had
     bruising about the face [and] head” and that his nose was
     bleeding. It was apparent to the officers that the child had been
     assaulted and that he required immediate medical attention.
     Medical personnel arrived on the scene shortly thereafter, and
     [D.B.] was transported to Children's Hospital. [Salter] did not
     show or express any kind of emotion or concern for her child
     during her interaction with the officers. She did not ask where the
     child was being transported[,] and she did not ask to accompany
     her child to the hospital.

     When asked how [D.B.] had sustained his injuries, [Salter] told
     officers that she had been in an altercation with David Bryant
     earlier that evening. She stated that she was in her bedroom
     sleeping, with [D.B.] asleep at the foot of her bed, when David
     Bryant broke into her house. [Salter] further stated that David
     Bryant “went around the bed” and “pushed a [flatscreen] TV down
     on top of the bed where” she was lying with the child, which
     caused the 55-inch television to fall on top of [D.B.]. When officers
     entered the bedroom, they noticed that the television was sitting
     upright on top of a tall dresser and that the screen had been
     broken. The dresser was approximately 5 feet tall.

     [Salter] then told police that David Bryant attempted to assault
     her and broke her cell phone. When [Salter] tried to reach for
     another cell phone on the other side of the bed, David Bryant took

                                     -3-
J-S36037-22

     the phone and “a set of keys, broke some pictures around the
     apartment, then fled the residence.” [Salter] told the officers that
     after David Bryant left the apartment, she attempted to get her
     child dressed, then placed him in the car seat and put him on the
     back porch while she “attempted to gather some belongings.”
     [Salter] told the officers that she was unsure of what to do next,
     so she “sat on the bed for approximately an hour” and did not
     contact police or seek medical attention for her child, who,
     according to her, had just had a 55[-]inch television fall on top of
     him.

     [Salter’s] version of events left the officers with “major questions”
     surrounding the incident, so [Salter] was asked to accompany the
     officers to the police station to answer more questions. In the
     meantime, the officers also attempted to locate David Bryant to
     ascertain his version of events. The officers went to his sister's
     house, where she provided the officers with the text and video
     evidence from that evening. Upon reviewing that evidence, the
     officers placed [Salter] under arrest for assaulting her child. By
     the time the officers reviewed the text messages and video,
     approximately an hour and a half had passed since [D.B.] had
     been assaulted.

     At the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, [D.B.] underwent a CT
     scan of his head and additional x-rays. He was then admitted to
     the pediatric ICU unit. [D.B.] was placed in a neck collar, and he
     “had to have an abdominal CT because he had evidence of
     abdominal injury.” Dr. Jennifer Wolford, the attending physician
     in the Division of Child Advocacy at Children's Hospital, was
     consulted to evaluate [D.B.] due to the nature of his injuries. Her
     primary responsibility is the “evaluation and assessments of child
     abuse and child maltreatment.”

     Upon her examination of [D.B.], it was clear to Dr. Wolford that
     he had sustained numerous and serious injuries. Dr. Wolford
     noted that [D.B.] had “significant bruising to both sides of his
     face,” and that he was in the “third percentile for his age[ ]” [with
     respect to his weight.] Dr. Wolford also observed that [D.B.] had
     bruising and swelling across his nose, and that he was bleeding
     underneath his right eye. [D.B.] had “bursted blood vessels” in
     “the inner part of his right eye,” which indicated blunt trauma.
     [D.B.] had suffered a “subconjunctival hemorrhage,” and he had
     “skull fractures in the rear sides of his head above his ears on both
     sides.” The bruising and inflammation that he suffered also

                                     -4-
J-S36037-22

     extended into his hairline and ears. [D.B.] suffered “trauma on
     both sides of his face” and had “multiple bruises” in “multiple
     planes of his body.” Dr. Wolford also was concerned that [D.B.]
     had been the victim of hair pulling because there was obvious
     thinning of his hair on the right side of his head.

