Com. v. Roseberry, C. ( 2015 )

J-S40020-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
CHRISTOPHER ARDEN ROSEBERRY, :
:
Appellant : No. 1693 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 2, 2014,
Court of Common Pleas, Erie County,
Criminal Division at No. CP-25-CR-0000492-2014
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., DONOHUE and STRASSBURGER*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED JULY 8, 2015
Christopher Arden Roseberry (“Roseberry”) appeals from the judgment
of sentence imposed by the Court of Common Pleas, Erie County, following
his conviction of retail theft, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3929(a)(1). We affirm.
On July 9, 2014, Roseberry pled guilty to one count of retail theft and
in exchange, the Commonwealth nol prossed a charge of conspiracy. The
trial court later sentenced Roseberry to eighteen months to seven years of
incarceration, to be served consecutively to three Crawford County
sentences he was presently serving. Following the denial of his motion for
reconsideration of sentence, this timely appeal followed.
Roseberry presents only one issue for our review: “Did the lower court
commit reversible error in that its sentence was manifestly extreme and
clearly unreasonable, particularly in its consecutiveness, and not
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S40020-15
individualized as required by law?” Roseberry’s Brief at 1. This is a
challenge to the discretionary aspects of Roseberry’s sentence. “Challenges
to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to
review as of right.” Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058, 1064 (Pa.
Super. 2011) (citation omitted).
An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of
his sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by
satisfying a 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, 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. Evans, 901 A.2d
528, 533 (Pa. Super. 2006).
Id.The record reveals that Roseberry has satisfied the first two of these
criteria, and his brief reveals that he has satisfied the third. We therefore
proceed to determine whether Roseberry has presented a substantial
question so as to invoke our jurisdiction. In his Rule 2119(f) statement,
Roseberry contends that when sentencing him, the trial court imposed an
excessive sentence and in doing so exhibited bias “towards [defendants]
who are guilty of these sorts of crimes … .” Roseberry’s Brief at 4. This
claim of bias presents a substantial question so as to invoke our review.
See Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293, 297 (“[A]n allegation of bias
-2-
J-S40020-15
in sentencing implicates the fundamental norms underlying sentencing and
hence, we find that it raises a substantial question[.]”).
Unfortunately, Roseberry presents only bald allegations that his
sentence was excessive “in proportion to the nature and severity of the
offense for which he was sentenced.” Roseberry’s Brief at 5. There is no
citation to, or discussion of, supportive authority, in contravention of Rule of
Appellate Procedure 2119(b). “It is not this Court's responsibility to comb
through the record seeking the factual underpinnings of an appellant's claim.
… [T]his Court will not become counsel for an appellant and develop
arguments on an appellant's behalf.” Commonwealth v. Samuel, 102
A.3d 1001, 1005 (Pa. Super. 2014) (internal citations omitted). Because
Roseberry has failed to adequately develop this issue, we find it waived. Id.Even if we did not find this issue waived, it would not merit relief. The
trial court carefully considered Roseberry’s extensive criminal history, the
nature of the offense for which he was being sentenced,1 and his drug
addiction when sentencing Roseberry to a standard-range sentence and
ordering it to run consecutively to the Crawford County sentences. See
N.T., 9/2/14, at 7-8, 14-16. Although the trial court expressed its disfavor of
concurrent sentences in Roseberry’s case because it would “basically make
this theft a freebie,” id. at 9, the record reveals that this was a highly
1
For instance, the trial court stated, “This [retail theft] was substantial and
organized. This was a planned scheme, it was a good bit of thought that
[went] into this. This wasn’t an impulsive act.” N.T., 9/2/14, at 15.
-3-
J-S40020-15
individualized sentence. We discern no evidence of a bias against repeat
theft offenders in general.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/8/2015
-4-