Com. v. Hughes, W. ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • J-A23002-15
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,              :      IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :            PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee                :
    :
    v.                            :
    :
    WILLIAM HUGHES,                            :
    :
    Appellant               :          No. 1779 WDA 2013
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on July 16, 2013
    in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
    Criminal Division, No. CP-02-CR-0009919-2012
    BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS and MUSMANNO, JJ.
    MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:                    FILED SEPTEMBER 24, 2015
    William Hughes (“Hughes”) appeals from the judgment of sentence
    imposed after he was convicted of three counts of aggravated assault and
    one count each of criminal conspiracy and criminal mischief.1 We affirm.
    In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court thoroughly set forth
    the facts underlying this appeal, which arises out of an assault on John
    Hrabolowski (“Hrabolowski”) and John Szwaczkowski (“Szwaczkowski”),
    perpetrated by Hughes and his co-defendant, Sherryl Feli (“Feli”). See Trial
    Court Opinion, 10/21/14, at 4-8. We adopt the trial court’s recitation herein
    by reference. See id.
    Following the assault, the Commonwealth charged Hughes with one
    count each of criminal conspiracy, criminal mischief and aggravated assault
    – serious bodily injury (hereinafter “aggravated assault – SBI”), and two
    1
    See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1), (4); 903(a)(1); 3304(a)(5).
    J-A23002-15
    counts of aggravated assault – deadly weapon used (hereinafter “aggravated
    assault    –   DW”),   pertaining   to   his   assaults   upon   Hrabolowski   and
    Szwaczkowski, respectively.
    The matter proceeded to a non-jury trial, after which the trial court
    found Hughes guilty on all counts.2            On July 16, 2013, the trial court
    imposed an aggregate sentence of 7½ to 15 years in prison, followed by ten
    years of probation.     Hughes filed a post-sentence Motion, which the trial
    court denied.      Hughes thereafter timely filed a Notice of Appeal, and a
    Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal.
    On appeal, Hughes presents the following issues for our review:
    1. Did the trial court err in convicting [] Hughes of the
    offenses against [] Hrabolowski (counts one and two,
    aggravated assault [– SBI, and aggravated assault –
    DW),] when the evidence was insufficient to sustain a
    conviction at these counts and in spite of the weight of
    the evidence when [] Hughes did not have physical
    contact with [] Hrabolowski?
    2. Did the trial court err in convicting [] Hughes of criminal
    conspiracy [], when the evidence was insufficient to
    sustain [this] conviction [] and in spite of the weight of
    the evidence, when no evidence suggested that []
    Hughes directed [] Feli in her actions against []
    Hrabolowski?
    3. Did the trial court err in sentencing [] Hughes to a term
    of incarceration that was manifestly excessive and
    without consideration of [] Hughes’[s] rehabilitative
    needs?
    Brief for Appellant at 3.
    2
    The trial court found Feli guilty of essentially the same charges as Hughes.
    She also filed a direct appeal, docketed before this panel at 1672 WDA 2013.
    -2-
    J-A23002-15
    Hughes first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
    convictions of (1) aggravated assault – SBI; and (2) aggravated assault –
    DW, concerning his assault of Hrabolowski.        Id. at 8-10.    Hughes also
    argues, in a single sentence, that both of these convictions are against the
    weight of the evidence. Id. at 10. We will address Hughes’s challenges to
    each of these convictions separately.
    We apply the following standard of review when considering a
    challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence:
    The standard we apply … is whether[,] viewing all the evidence
    admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner,
    there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every
    element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying
    the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute
    our judgment for [that of] the fact-finder. In addition, we note
    that the facts and circumstances established by the
    Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence.
    Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the
    fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive
    that[,] as a matter of law[,] no probability of fact may be drawn
    from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may
    sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond
    a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.
    Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be
    evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered.
    Finally, the finder of fact[,] while passing upon the credibility of
    witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to
    believe all, part or none of the evidence.