     The x-rays conducted revealed that [D.B.] had “two rib fractures
     of different ages.” One was a healing rib fracture of his 10th rib
     on the right side of his body, and the other was a rib fracture of
     the 5th rib on the right side of his body. Dr. Wolford noted that
     rib fractures “are highly concerning and usually associated with
     physical child abuse.” The rib fractures were approximately two
     (2) to three (3) weeks old. Dr. Wolford also determined that [D.B.]
     had suffered significant “abdominal trauma, specifically [to] the
     liver.” [D.B.'s] liver enzymes were 20 times the normal limit,
     which indicated a liver contusion and showed that “he had clearly
     taken blunt trauma to the abdomen.” Dr. Wolford explained that,
     in order to sustain a liver contusion, “[g]reat force” had to be
     inflicted on the liver. She further explained that air bags being
     deployed as a result of a car accident would not even cause that
     type of injury.

     Based on her examination of [D.B.], and based on her training,
     education, and experience, Dr. Wolford concluded that [D.B.'s]
     injuries were inconsistent with him receiving “one strike or one
     blow of some kind” because he had “multiple impacts across his
     head” that caused substantial bruising. Based on the nature and
     location of his injuries, it was her opinion that [D.B.] had “clearly
     been the victim of inflicted trauma.” The fact that [D.B.] had
     “multiple hits in multiple planes of the head across both sides” led
     her to conclude that he was the “victim of child physical abuse.”
     Dr. Wolford rejected the notion that [D.B.’s] injuries could have
     been the result of an accident because, although accidental
     bruising happens to children, “the most common sites of
     accidental bruises are shins, knees and foreheads.” She
     determined that [D.B.'s] injuries were “not anywhere near” the
     type of accidental bruising that occurs in some children. Dr.
     Wolford explained that [D.B.'s] injuries were very serious and
     necessarily would have caused him “[s]ignificant” and “very
     substantial pain.” It was clear that [D.B.] had sustained “multiple
     repeated hits to the face” and that there was “no way that [his
     injuries were caused] in one shot.”

                                     -5-
J-S36037-22

      Dr. Wolford's overall diagnosis was that [D.B.] “had been the
      victim of physical child abuse on more than one occasion [ ] [a]nd
      likely repeatedly.” Dr. Wolford firmly rejected the idea that a
      television set falling on a child could cause “two parietal skull
      fractures, one healing rib fracture, one acute rib fracture, bruising
      and hemorrhaging about the head, tissue damage around the eyes
      and a liver contusion.” Dr. Wolford estimated that [D.B.] suffered
      “at least 20 blows to the head.” She confirmed that “there is no
      way” that [D.B.'s] injuries were “caused by an accidental single
      event,” and her opinions were rendered to a reasonable degree of
      medical certainty. Dr. Wolford explained that as a child abuse
      physician, it is her duty to assess whether injuries are caused
      accidentally or as a result of abuse. Based on her evaluation of
      [D.B.], Dr. Wolford testified persuasively that “there is absolutely
      no accidental explanation for the extent of [his] injuries.”

      At trial, [Salter] testified on her own behalf and denied that she
      was the cause of [D.B.'s] injuries. She recounted the volatile
      relationship that she had with David Bryant, as well as the
      altercation that had transpired between them on the day of the
      incident. She maintained that the significant injuries suffered by
      her son were caused by a 55-inch television falling off the dresser
      when David Bryant broke into her apartment on the night of the
      incident and assaulted her. [Salter] also disputed the validity of
      the video recording taken by David Bryant and denied that the
      text messages were sent by her.

      [Salter’s] friend, Tiesha Griffin, also testified on her behalf. Ms.
      [Griffin] had previously babysat [D.B.], but she had stopped
      babysitting him in August of 2014. Ms. [Griffin] admitted that she
      did not have any medical training, and she testified that, during
      the course of her watching [D.B.], she had never noticed any
      bumps or bruises on his head.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/3/17, at 2-10 (record citations omitted) (emphasis

added).

