Com. v. Lucas, J. ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • J-S43037-17
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                        IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    v.
    JERMAINE LAVELL LUCAS
    Appellant                    No. 148 WDA 2017
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 6, 2016
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0003431-2015
    BEFORE: STABILE, SOLANO, and FITZGERALD* JJ.
    MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.:              FILED: July 20, 2017
    Appellant, Jermaine Lavell Lucas, appeals from the judgment of
    sentence imposed following his guilty pleas to two counts of possession with
    intent to deliver (“PWID”) a controlled substance,1 and one count of
    hindering     apprehension     or   prosecution.2    Appellant    challenges   the
    discretionary aspects of his sentence. We affirm.
    The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history of
    this case as follows:
    Appellant pled guilty on October 4, 2016 to Possession
    with Intent to Deliver Heroin, Possession with Intent to
    Deliver   Cocaine,   and    Hindering   Apprehension   or
    Prosecution. The remaining counts were nolle prossed.
    *
    Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
    1
    35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
    2
    18 Pa.C.S. § 5105(a)(1).
    J-S43037-17
    On December 6, 2016, Appellant was sentenced in the
    standard range of the sentencing guidelines on each count.
    He received 24-48 months at [PWID] Count 1, 20-[40]
    months at [PWID] Count 2, and 3-[23½] months [for
    hindering/apprehension]. Confinement was consecutive on
    all three counts and consecutive to the sentence Appellant
    received at his probation revocation hearing at Docket
    Number 444 of 2014.
    The aggregate sentence which results is 47 to [111½3]
    months of incarceration for Docket Number 3431 of 2015.
    Appellant understood when he entered his plea that the
    maximum sentences for his crimes totaled 27 years (324
    months). . . .
    On December 16, 2016, Appellant filed a Motion for
    Reconsideration of Sentence.        Appellant claimed the
    sentencing judge failed to consider mitigating factors such
    as [] Appellant’s family situation, that he was remorseful
    for his conduct and accepted responsibility in his plea of
    guilty. Appellant averred that a sentence at the low-end of
    the standard range was most appropriate in this case. The
    motion was denied by Order dated December 19, 2016.
    Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal [on January 18,
    2017,] and a Concise Statement on February 8, 2017.
    Appellant argued there was not sufficient grounds to
    sentence him at the high end of the standard range and
    that the sentences should have been concurrent instead of
    consecutive. Appellant also argued that the [c]ourt failed
    to adequately consider mitigating factors, including []
    Appellant’s cooperation at arrest and admission of guilt,
    Appellant’s guilty plea, Appellant’s remorse, and five minor
    children. Appellant averred a more appropriate sentence
    would be at the low end of the standard range with each
    count running concurrently.
    3
    We note the trial court’s opinion and Appellant’s brief misstate Appellant’s
    sentence for count 2 of PWID as 20-46 months’ imprisonment and for
    hindering/apprehension as 3-23 months’ imprisonment.            However, the
    sentencing order correctly indicates that Appellant’s sentence for count 2 of
    PWID and for hindering/apprehension is 20-40 months’ and 3-23½ months’
    imprisonment, respectively. See Sentencing Order, 12/6/16.
    -2-
    J-S43037-17
    Trial Ct. Op., 3/10/17, at 1-2 (citations omitted).
    Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
    Was the sentence in this case manifestly excessive and
    clearly unreasonable, and not individualized as required by
    law, especially in that the sentence did not properly take
    into account the several mitigating factors present?
    Appellant’s Brief at 3 (capitalization omitted).
    Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence.
    Appellant   argues   his   aggregate   sentence    of   47   to   111½   months’
    imprisonment is manifestly excessive.        Appellant also contends the trial
    court failed to consider mitigating factors, including that he expressed
    remorse, took responsibility for his actions, had a high school degree, and
    has five children. Appellant concludes this Court should vacate his judgment
    of sentence and remand for resentencing. No relief is due.
    This Court has stated that:
    [c]hallenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do
    not entitle an appellant to appellate review as of right.
    Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing
    issue:
    [W]e 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).
    -3-
    J-S43037-17
    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. Evans, 
    901 A.2d 528
    , 533-34 (Pa. Super. 2006)
    (quotation marks and some citations omitted).
    [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 . . . .
    Commonwealth v. Goggins, 
    748 A.2d 721
    , 727 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en
    banc).
    “Our inquiry must focus on the reasons for which the appeal is
    sought, in contrast to the facts underlying the appeal, which are necessary
    only to decide the appeal on the merits.”    
    Id.
       A claim that a sentence is
    manifestly excessive might raise a substantial question if the appellant’s
    Rule 2119(f) statement sufficiently articulates the manner in which the
    sentence imposed violates a specific provision of the Sentencing Code or the
    norms underlying the sentencing process.      Commonwealth v. Mouzon,
    
    812 A.2d 617
    , 627 (Pa. 2002). However, “[a] claim that a sentencing court
    failed to consider certain mitigating factors does not raise a substantial
    -4-
    J-S43037-17
    question . . . .” Commonwealth v. Lewis, 
    911 A.2d 558
    , 567 (Pa. Super.
    2006) (citations omitted).