    Commonwealth v. Melvin, 
    103 A.3d 1
    , 39-40 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation
    omitted).
    Our standard in reviewing a weight of the evidence claim is as follows:
    Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of
    discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict
    is against the weight of the evidence. Because the trial judge
    -3-
    J-A23002-15
    has had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented,
    an appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the
    findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge when reviewing
    a trial court’s determination that the verdict is against the weight
    of the evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for granting
    or denying a new trial is the lower court’s conviction that the
    verdict was or was not against the weight of the evidence and
    that a new trial should be granted in the interest of justice.
    Commonwealth v. Clay, 
    64 A.3d 1049
    , 1055 (Pa. 2013) (emphasis and
    citations omitted).
    Relief on a weight of the evidence claim is reserved for
    extraordinary circumstances, when the [fact-finder’s] verdict is
    so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice
    and the award of a new trial is imperative so that right may be
    given another opportunity to prevail. On appeal, [an appellate]
    Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the [fact-finder]
    on issues of credibility, or that of the trial judge respecting
    weight. Our review is limited to determining whether the trial
    court abused its discretion[.]
    Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 
    36 A.3d 24
    , 27 (Pa. 2011) (citations and
    quotation marks omitted).
    Hughes first challenges his conviction of aggravated assault – DW,
    pertaining to Hrabolowski,3 arguing that he cannot be properly convicted of
    this offense based upon a theory of accomplice liability.4       See Brief for
    Appellant at 10 (emphasizing that “Hughes never interacted with []
    Hrabolowski during the physical altercation[,]” and asserting that “no
    3
    Hughes does not challenge his conviction of aggravated assault – DW
    pertaining to Szwaczkowski.
    4
    Though Hughes does not specifically so state, his argument implies that he
    does not believe he was properly convicted as Feli’s accomplice/co-
    conspirator. We discuss separately Hughes’s challenge to his conviction of
    conspiracy to commit aggravated assault.
    -4-
    J-A23002-15
    testimony was presented at trial to suggest that [] Hughes was directing []
    Feli in any way[.]”). Hughes argues that the evidence was insufficient, and
    this conviction was against the weight of the evidence, because the bicycle
    lock used by Feli to strike Hrabolowski on his forearms was not a “deadly
    weapon” under the statutory definition of this term.     
    Id.
       Hughes asserts
    that “[t]he bicycle lock used by [] Feli cannot be considered a deadly
    weapon, as it was not used to inflict serious bodily injury or in a manner that
    might have resulted in a risk of serious bodily injury or death. … Hughes
    should not be liable for [] Feli’s own actions toward [] Hrabolowski.” 
    Id.
    The Crimes Code provides that a person is guilty of aggravated assault
    – DW if he or she “attempts to cause or intentionally or knowingly causes
    bodily injury[5] to another with a deadly weapon[.]”            18 Pa.C.S.A.
    § 2702(a)(4) (footnote added).      A “deadly weapon” is defined as “[a]ny
    firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device designed as a weapon
    and capable of producing death or serious bodily injury, or any other device
    or instrumentality which, in the manner in which it is used or intended to be
    used, is calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury.” 18
    Pa.C.S.A. § 2301 (emphasis added). In discussing what constitutes a deadly
    weapon, in the context of application of the deadly weapon enhancement for
    sentencing purposes, this Court observed as follows:
    “[I]tems not normally classified as deadly weapons can become
    so based upon their use under particular circumstances.”
    5
    Bodily injury is defined as “[i]mpairment of physical condition or
    substantial pain.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301.
    -5-
    J-A23002-15
    Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 
    2010 PA Super 204
    , 
    8 A.3d 912
    ,
    917 (Pa. Super. 2010) (intact glass bottle qualified as a deadly
    weapon).      We found many examples in our cases: ...