      Following a jury trial and sentencing, which included the presentation of

a pre-sentence investigation report, Salter filed a timely post-sentence motion

that raised both weight and sufficiency of evidence claims. After a hearing,

                                      -6-
J-S36037-22

the court denied her motion. Salter timely appealed this determination, but

only raised a weight of evidence claim with this Court. Ultimately, we affirmed

her judgment of sentence on August 7, 2018.

      Several weeks after our decision, Salter filed a pro se petition pursuant

to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.

Thereafter, appointed counsel amended that petition to assert trial counsel’s

failure to properly preserve a claim challenging the discretionary aspects of

her sentence. Correspondingly, the court granted relief, and Salter’s post-

sentence and appellate rights, as to this specific issue, were reinstated nunc

pro tunc.

      Salter then filed a post-sentence motion, which was denied. In response,

Salter filed a timely appeal, but ultimately, that appeal was dismissed by this

Court due to counsel’s failure to file a brief on her behalf.

      Thereafter, Salter filed another pro se PCRA petition. After appointed

counsel amended this later petition, which sought reinstatement of her right

to appeal the discretionary aspects of sentencing issue, the lower court

granted the relief sought. After this grant, Salter timely pursued the present

appeal, and relatedly, the parties have complied with their obligations under

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925. As such, this matter is ripe

for review.

      On appeal, Salter presents one question:

      1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in imposing an
         aggravated-range sentence at Count I based in part on Salter’s

                                      -7-
J-S36037-22

          failure to display emotion and remorse at her trial,
          consideration of which impermissibly burdens her federal and
          state constitutional privileges against self-incrimination?

Appellant’s Brief, at 8.

      Given that Salter’s sole issue on appeal is a challenge to the

discretionary aspects of her sentence, we utilize a well-settled standard of

review:

      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. In this context, an abuse
      of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather,
      the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that 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.

      The right to appellate review of the discretionary aspects of a
      sentence is not absolute, and must be considered a petition for
      permission to appeal. An appellant must satisfy a four-part test to
      invoke this Court's jurisdiction when challenging the discretionary
      aspects of a sentence.

            [W]e conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1)
            whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal;
            (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at
            sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify
            sentence; (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.

                                    ****

      A substantial question will be found where an appellant advances
      a colorable argument that the sentence imposed is either
      inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code or is
      contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing
      process. At a minimum, the Rule 2119(f) statement must

                                     -8-
J-S36037-22

      articulate what particular provision of the code is violated, what
      fundamental norms the sentence violates, and the manner in
      which it violates that norm.

Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 132 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations

omitted) (some brackets in original).

      In reviewing the record, despite the prior procedural irregularities,

Salter has filed both a timely notice of appeal and adequate post-sentence

motion, satisfying the first two components of our four-part analysis. In

addition, as to the third factor, her brief contains a statement pursuant to Rule

2119(f), which provides, at least facially, the rationale as to how she has

invoked this Court’s jurisdiction. As such, with it being the only analytical

component remaining, we must ascertain whether she has raised a substantial

question.

      Stated succinctly, “Salter contends that the trial court imposed its

sentence based in part upon an improper factor: her failure to display emotion

and remorse at her trial.” Appellant’s Brief, at 19. This Court has found, on

many occasions, such a contention to constitute a substantial question capable

of review. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Stewart, 867 A.2d 589, 592 (Pa.

Super. 2005) (holding that a claim asserting “the sentencing court considered

improper factors in placing the sentence in the aggravated range … presents

a substantial question on appeal[]”).

      Substantively, the gravamen of Salter’s argument is that “the trial court

abused its discretion … [by] imposing a harsher sentence on the ground that

                                      -9-
J-S36037-22

she failed to display emotion or remorse at her trial[.]” Appellant’s Brief, at

20. Salter avers that aggravating her sentence in this manner “impermissibly

burden[ed] her federal and state constitutional privilege[s] against self-

incrimination.” Id.

      As background, the court, in imposing a sentence of total confinement,

must consider, inter alia, “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).

