Com. v. Gibson, M. ( 2017 )

J-A23003-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MARSHALL ISAAC GIBSON :
:
Appellant : No. 651 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 22, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0003112-2015
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., DUBOW, J., and FITZGERALD*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED DECEMBER 08, 2017
Appellant, Marshall Gibson, pled guilty but mentally ill to charges that
he raped a woman by holding a knife to her throat and forcing her to
perform oral sex on him. The court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment
of 10 to 20 years. This sentence exceeded the aggravated range of the
sentencing guidelines.
On appeal, Gibson argues the court ignored significant mitigating
factors and imposed a manifestly excessive sentence. Gibson concedes this
claim challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. See Appellant’s
Brief, at 9.
“A challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence must be
considered a petition for permission to appeal, as the right to pursue such a
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A23003-17
claim is not absolute.” Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270, 274 (Pa.
Super. 2004) (citation omitted).
An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his
sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a
four-part test:
[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).
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation
omitted; brackets in original).
Here, Gibson preserved his issue through a timely motion for
reconsideration of the sentence imposed, and filed a timely appeal. Counsel
has included the required Rule 2119(f) statement. We therefore turn to a
substantive review of Gibson’s Rule 2119(f) statement.
We examine an appellant’s Rule 2119(f) statement to determine
whether a substantial question exists. See Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870
A.2d 362, 365 (Pa. Super. 2005). “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. (citation
omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f).
Gibson “must show that there is a substantial question that the
sentence imposed is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” McAfee,
-2-
J-A23003-17
849 A.2d at 274 (citation omitted). That is, “the sentence violates either a
specific provision of the sentencing scheme set forth in the Sentencing Code
or a particular fundamental norm underlying the sentencing process.”
Tirado, 870 A.2d at 365 (citation omitted).
Gibson’s claim that the trial court focused exclusively on the
seriousness of the crime while ignoring other, mitigating circumstances, such
as his mental health issues, age, and lack of prior record, raises a
substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770
(Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc), appeal denied, 126 A.3d 1282 (Pa. 2015); see
also Commonwealth v. P.L.S., 894 A.2d 120, 127 (Pa. Super. 2006)
(claim that trial court failed to adequately state on the record its reasons for
imposing a sentence exceeding the guideline range raises a substantial
question).
In imposing a sentence, the court must consider relevant statutory
factors, including “the protection of the public, gravity of an offense in
relation to impact on victim and community, and rehabilitative needs of the
defendant.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b). A court has broad discretion in
fashioning its sentence. See Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957, 962-
63 (Pa. 2007). While the court is required to consider the sentence ranges
set forth in the sentencing guidelines, it is not bound by them. See
Commonwealth v. Yuhasz, 923 A.2d 1111, 1118 (Pa. 2007). The court
may depart from the guidelines, “if necessary, to fashion a sentence which
-3-
J-A23003-17
takes into account the protection of the public, the rehabilitative needs of
the defendant, and the gravity of the particular offense as it related to the
impact on the life of the victim and the community[.]” Commonwealth v.
Eby, 784 A.2d 204, 206 (Pa. Super. 2001). If the court imposes a sentence
outside the guideline ranges, it must place adequate reasons for the
deviation in the record. See P.L.S., 894 A.2d at 129-130.
Here, contrary to Gibson’s claims, the court referenced the guidelines.
See N.T., Sentencing, 12/22/16, at 50 (“I don’t believe … the sentencing will
fall within the standard sentencing range.”) Thus, there is no concern that
the court was unaware that it was sentencing outside the guideline ranges.
Furthermore, the court acknowledged Gibson’s rehabilitative needs
and the impact his imprisonment would have on his family. See id., at 49.
Thus, the record belies Gibson’s claim that the court did not consider his
rehabilitative needs.
While Gibson correctly asserts the court spent significantly more time
addressing the impact of the crime on the victim and protection of the
community, this does not render the court’s reasoning an abuse of
discretion. Gibson pled guilty to a serious crime, where he threatened the
victim with a knife. He then forced the victim to perform oral sex.
The impact of a forcible rape on a victim should not be ignored. Nor
should the protection of the public be ignored, given the fact that, according
to the guilty plea, Gibson committed this crime due to his mental illness. The
-4-
J-A23003-17
reasons given for the sentence imposed are rational, and do not constitute
an abuse of the court’s discretion. Gibson’s sole issue on appeal merits no
relief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/8/2017
-5-