    Commonwealth v. Scullin, 
    414 Pa. Super. 442
    , 
    607 A.2d 750
    (Pa. Super. 1992) (tire iron thrown at victim was a deadly
    weapon); Commonwealth v. Cornish, 
    403 Pa. Super. 492
    , 
    589 A.2d 718
    , 721 (Pa. Super. 1991) (fireplace poker used to strike
    victim constitutes a deadly weapon); Commonwealth v.
    Brown, 
    402 Pa. Super. 369
    , 
    587 A.2d 6
    , 7 (Pa. Super. 1991)
    (saw used to stab victim was a deadly weapon);
    Commonwealth v. Chapman, 
    365 Pa. Super. 10
    , 
    528 A.2d 990
     (Pa. Super. 1987) (straightedge razor placed at the face of
    an individual is a deadly weapon).
    Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 
    91 A.3d 1247
    , 1268 (Pa. Super. 2014)
    (en banc).6
    Concerning accomplice liability, the Crimes Code provides that “[a]
    person is legally responsible for the conduct of another person when he is an
    accomplice of such other person in the commission of the offense.”        18
    Pa.C.S.A. § 306(b)(3). Section 306 defines an accomplice, in relevant part,
    as follows:
    A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission
    of an offense if:
    (1) with the intent of promoting or facilitating the
    commission of the offense, he:
    (i) solicits such other person to commit it; or
    (ii) aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other
    person in planning or committing it[.]
    6
    In Buterbaugh, the Court noted that “[t]he Crimes Code provides an
    almost verbatim definition of deadly weapon as the one set forth in the
    Sentencing Guidelines[.]” Buterbaugh, 
    91 A.3d at 1268
    .
    -6-
    J-A23002-15
    
    Id.
     § 306(c)(1).     “[These] requirements may be established wholly by
    circumstantial evidence. Only the least degree of concert or collusion in the
    commission of the offense is sufficient to sustain a finding of responsibility
    as an accomplice. No agreement is required, only aid.” Commonwealth v.
    Knox, 
    50 A.3d 749
    , 755 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted). “[P]roof of a
    criminal partnership is almost invariably extracted from the circumstances
    that attend its activities.” 
    Id. at 755-56
     (citation omitted).
    In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Hughes’s claims and the
    applicable law, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain
    Hughes’s conviction, as Feli’s co-conspirator and accomplice, of aggravated
    assault – DW.      See Trial Court Opinion, 10/21/14, at 15-17; see also
    Buterbaugh, 
    supra
     (collecting cases ruling that objects not normally
    classified as deadly weapons became so based upon their use under
    particular circumstances). We agree and affirm based upon the trial court’s
    Opinion with regard to Hughes’s sufficiency challenge.           See Trial Court
    Opinion, 10/21/14, at 15-17.
    Concerning Hughes’s claim that his conviction of aggravated assault –
    DW was against the weight of the evidence, he has failed to develop his
    claim in any meaningful fashion, and, therefore, we could deem it waived.
    See Umbelina v. Adams, 
    34 A.3d 151
    , 161 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating that
    “[w]here an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with
    citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other
    meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived.” (citation
    -7-
    J-A23002-15
    omitted)); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).       Nevertheless, we discern no abuse of
    discretion by the trial court in rejecting Hughes’s weight of the evidence
    claim. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/21/14, at 16. The trial court’s verdict is
    not so contrary to the evidence as to shock our collective sense of justice.
    See Sanchez, supra.
    Next, Hughes challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence
    supporting his conviction of aggravated assault – SBI, advancing the same
    arguments that he did in the above-discussed claim. See Brief for Appellant
    at 8-10. Hughes additionally argues that “[a]lthough [Feli’s] action[s in
    striking Hrabolowski on the arms with her bike lock] caused some injury, []
    Hrabolowski testified that he did not seek medical treatment for this injury,
    thereby indicating that he did not believe his injury serious enough that
    there was a substantial risk of permanent disfigurement or impairment.” Id.
    at 10. Though Hughes does not explicitly raise this argument, he appears to
    challenge the trial court’s finding that Feli, his accomplice, had inflicted, or
    attempted to inflict, “serious bodily injury” upon Hrabolowski, a requisite
    element of the offense. Id.