      Salter concedes that “a trial court is free to impose a harsher sentence

on the ground that a defendant has not been remorseful[.]” Appellant’s Brief,

at 20. However, Salter believes that displaying a lack of remorse at trial

implies that there is “a lack of desire to incriminate oneself.” Id., at 21. Stated

differently, showing remorse during trial proceedings is “expressive conduct

communicating to the jury that [one] is guilty.” Id. Salter tethers this

supposition to the constitutional privileges a defendant has, both federally and

in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, against self-incrimination. See U.S.

Const., amend. V; Pa. Const. art. I. § 9. Salter then provides authority to

demonstrate instances where a defendant’s silence, at varying points of

criminal proceedings, was impermissibly used against him in some capacity.

See Appellant’s Brief, at 21-22, citing, e.g., Griffin v. California, 380 U.S.

609 (1965).

                                      - 10 -
J-S36037-22

      Distilled down, while acknowledging that the present matter is different

because she testified on her own behalf, Salter questions whether a lack of

emotion or remorse exhibited through her testimony during trial is a fact that

can be used as an aggravating factor at sentencing. In other words, as Salter

frames it, penalizing someone for testifying with no emotion is nonsensical

and illegitimate, as such testimony could have been given pursuant to a

genuine belief of innocence or at the advice of counsel.

      Salter claims that the cases the court relies upon in stating that it

appropriately considered her emotions and lack of remorse do not involve

what happened at trial, but were at other phases of the judicial criminal

process, such as during a sentencing allocution. Moreover, Salter declares that

the court’s consideration of an illegitimate factor, despite also relying upon

legitimate factors, warrants remand for the record to be cleared of the taint

of that illegitimate factor. Finally, as to the notion that Salter waived her self-

incrimination privilege, she argues that this waiver in taking the stand did not

mean “she was required to display emotion and remorse – i.e., guilt –

throughout the trial on pain of a higher sentence.” Appellant’s Brief, at 26

(italics omitted).

      In imposing an aggravated-range sentence, the lower court is permitted

to consider any legal factor. See Commonwealth v. Stewart, 867 A.2d 589,

592-93 (Pa. Super. 2005). “The trial court is vested with broad discretion in

determining the defendant’s sentence since the court is in the best position to

                                      - 11 -
J-S36037-22

view the defendant’s character, displays of remorse, defiance or indifference,

and the overall effect and nature of the crime.” Commonwealth v. Begley,

780 A.2d 605, 643 (Pa. 2001) (citation omitted). Moreover, “[l]ack of remorse

is an appropriate sentencing consideration.” Commonwealth v. Summers,

245 A.3d 686, 695 (Pa. Super. 2021).

      Prior to imposing its sentence, the court stated:

      I had the opportunity to watch you throughout the entire trial. I
      got an opportunity to sit there, and I have a great view of the
      defense table from where I sit. And during that entire trial while
      pictures were shown of your son with horrible injuries, while
      testimony was proceeding about how this child was found
      abandoned on a pile of trash on the back porch, while cell phone
      video and audio was played of just screaming, you sat there
      without a shred of emotion. Never once during the course of this
      entire trial did you show the slightest bit of emotion for what your
      child had suffered; whether at your hands as the jury found or at
      someone else’s as you continue to maintain. Not once. The only
      emotion you ever showed during that entire trial was for yourself
      at the point when you were convicted. That was it.

Sentencing Hearing, 11/30/16, at 23.

      In its corresponding opinion, the court elaborated on its explanation

given during the sentencing hearing:

      [I]t was not just the lack of remorse exhibited by [Salter]
      throughout the trial to which this court referred during sentencing,
      but it was, perhaps more importantly, the lack of remorse and
      callous disregard for human life that [Salter] displayed at the time
      that she brutally assaulted her baby and left him outside in a
      garbage pile for dead that substantially weighed in favor of an
      aggravated range sentence. Additionally, [Salter’s] conduct
      immediately after the assault, as captured by the text messages
      that she sent to the baby’s father, as well as the video recording
      that the father took of [Salter] when he arrived at the residence,
      also factored heavily into the sentencing determination. Indeed by
      [Salter’s] own words, she was aware that the assault she had just

