Com. v. Negron-Martinez, L. ( 2023 )

J-S40025-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LUIS NEGRON-MARTINEZ :
:
Appellant : No. 399 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 21, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0008079-2018
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED JANUARY 20, 2023
Appellant, Luis Negron-Martinez, appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed on December 21, 2021 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County after he entered an open guilty plea to third-degree murder, robbery,
and possessing instruments of crime (“PIC”).1 Appellant contends that the
trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider mitigating factors and
imposing excessive consecutive sentences totaling 29 to 62 years in prison.
Appellant also argues that his sentence was improperly impacted because the
trial court viewed disturbing photographs of the victim’s corpse. Upon review,
we affirm.
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2503, 3701, and 907, respectively.
J-S40025-22
In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court summarized the underlying
facts, stating:
[Appellant] pled to the following facts. On July 28, 2018,
[Appellant] shot and killed his paramour of about a year, Vianelba
Tavera, in his basement apartment at 424 West Roosevelt
Boulevard in Philadelphia. Surveillance video from the inside of
his cluttered apartment showed [Appellant] repeatedly hit the
decedent in the head with a large bottle and choked her for about
a minute and [a] half. The decedent tried to run away but was
trapped in a corner of the basement by a locked door and was
unable to escape. After initially turning to the decedent with a
large bottle in hand, [Appellant] stopped, searched for his gun,
picked it up, and walked slowly toward the decedent. From about
ten feet away, [Appellant] attempted to shoot the decedent two
times; the gun jammed on his first shot and he missed [with] the
second shot. [Appellant] moved even closer to the decedent who
is cowering in the corner with her hands up. From about five feet
away, [Appellant] shot the decedent once in the head, killing her
instantly.
After taking pictures of the decedent’s body on his phone,
[Appellant] stole the decedent’s keys and fled the scene in the
decedent’s 2013 Acura SUV. Two days later in Fairfax, Virginia,
[Appellant] called 911 because he was experiencing a diabetic
emergency and suicidal thoughts. After the paramedics examined
him, [Appellant] claimed he did not know who owned the car.
With [Appellant’s] consent, police officers searched the vehicle
and recovered [Appellant’s] blood covered gun and the decedent’s
purse. While being interviewed by a psychiatrist, [Appellant]
confessed to shooting and killing the decedent.
The Fairfax Police Department contacted the Philadelphia and New
York City Police Departments and learned that the decedent’s
family had reported her missing.[2] Philadelphia police did not find
the decedent’s body, at this point at an advanced stage of
decomposition, until almost a week later in [Appellant’s]
apartment.
____________________________________________
2 The decedent was a resident of the Bronx.
-2-
J-S40025-22
Philadelphia police also recovered the three fired cartridge casings
that were ejected from [Appellant’s] legally purchased gun.
Trial Court Opinion, 3/11/22, at 2-3 (citations to guilty plea hearing testimony
omitted).
Appellant was arrested and charged with murder and related offenses.
On August 6, 2021, he entered a guilty plea as outlined above. Following
completion and review of a pre-sentence investigation and review of mental
health reports, the trial court sentenced Appellant on December 21, 2021, to
20 to 40 years in prison for third-degree murder and consecutive sentences
of eight to 20 years for robbery and one to two years for PIC, for an aggregate
term of imprisonment of 29 to 62 years. Following denial of post-sentence
motions, Appellant filed this timely appeal. Both Appellant and the trial court
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant asks us to consider two issues in this appeal:
1. Whether the trial court’s aggregate sentence of 29 to [62 3]
years of incarceration was an abuse of discretion that did not
adequately consider [Appellant’s] mitigating factors, which
included his: acceptance of responsibility, willingness to forgo
viable pre-trial issues, history of mental and physical abuse,
mental health issues, limited prior offenses, and behavior while
in custody. Further, this court’s imposition of consecutive
sentences for third-degree murder, robbery, and PIC is an
abuse of discretion that does not consider the mitigating
____________________________________________
3 In his post-sentence motion, in his Rule 1925(b) statement, and in his brief
filed with this Court, Appellant mistakenly indicates the sentence imposed for
robbery was eight to 16 years, rather than eight to 20 years. Consequently,
he also mistakenly indicates that his aggregate sentence is 29 to 58 years
when, in fact, the aggregate is 29 to 62 years. See Order of Sentence,
12/21/21 (Count 2).
-3-
J-S40025-22
circumstances of [Appellant’s] action, which was a single
criminal event.
2. [Whether] the trial court’s sentence was improperly impacted
by the disturbing photographs of the victim’s corpse, even
though the Appellant was not charged with abuse of a corpse
or other similar crimes and had no interaction with the victim’s
corpse after the killing.