    A person is guilty of aggravated assault – SBI if she “attempts to
    cause serious bodily injury[7] to another, or causes such injury intentionally,
    knowingly    or   recklessly   under    circumstances   manifesting    extreme
    7
    “Serious bodily injury” is defined as “bodily injury which creates a
    substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement,
    or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or
    organ.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301.
    -8-
    J-A23002-15
    indifference to the value of human life[.]”         18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1)
    (footnote added). “Aggravated assault [– SBI] does not require proof that
    serious bodily injury was inflicted[,] but only that an attempt was made to
    cause such injury. Where the victim does not sustain serious bodily injury,
    the Commonwealth must prove that the appellant acted with specific intent
    to cause serious bodily injury.” Commonwealth v. Lewis, 
    911 A.2d 558
    ,
    564 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations omitted); see also 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901(a)
    (providing that “[a] person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit
    a specific crime, [s]he does any act which constitutes a substantial step
    toward the commission of that crime.”).
    “A person acts intentionally with respect to a material
    element of an offense when … it is [her] conscious object to
    engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result ….”
    18 Pa.C.S. § 302(b)(1)(i). As intent is a subjective frame of
    mind, it is of necessity difficult of direct proof. The intent to
    cause serious bodily injury may be proven by direct or
    circumstantial evidence.
    Commonwealth v. Matthew, 
    909 A.2d 1254
    , 1257 (Pa. 2006) (citations to
    case law and internal quotation marks omitted).             “[A] determination of
    whether an appellant acted with intent to cause serious bodily injury must
    be determined on a case-by-case basis.” Commonwealth v. Dailey, 
    828 A.2d 356
    , 360 (Pa. Super. 2003); see also 
    id.
     (observing that, “depending
    on the other circumstances, even a single punch may be sufficient.”).
    In the instant case, it is undisputed that Hrabolowski did not suffer
    “serious   bodily   injury”   under   the   statutory   definition   of   this   term.
    -9-
    J-A23002-15
    Accordingly, the relevant inquiry is whether Feli attempted and intended to
    inflict serious bodily injury upon Hrabolowski. See Matthew, supra.
    In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Hughes’s claims and concluded
    that (1) the evidence was sufficient to establish that Feli had attempted and
    intended to inflict serious bodily injury upon Hrabolowski; (2) the verdict as
    to this count was not against the weight of the evidence; and (3) therefore,
    Hughes could properly be convicted of aggravated assault – SBI as Feli’s
    accomplice. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/21/14, at 18-20. The trial court’s
    analysis is supported by the record and the law, and we affirm on this basis
    with regard to Hughes’s claims. See id.
    In his second issue, Hughes argues that the evidence was insufficient
    to sustain his conviction of criminal conspiracy to commit aggravated
    assault, and the verdict as to this count was against the weight of the
    evidence. See Brief for Appellant at 11-12. According to Hughes,
    [a]lthough it was established that [] Hughes and [] Feli were in a
    relationship together and were riding their bicycles together to a
    shared destination at the time this incident occurred, no
    evidence established a “unity of criminal purpose” between
    them. … No evidence presented at trial suggested that []
    Hughes had any connection to [] Feli’s actions other than his
    presence at the time of the incident.
    Id. (paragraph break omitted) (citing Commonwealth v. Thomas, 
    65 A.3d 939
    , 945 (Pa. Super. 2013) (rejecting the defendant’s sufficiency challenge
    concerning his conviction of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault where
    the relationship between the defendant and his four co-conspirators, their
    - 10 -
    J-A23002-15
    conduct during the assault, and overall circumstances established that they
    had “acted with a ‘unity of criminal purpose.’”)).
