Com. v. Longendorfer, J. ( 2018 )

J. S58035/18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
JOHN E. LONGENDORFER, : No. 558 WDA 2018
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, November 27, 2017,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County
Criminal Division at Nos. CP-61-CR-0000391-2017,
CP-61-CR-0000581-2017
BEFORE: OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBEER 1, 2018
John E. Longendorfer appeals from the November 27, 2017 judgment
of sentence imposed after he pled guilty to one count each of harassment
and retail theft.1 After careful review, we affirm.2
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.
On April 22, 2017, appellant was arrested in connection with his theft of
$508.31 worth of merchandise from Wal-Mart in Cranberry Township,
Venango County, Pennsylvania. Thereafter, between July and mid-August
2017, appellant mailed four different items to an individual who has an
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2709(a)(3) and 3929(a)(1), respectively.
2 The Commonwealth has indicated that it will not be filing a brief in this
matter and is relying on the reasoning set forth in the trial court’s May 22,
2018 opinion.
J. S58035/18
active Protection From Abuse order against him. On September 28, 2017,
appellant pled guilty at CP-61-CR-0000581-2017 to one count of
harassment.3 Thereafter, on October 23, 2017, appellant pled guilty at
CP-61-CR-0000391-2017 to one count of retail theft. Following a hearing,
the trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of 17 to 36 months’
imprisonment on November 27, 2017. On December 7, 2017, appellant filed
a post-sentence motion for, inter alia, modification of his sentence. On
March 22, 2018, the trial court filed an opinion and order denying appellant’s
post-sentence motion. This timely appeal followed on April 19, 2018. On
April 20, 2018, the trial court directed appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement within 21 days. Appellant complied and filed a timely
Rule 1925(b) statement on May 10, 2018. Thereafter, on May 22, 2018, the
trial court filed a comprehensive Rule 1925(a) opinion.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
Whether the [trial] court abused its discretion by
imposing a sentence without giving consideration to
all the relevant sentencing factors under
42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 9721(b), including
[appellant’s] rehabilitative needs and the gravity of
the offense and the sentence is contrary to the
fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing
process and guidelines[?]
Appellant’s brief at 4.
3 The Commonwealth nolle prossed the remaining charge of stalking,
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709.1(a)(1).
-2-
J. S58035/18
Our standard of review in assessing whether a trial court has erred in
fashioning a sentence is well settled.
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,
[a]ppellant 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. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 132 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation
omitted), appeal denied, 117 A.3d 297 (Pa. 2015).
Where an appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his
sentence, as is the case here, the right to appellate review is not absolute.
See Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058, 1064 (Pa.Super. 2011).
Rather, an appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence
must invoke this court’s jurisdiction by satisfying the following four-part
test:
(1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether
appellant preserved his issue; (3) whether
appellant’s brief includes a concise statement of the
reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with
respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence; and
(4) whether the concise statement raises a
substantial question that the sentence is appropriate
under the sentencing code.
Commonwealth v. Carrillo-Diaz, 64 A.3d 722, 725 (Pa.Super. 2013)
(citations omitted).
-3-
J. S58035/18
Here, the record reveals that appellant filed a timely notice of appeal
and challenged the discretionary aspects of his sentence in his December 7,
2017 post-sentence motion. Appellant also included a statement in his brief
that comports with the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). (See appellant’s
brief at 7-8.) Accordingly, we must determine whether appellant has raised
a substantial question.
“The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d
932, 935 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 76 A.3d 538(Pa. 2013). “A substantial question exists only when 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.” Commonwealth v. Glass, 50 A.3d 720, 727 (Pa.Super. 2012)
(citation omitted), appeal denied, 63 A.3d 774 (Pa. 2013).
In his Rule 2119(f) statement and brief, appellant argues that the trial
court failed to “adequately consider all of the relevant sentencing factors”
set forth in Section 9721(b), including his rehabilitative need for physical
therapy and the gravity of his offenses. (Appellant’s brief at 8, 10-11.) We
have recognized that a claim that the sentencing court failed to consider
individualized circumstances in fashioning a sentence, including an
appellant’s rehabilitative needs, raises a substantial question. See
-4-
J. S58035/18
Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1273 (Pa.Super. 2013) (stating,
“appellant’s claim that the sentencing court disregarded rehabilitation and
the nature and circumstances of the offense in handing down its sentence
presents a substantial question for our review.”), appeal denied, 91 A.3d
161 (Pa. 2014). Accordingly, we proceed to consider the merits of
appellant’s discretionary sentencing claim.
Contrary to appellant’s contention, our review of the record in this
matter reveals that the trial court considered and weighed numerous factors
in fashioning appellant’s sentence, including appellant’s rehabilitative need
for physical therapy and the gravity of his offenses. In its March 22, 2018
opinion in support the order denying appellant’s post-sentence motion for
modification of sentence, the trial court set forth ample reasons as to why
appellant’s discretionary sentencing claim is meritless. (See trial court
opinion, 3/22/18 at 22-27; certified record at # 14.) At the November 27,
2017 sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that it considered all the
relevant sentencing factors in fashioning appellant’s 17 to 36-month term of
imprisonment:
[T]he Court has considered [appellant’s] age, his
education, the condition of his health, family
history, employment history and all of the other
information contained in the presentence
investigation report including [appellant’s] extensive
prior criminal record. The Court has considered
[appellant’s] statement made to the Court at
sentencing as well as the report from the Venango
County Prison. The Court has considered the
statements of defense counsel at sentencing. The
-5-
J. S58035/18
Court has considered the recommendations made by
the Commonwealth. The Court has considered the
victim impact statement. The Court has
considered the circumstances surrounding
these offenses. The Court has considered the
sentencing guidelines and all other relevant
factor[s].
Notes of testimony, 11/27/17 at 18-19 (emphasis added).
Although the record reflects that the trial court did not specifically
mention appellant’s rehabilitation during the sentencing hearing, the trial
court was clearly aware of appellant’s rehabilitative needs. Both appellant
and his trial counsel indicated that appellant attends rehabilitation sessions
twice a week at West Park Rehab for problems with his walking and that he
is making progress on his balance. (Id. at 16-17.) Additionally, the trial
court was in possession of a PSI report and, as noted, the court considered
it. (See id. at 18.) Where the trial court has the benefit of a PSI report,
“we shall . . . presume that the sentencing judge was aware of relevant
information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those
considerations along with mitigating statutory factors.” Commonwealth v.
Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 761 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted), appeal
denied, 95 A.3d 275 (Pa. 2014).
Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, we find that appellant’s
challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence must fail. Therefore,
we affirm the November 27, 2017 judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-6-
J. S58035/18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/1/2018
-7-