    Instantly, Appellant timely appealed, preserved his discretionary
    aspects of sentencing issue in his motion for reconsideration of sentence,
    and included a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement in his brief.         See Evans, 
    901 A.2d at 533
    .      Appellant asserts the trial court imposed a manifestly
    excessive sentence.     Generally, such a bald assertion does not raise a
    substantial question.    See Mouzon, 812 A.2d at 627.              In any event,
    Appellant’s claim is meritless. This Court has stated:
    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.
    Commonwealth v. Sheller, 
    961 A.2d 187
    , 190 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation
    omitted).
    In making a reasonableness determination, a court should consider
    four factors: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history
    and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the opportunity of the sentencing
    court to observe the defendant, including any pre-sentence investigation;
    (3) the findings upon which the sentence was based; and (4) the guidelines
    promulgated by the commission. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(d)(1)-(4).
    -5-
    J-S43037-17
    A sentence may be found to be unreasonable if it fails to properly
    account for these four statutory factors, or if it “was imposed without
    express or implicit consideration by the sentencing court of the general
    standards applicable to sentencing[.]” Commonwealth v. Walls, 
    926 A.2d 957
    , 964 (Pa. 2007). These general standards mandate that a sentencing
    court impose a sentence “consistent with 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. § 9721(b).
    “[W]here the sentencing court imposed a standard-range sentence
    with the benefit of a pre-sentence report, we will not consider the sentence
    excessive.”    Commonwealth v. Corley, 
    31 A.3d 293
    , 298 (Pa. Super.
    2011); see also Commonwealth v. Moury, 
    992 A.2d 162
    , 171 (Pa. Super.
    2010) (stating “where a sentence is within the standard range of the
    guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the
    Sentencing Code” (citation omitted)).    Under such circumstances, “we can
    assume the sentencing court was aware of relevant information regarding
    the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with
    mitigating    statutory   factors.”   Corley,   
    31 A.3d at 298
       (quoting
    Commonwealth v. Devers, 
    546 A.2d 12
    , 18 (Pa. 1988)) (quotation marks
    omitted).
    -6-
    J-S43037-17
    Here, Appellant’s sentence is in the standard range of the Sentencing
    Guidelines.      Because the trial court reviewed Appellant’s pre-sentence
    investigation report, we assume it took into consideration the mitigating
    circumstances raised in Appellant’s brief, such as his high school degree and
    five children.    See Corley, 
    31 A.3d at 298
    .      Moreover, the trial court
    summarized its reasons for Appellant’s sentence as follows:
    I have listened to the evidence presented here today. I
    have read the revocation summary and the [pre-sentence
    investigation report] for both docket numbers 444 of 2014
    and 3431 of 2015.
    I’m also familiar with the facts of the case at 3431,
    since I presided over a pretrial hearing in that case. And I
    do note to your credit, [Appellant], as to Docket 3431,
    you’ve accepted responsibility by way of your plea in that
    case.
    And then I have to balance that. And I do take in
    account your age and the fact you do have a high school
    degree. I’m not sure what kind of parent you’ve been to
    five children at such a young age that you are. When, in
    fact, you spend most of your time in and out of the
    criminal justice system as a juvenile and as an adult.
    As a juvenile you had serious offenses, including
    robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery. There were efforts
    to work with you. You were revoked several times as a
    juvenile.
    You came into the adult system, and you’re given
    benefit by Judge Garhart originally at Docket Number 444,
    and I’m sure he took into account your age and the fact
    this was your first adult offense, but they were serious; it
    involves a firearm that you were carrying without a license
    and a resisting arrest. But he allowed you to stay in the
    community and gave you a sentence in the mitigated
    range of the sentencing guidelines, and that was on April
    29th of 2015.
    -7-
    J-S43037-17
    Unfortunately, the offenses at Docket 3431 were
    committed less than six months later, on October 23rd of
    2015, and in the meantime, you had already been called in
    by your probation officer for—to your credit you admitted
    smoking marijuana and services were in place for you, so
    you had services in place. He didn’t detain you, he got
    you services for the use of pot.        So while you were
    supposedly doing that, on October 23, 2015, you’re clearly
    harboring a fugitive who’s wanted for homicide and you’re
    clearly involved in dealing drugs out of this house.
    And there’s a significant quantity of heroin, a significant
    quantity of cocaine found in that house, and that is a
    concern, because it tells me that you have made no
    significant effort to change your lifestyle or your criminal
    thinking. And that if left to your own devices, you would
    continue on those ways and that’s unfortunate, because
    possessing firearms and dealing drugs are a very
    dangerous combination. And they’re a threat to the health
    and safety of other people in this community.
    N.T. Sentencing, 12/6/16, at 12-14. We discern no abuse of discretion in
    the trial court’s reasoning.   See Sheller, 
    961 A.2d at 190
    .        Therefore,
    Appellant’s sentence of 47 to 111½ months’ imprisonment was not
    manifestly excessive.   See Corley, 
    31 A.3d at 298
    ; Moury, 
    992 A.2d at 171
    . Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.
    Judgment of sentence affirmed.
    -8-
    J-S43037-17
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 7/20/2017
    -9-