Com. v. Imbalzano, W. ( 2016 )

J-S77011-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
WAYNE D. IMBALZANO
Appellant No. 644 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 13, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-35-CR-0000191-2015
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED DECEMBER 28, 2016
Appellant, Wayne D. Imbalzano, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered after he pled guilty to one count of statutory sexual
assault, victim under 16 years old and 11 or more years younger than the
defendant, and one count of corruption of minors. Imbalzano contends that
the trial court erred in refusing to let him withdraw his guilty plea after
sentencing, or in the alternative, that the trial court abused its discretion in
imposing sentence. After careful review, we affirm.
In September 2014, the Carbondale Police Department charged
Imbalzano with statutory sexual assault, aggravated indecent assault, and
multiple counts of endangering the welfare of a child and corruption of
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S77011-16
minors. At a subsequent bail revocation hearing, Imbalzano entered a guilty
plea to one count of statutory sexual assault, victim under 16 and 11 years
younger than defendant, and one count of corruption of minors.
It is undisputed that Imbalzano is approximately 10 years and 10
months older than the victim, and not 11 years older. However, Imabalzano
raised no objection, and the court scheduled a sentencing hearing for several
months later.
On the statutory sexual assault charge, the Pennsylvania Sentencing
Guidelines recommended an eighteen to thirty month minimum term of
imprisonment. The trial court sentenced Imbalzano to a period of
imprisonment of five to ten years.
On the corruption of minors charge, the guidelines recommended an
aggravated range minimum sentence of twelve months. The trial court
sentenced Imbalzano to a period of imprisonment of twelve to twenty-four
months.
Imbalzano immediately filed a post-sentence motion seeking
withdrawal of his guilty plea and reconsideration of his sentence. The trial
court denied the petition, and this timely appeal followed.
On appeal, Imbalzano first argues that the trial court erred in denying
him permission to withdraw his guilty plea. “There is no absolute right to
withdraw a guilty plea, and the decision as to whether to allow a defendant
-2-
J-S77011-16
to do so is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (citation
omitted).
A trial court can only grant a post-sentence motion to withdraw a
guilty plea upon a showing of prejudice that amounts to “manifest injustice.”
Commonwealth v. Muhammad, 794 A.2d 378, 383 (Pa. Super. 2002)
(citation omitted). “A plea rises to the level of manifest injustice when it was
entered into involuntarily, unknowingly, or unintelligently.” Id. (citation
omitted).
In order for a guilty plea to be constitutionally valid, the guilty
plea colloquy must affirmatively show that the defendant
understood what the plea connoted and its consequences. This
determination is to be made by examining the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the entry of the plea. A plea of guilty
will not be deemed invalid if the circumstances surrounding the
entry of the plea disclose that the defendant had a full
understanding of the nature and consequences of his plea and
that he knowingly and voluntarily decided to enter the plea.
Commonwealth v. Rush, 909 A.2d 805, 808 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation
omitted). “Our law presumes that a defendant who enters a guilty plea was
aware of what he was doing. He bears the burden of proving otherwise.” Id.(citation omitted).
Imbalzano contends that he cannot have knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily pled guilty to a crime that he could not have legally committed.
Specifically he highlights that the statutory sexual assault charge to which
he pled guilty, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3122.1B, requires that he was at least eleven
-3-
J-S77011-16
years older than the victim at the time the crime was committed. As noted,
it is undisputed that he was not.
“The entry of a negotiated plea is a ‘strong indicator’ of the
voluntariness of the plea.” Commonwealth v. Reid, 117 A.3d 777, 783
(Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). At Imbalzano’s guilty plea hearing, the
prosecutor noted that Imbalzano was “going to stipulate that [section
3122.1B] is the subsection that’s applicable in this case and agree to any of
the penalties that would come from that particular subsection.” N.T., Guilty
Plea Hearing, 3/13/15, at 2. Shortly thereafter, the prosecutor explained
that “with regard to any additional charges that would have stemmed from
the bail violations at this point with the entering of the guilty plea in this
matter, … it’s a global agreement with regard to any additional charges.”
Id., at 4. Imbalzano’s counsel subsequently stated, “I have heard the terms
of the plea agreement. I believe that they’re accurate, Your Honor.” Id., at
4-5.