                                     - 12 -
J-S36037-22

       committed was so heinous that her baby was probably dying
       outside next to the trash, but she did not care. It was all but an
       attempted murder committed by a mother against her own
       innocent and defenseless son.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/4/22, at 7 (record citations omitted). Next, the court

proceeded to discuss the other bases it relied upon in determining the

necessity of an aggravated sentence. See id., at 7-8 (illuminating Salter’s

“failure to seek or render aid, her attempted concealment of her crime to

investigating authorities, and her attempt to shift blame for the assault on the

baby’s father”). The court then concluded that “these factors clearly illustrated

the danger that [Salter] posed to the public in general and her potential for

rehabilitation.” Id., at 8-9 (citation omitted) (stating, further, that its

conclusions “were informed by careful observation and attention at trial, a

thorough and painstaking review of the [pre-sentence investigation report] in

this case, and additional observations and consideration of evidence and

argument presented at sentencing”). Finally, the court emphasized that Salter

testified on her own behalf and, unlike other cases she has relied upon, that

through her providing that testimony, there is absolutely no indication that

the court used her own silence against her.

       “[T]he trial court may base its findings regarding remorse on … its own

observations of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Bowen, 975 A.2d 1120,

1127    (Pa.   Super.   2009)   (citation   omitted).   Despite   contesting   the

constitutional validity of whether a court can make sentencing determinations

inherently stemming from Salter’s decision to testify on her own behalf, she

                                      - 13 -
J-S36037-22

has presented no authority to show that relinquishment of the right against

self-incrimination provides any sort of special benefit or should be considered

differently in sentencing determinations. More importantly, Salter has shown

no basis to deviate from the court’s assessment that she lacked remorse,

which was derived from its own permissible observations of her throughout

trial. The court did not infringe on her constitutional protections against self-

incrimination. To the extent that Salter, instead, argues that she effectively

had to admit to the charged crimes at trial to lessen her ultimate sentence,

such a contention is not congruent with what the court stated at sentencing.

The court specifically indicated that even if the acts leading to D.B.’s injuries

were not, in fact, perpetrated by Salter, she did not, among other things, show

any type of empathy or acknowledgement of the precarious situation she had

put her own child in by not rendering aid thereafter.

      While Salter’s brief is replete with many cases in which those defendants

invoked their right against self-incrimination, in the absence of any case law

provided by Salter clearly showing it to be impermissible when a court

considers lack of remorse at trial when juxtaposed against a defendant

testifying on her own behalf, it is unclear how the court was then not able to

rely upon the observations it made both during her testimony and the trial

more broadly. In other words, as silence, or her invocation thereof, was not

used against Salter, there is no obvious constitutional dimension to her claim,

and accordingly, there is no compelling reason to hold that the court relied

                                     - 14 -
J-S36037-22

upon an impermissible factor in deviating from the standard sentencing

guidelines as to her aggravated assault conviction.

      Finally, we note that even if a sentence is predicated on an

impermissible sentencing factor, as long as independently valid reasons exist

for   imposing   an   aggravated    sentence,   it   must   be   affirmed.   See

Commonwealth v. P.L.S., 894 A.2d 120, 133 (Pa. Super. 2006). Here, the

record reflects that the court, having also considered the pre-sentence

investigation report, delved into all of the necessary factors and considerations

that it needed to in order to impose the sentence that it did. See Sentencing

Hearing, 11/30/16, at 24-25 (discussing aggravating and mitigating factors,

such as, inter alia, the horrific nature of the crimes she committed,

defenselessness of the victim as well as the victim’s familial relationship with

her, and Salter having been a victim, herself, of domestic abuse).

      In finding no reason to conclude that the court abused its discretion

when it crafted Salter’s sentence, we affirm her judgment of sentence.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/17/2023

                                     - 15 -
J-S36037-22

              - 16 -