Appellant’s Brief at 9 (some capitalization omitted).
We begin by setting forth our standard of review. In Commonwealth
v. Patterson, 180 A.3d 1217 (Pa. Super. 2018), this Court reiterated:
[T]he proper standard of review when considering whether to
affirm the sentencing court’s determination is an abuse of
discretion. . . . [A]n abuse of discretion is more than a mere error
of judgment; thus, a sentencing court will not have abused its
discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment exercised
was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice,
bias or ill-will. In more expansive terms, our Court recently
offered: An abuse of discretion may not be found merely because
an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but
requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality,
prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly
erroneous.
The rationale behind such broad discretion and the concomitantly
deferential standard of appellate review is that the sentencing
court [is] in the best position to determine the proper penalty for
a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual
circumstances before it.
Id. at 1231-32 (quoting Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 169–170
(Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted)).
Appellant does not challenge the legality of the sentence imposed; he
challenges only the discretionary aspects of his sentence. As this Court
observed in Commonwealth v. Crawford, 257 A.3d 75 (Pa. Super. 2021):
-4-
J-S40025-22
The right to appeal the discretionary aspects of one’s sentence is
not absolute, and the jurisdiction of this Court must be properly
invoked. To raise a substantial question, an appellant must satisfy
the following four-part test:
(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. The determination of whether a particular
issue raises a substantial question is to be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis. Generally, however, in order to
establish a substantial question, the appellant must show
actions by the sentencing court inconsistent with the
Sentencing Code or contrary to the fundamental norms
underlying the sentencing process.
Id. at 78 (quoting Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215, 1220-21 (Pa.
Super. 2011)).
Our review of the record confirms that Appellant filed a timely notice of
appeal and that he properly preserved the issue in his motion to reconsider
the sentence. Further, he has included a Rule 2119(f) statement in his brief
filed with this Court. Therefore, we must determine whether there is a
substantial question that Appellant’s sentence is not appropriate under the
Sentencing Code.
A substantial question is raised when an appellant “advances a
colorable 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.”
-5-
J-S40025-22
Patterson, 180 A.3d at 1232 (quoting Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d
526, 533 (Pa. Super. 2011)).
In his first issue, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its
discretion by failing to consider various mitigating circumstances and imposing
consecutive sentences for crimes arising from a single event. In support of
his contention, he cites cases in his Rule 2119(f) statement in which a
substantial question was raised (1) where the trial court considered only the
seriousness of the offense; (2) where the trial court relied on impermissible
hearsay; and (3) where the trial court may have relied in whole or in part on
impermissible considerations. Appellant’s Brief at 16 (citing Commonwealth
v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 773 (Pa. Super. 2009); Commonwealth
v. Crork, 966 A.2d 585 (Pa. Super. 2009); and Commonwealth v. Cruz,
402 A.2d 536 (Pa. Super. 1979)). However, Appellant fails to demonstrate
that the sentences imposed in his case were either “inconsistent with a
specific provision of the Sentencing Code” or “contrary to the fundamental
norms which underlie the sentencing process.” Patterson, 180 A.3d at 1232.
He simply argues that the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors and
that the court’s decision to run the sentences consecutively was “largely
punitive.” He suggests that the court’s failure to consider mitigating factors
requires this Court to vacate the sentence. Appellant’s Brief at 17.
Quoting Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900 (Pa. Super. 2013),
in Patterson we noted,
-6-
J-S40025-22
“[T]his Court has held on numerous occasions that a claim of
inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a
substantial question for our review.” See also Commonwealth
v. Kraft, 737 A.2d 755, 757 (Pa. Super. 1999), appeal
denied, 560 Pa. 742, 747 A.2d 366 (1999) (determining
appellant’s claim that sentence of incarceration for [driving under
suspension] violation was excessive because sentencing court
failed to adequately consider certain mitigating factors did not
raise substantial question).
Id. at 1233 (quoting Disalvo, 70 A.3d at 903) (additional citations omitted).
See also Crawford, 257 A.3d at 79 (citing Commonwealth v. Cannon, 954
A.2d 1222, 1228-29 (Pa. Super. 2008) and Commonwealth v. Eline, 940
A.2d 421, 435 (Pa. Super. 2007)). Consistent with these cases, and as stated
in Commonwealth v. Radecki, 180 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2018), “we
conclude that Appellant failed to raise a substantial question with respect to
his excessiveness claim premised on the imposition of consecutive sentences
and inadequate consideration of mitigating factors.” Id. at 469. Moreover,
as reflected in the transcript of the sentencing hearing, the trial court clearly
considered mitigating factors, and also considered Appellant’s pre-sentence
investigation report (“PSI”)4 and mental health reports. See Notes of
Testimony (“N.T.”), Sentencing Hearing, 12/21/21, at 8-16.