    “To sustain a conviction for criminal conspiracy, the Commonwealth
    must establish that the defendant (1) entered into an agreement to commit
    or aid in an unlawful act with another person or persons, (2) with a shared
    criminal intent[,] and (3) an overt act was done in furtherance of the
    conspiracy.” Commonwealth v. Hennigan, 
    753 A.2d 245
    , 253 (Pa. Super.
    2000) (citation omitted); see also 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903(a).
    The essence of a criminal conspiracy is a common
    understanding, no matter how it came into being, that a
    particular criminal objective be accomplished.     Therefore, a
    conviction for conspiracy requires proof of the existence of a
    shared criminal intent. An explicit or formal agreement to
    commit crimes can seldom, if ever, be proved and it need not
    be, for proof of a criminal partnership is almost invariably
    extracted from the circumstances that attend its activities.
    Thus, a conspiracy may be inferred where it is demonstrated
    that the relation, conduct, or circumstances of the parties, and
    the overt acts of the co-conspirators[,] sufficiently prove the
    formation of a criminal confederation. The conduct of the parties
    and the circumstances surrounding their conduct may create a
    web of evidence linking the accused to the alleged conspiracy
    beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the conspirator did not act
    as a principal in committing the underlying crime, he is still
    criminally liable for the actions of his co-conspirators in
    furtherance of the conspiracy.
    Knox, 
    50 A.3d at 755
     (citation omitted). Stated differently, an “agreement
    to commit an unlawful act … may be proved inferentially by circumstantial
    evidence, i.e., the relations, conduct or circumstances of the parties or overt
    acts on the part of the co-conspirators.”     Thomas, 
    65 A.3d at 943
     (Pa.
    Super. 2013) (citation omitted).
    - 11 -
    J-A23002-15
    As discussed above, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the trial
    court’s finding that Feli possessed the requisite intent to commit aggravated
    assault – SBI on Hrabolowski.      Accordingly, for purposes of determining
    whether Hughes can properly be convicted as Feli’s co-conspirator, we limit
    our discussion to whether the circumstantial evidence established an
    agreement between Feli and Hughes to assault Hrabolowski.                 See
    Hennigan, 
    supra.
    Here, the trial court addressed Hughes’s challenge to his conspiracy
    conviction in its Opinion, concluding that the circumstantial evidence was
    sufficient to establish a criminal understanding between Feli and Hughes.
    See Trial Court Opinion, 10/21/14, at 11-13. We agree with the trial court’s
    analysis and conclusion, which is supported by the record, and affirm on this
    basis with regard to Hughes’s sufficiency challenge to his conspiracy
    conviction. See 
    id.
     Moreover, the verdict on this count was not so contrary
    to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice; the rationale in the trial
    court’s Opinion concerning Hughes’s weight challenge establishes that the
    court properly exercised its discretion in rejecting this claim. See id. at 14;
    see also Sanchez, supra.
    Finally, Hughes asserts that the sentencing court abused its discretion
    by imposing an excessive sentence and failing to consider (1) his
    rehabilitative needs (and, particularly, his mental health issues and
    independent steps taken in pursuit of rehabilitation); and (2) the fact that
    Hughes’s prior convictions that were used to compute his prior record score
    - 12 -
    J-A23002-15
    occurred several years before the instant assaults. See Brief for Appellant
    at 13-15.
    Hughes’s claim challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence,
    from which there is no absolute right to appeal. See Commonwealth v.
    Hill, 
    66 A.3d 359
    , 363 (Pa. Super. 2013).             Rather, where, as here, the
    appellant has preserved the discretionary sentencing claim for appellate
    review by raising it in a timely post-sentence motion, the appellant must (1)
    include in his brief a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for
    allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of a sentence,
    pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (2) show that there is a substantial
    question that the sentence imposed is not appropriate under the Sentencing
    Code. Hill, 
    66 A.3d at 363-64
    .