While Imbalzano argues that there is no evidence of record that there
was a plea agreement, nor any indication of the terms of that agreement,
the record does not support his argument. Imbalzano clearly pled guilty
pursuant to an agreement with the Commonwealth, and did not object to the
terms of the agreement presented to the court. Under these circumstances,
we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that
Imbalzano’s plea was knowing and voluntary.
-4-
J-S77011-16
In his second issue, Imbalzano argues that the trial court abused its
discretion in imposing sentence. He concedes that his argument challenges
the discretionary aspects of the trial court’s sentence. See Appellant’s Brief,
at 8. “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
claim is not absolute.” Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270, 274 (Pa.
Super. 2004) (citation omitted). When challenging the discretionary aspects
of the sentence imposed, an appellant must present a substantial question
as to the inappropriateness of the sentence. See Commonwealth v.
Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 365 (Pa. Super. 2005). “Two requirements must be
met before we will review this challenge on its merits.” McAfee, 849 A.2d at
274. “First, an appellant must set forth in his brief a concise statement of
the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the
discretionary aspects of a sentence.” Id. (citation omitted).
“Second, the appellant must show that there is a substantial question
that the sentence imposed is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.”
Id. (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). We examine an appellant’s Rule 2119(f)
statement to determine whether a substantial question exists. See id. “Our
inquiry must focus on the reasons for which the appeal is sought, in contrast
-5-
J-S77011-16
to the facts underlying the appeal, which are necessary only to decide the
appeal on the merits. Id. (citation omitted).
In the present case, Imbalzano’s appellate brief contains the requisite
Rule 2119(f) concise statement. Furthermore, he preserved his argument
against the discretionary aspects of his sentence through a post-sentence
motion. Thus, he is in technical compliance with the requirements to
challenge the discretionary aspects of a sentence.
Imbalzano argues in his Rule 2119(f) statement that the trial court
considered inappropriate factors in imposing a sentence outside the
guideline ranges for the statutory sexual assault charge. A claim that the
sentencing court imposed a sentence outside of the guidelines without
specifying sufficient reasons presents a substantial question for our review.
See Commonwealth v. Holiday, 954 A.2d 6, 10 (Pa. Super. 2008). We
therefore turn to the merits of Imbalzano’s arguments.
Imbalzano specifically argues that the trial court “double-counted”
certain factors in arriving at its decision to impose a sentence above the
aggravated range of the guidelines. Preliminarily, we note that the trial court
had the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation report (“PSI”). See N.T.,
Sentencing, 8/13/15 at 14. Where the sentencing court had the benefit of
reviewing a PSI, we must
presume that the sentencing judge was aware of relevant
information regarding the defendant's character and weighed
those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors. A
pre-sentence report constitutes the record and speaks for itself.
-6-
J-S77011-16
In order to dispel any lingering doubt as to our intention of
engaging in an effort of legal purification, we state clearly that
sentencers are under no compulsion to employ checklists or any
extended or systematic definitions of their punishment
procedure. Having been fully informed by the pre-sentence
report, the sentencing court's discretion should not be disturbed.
This is particularly true, we repeat, in those circumstances where
it can be demonstrated that the judge had any degree of
awareness of the sentencing considerations, and there we will
presume also that the weighing process took place in a
meaningful fashion. It would be foolish, indeed, to take the
position that if a court is in possession of the facts, it will fail to
apply them to the case at hand.
Commonwealth v. Hallock, 603 A.2d 612, 616 (Pa. Super. 1992) (citation
omitted).
In imposing sentence, the trial court noted that Imbalzano was on
parole for a similar crime involving a minor victim when he committed the
current offenses. See N.T., Sentencing, 8/13/15 at 3; 26-28. Furthermore,
while on bail pending resolution of the current charges, Imbalzano lured the
victim out of her parents’ home to have contact with her in the middle of the
night. See id., at 28. The trial court noted that these circumstances
indicated that not only had Imbalzano failed to be rehabilitated, but that he
had quickly resumed his predatory tendencies towards minors. See id.
These circumstances are certainly sufficient to justify the trial court’s
departure from the guidelines. Imbalzano has demonstrated that he is a
threat to public safety, and that he needs a significant amount of
rehabilitation before he can be exposed to the public again. We conclude
-7-
J-S77011-16
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and therefore Imbalzano’s
final argument merits no relief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judge Platt joins in the memorandum.
Judge Olson concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/28/2016
-8-