____________________________________________
4 “Where the sentencing court had the benefit of a [PSI], we can assume the
sentencing court was aware of the relevant information regarding the
defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating
statutory factors.” Radecki, 180 A.3d at 471 (quoting Commonwealth v.
Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 937 (Pa. Super. 2013)).
-7-
J-S40025-22
Even if his discretionary aspect of sentencing claim raised a substantial
question, Appellant would not be entitled to relief. As the trial court noted:
When imposing a sentence, a trial court “shall follow the general
principle that the sentence imposed should call for confinement
that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of
the offense [. . . ] and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.”
Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9721(b). It is well-settled that sentencing is a
matter vested in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not
be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion. An abuse of
discretion is not merely an error in judgment, but a defendant
must establish that the sentencing court misapplied the law or
exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias, or
ill-will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.
Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 3/11/22, at 3 (citations omitted).
Here, the trial court explained that it “considered every factor required
under the sentencing code and imposed a sentence that was not only
necessary for the protection of the public, but one that also reflected the
significant threat [Appellant] posed to the community.” Id. at 5. The court
also considered the pre-sentence and mental health reports, Appellant’s
acceptance of responsibility by pleading guilty, and Appellant’s prior record
score of zero, but reiterated its obligation to consider all sentencing factors.
Id. The court also commented that Appellant’s acceptance of responsibility
by pleading guilty was “the only reason this court did not impose the statutory
maximum.” Id. at 6 (citing N.T., Sentencing Hearing, 12/21/21, at 44).
Based on our review of the record, it is clear that Appellant has failed to
“establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or
misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice,
-8-
J-S40025-22
bias or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.” Disalvo, 70
A.3d at 903 (citation omitted).5 Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate
an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, Appellant would not be
entitled to relief on his first issue, even if he had raised a substantial question.
Appellant’s first issue fails.
Appellant’s second issue is related to the first in that Appellant contends
the trial court’s sentence was improperly impacted by the court’s viewing of
disturbing photographs of his victim’s corpse. As with his first issue, Appellant
has failed to present a substantial question for our review, again relying on
cases that are inapposite. See supra. However, even if Appellant presented
a substantial question, he would not be entitled to relief.
The trial court appropriately dismissed Appellant’s claim for lack of
merit, stating:
This court’s sentence was not impacted by the Commonwealth’s
inclusion of a photo of the decedent’s bloated and maggot infested
corpse, N.T. 12/21/21 at 8; see Commonwealth’s Sentencing
Memo at 4. Sentencing courts routinely view gruesome
photographs at sentencing and are “presumed to be capable of
identifying and properly disregarding all but the most prejudicial
and inflammatory evidence.” Commonwealth v. Vanderslice,
____________________________________________
5 We note Appellant’s contention that the trial court failed to consider as a
mitigating factor Appellant’s agreement to forego his “viable pre-trial
suppression issues.” See Appellant’s Brief at 14; see also Appellant’s Reply
Brief at 1-2. Appellant fails to appreciate, as the Commonwealth recognizes,
that “as [Appellant] affirmed at his guilty plea hearing, by entering his plea,
he waived his right to challenge all non-jurisdiction defects except the validity
of his plea and the legality of his sentence.” Commonwealth Brief at 9 (citing
Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609 (Pa. Super. 2013)). His
decision to forego pre-trial issues is of no moment.
-9-
J-S40025-22
260 A.3d 125, [2021 WL 2907853 at *10 (Pa. Super. July 8,
2021)] (unpublished memorandum)[6] (additional citations
omitted). This court’s sentence was impacted by the incredibly
serious nature of [Appellant’s] crimes and not by one photograph
of the decedent’s body in an advanced state of decomposition.
This court imposed a well-reasoned and just sentence, and
[Appellant’s] claim fails.
Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 3/11/22, at 6-7 (citations and some
capitalization omitted). We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s
imposition of Appellant’s sentence. Appellant’s second issue fails.
Appellant has failed to present a substantial question meriting review of
either of his issues. Even if a substantial question were presented, he is not
entitled to relief. Therefore, we shall not disturb the sentence imposed by the
trial court.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/20/2023
____________________________________________
6 See R.A.P. 126(b) (Non-precedential decisions of the Superior Court filed
after May 1, 2019 may be cited for their persuasive value).
- 10 -