    Here, Hughes’s brief does not contain a Rule 2119(f) statement, and
    the Commonwealth has objected to this defect. See Commonwealth’s Brief
    at 34.         Accordingly, this issue is waived.           See Commonwealth v.
    Robinson, 
    931 A.2d 15
    , 19, 22 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc) (finding waiver
    of the appellant’s discretionary aspects of sentencing claim because he had
    failed    to    include   a   Rule   2119(f)    statement    in   his   brief,   and   the
    - 13 -
    J-A23002-15
    Commonwealth objected to this defect).8
    Accordingly, because we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
    discretion, or commit an error of law, in rejecting Hughes’s challenges to the
    weight and sufficiency of the evidence, and his sentencing challenge is
    waived, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
    Judgment of sentence affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 9/24/2015
    8
    Even if we did not find waiver, we would determine that Hughes’s challenge
    to his sentence lacks merit based upon the reasoning advanced by the trial
    court in its Opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/21/14, at 20-25 (stating,
    inter alia, that the sentencing court did, in fact, consider the age of Hughes’s
    prior convictions, and that the sentence imposed was within the standard
    range of the sentencing guidelines); see also Commonwealth v. Moury,
    
    992 A.2d 162
    , 171 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating that “where a sentence is
    within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the
    sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.”).
    - 14 -
    \T-A ~3 oo~ -t5
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIFfH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,                                    CRIMINAL DIVISION
    v.
    WILLIAM HUGHES,                                                  CC No. 201209919
    Defendant.
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
    v.
    SHERRYL FELI,
    Defendant.
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    Honorable Beth A. Lazzara
    Allegheny County Courthouse
    436 Grant Street
    Pittsburgh, PA 15219
    Counsel of Record:
    For the Defendants:
    A. Kayleigh Shebs, Esq.
    Counsel for William Hughes
    Daniel J. Eichinger, Esquire
    Counsel for Sherryl Feli
    For the Commonwealth:
    v'd AiNOO) AN3H931W
    N.DISliliG 1'ttlir'il::D                           Office of the District Attorney
    S€.lB083't! HffiOJ :W ... dJ'1                         of Allegheny County
    400 Allegheny County
    S .,c., : (,., ,,ud l "'7   1 ... 1 ...,
    .I. ••.ill
    • • ,, •
    'HIH,      Courthouse
    Pittsburgh, PA 15219
    fJ311:1
    1
    (   :
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,                       CRIMINAL DIVISION
    v.
    WILLIAM HUGHES,                                     CC No. 201209919
    Defendant.
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
    v.
    SHERRYL FELI,                                       CC No. 201209920
    Defendant.
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    This matter involves two defendants,            William Hughes and Sherryl
    Feli. Both Defendants were charged with three (3) counts of
    aggravated     assault and one (1) count of criminal conspiracy.            William
    Hughes was also charged with criminal mischief.              Count 1 at each
    information charged aggravated            assault pursuant to 18 Pa. C.S.A.
    §2702(a)(l),        alleging the infliction   of serious bodily injury, or an
    attempt to do so, on victim John Hrabolowski.             The second and third
    counts in each information           charged aggravated    assault pursuant to 18
    Pa. C.S.A. §2702(a)( 4 ), alleging that the Defendants caused bodily
    injury to the victims, John Hrabolowski           (Count 2) and John
    i
    2               \.__   _)
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    Szwaczkowski (Count 3), with a deadly weapon. The criminal
    conspiracy count alleged that the Defendants agreed that they would
    commit the crime of assault on the victims.1      Finally, Defendant
    Hughes was charged with criminal rnlschler', alleging that he
    intentionally damaged the property of John Hrabolowski.
    The Defendants waived their right to a jury trial and proceeded
    non-jury before this court. On the day of trial, March 7, 2013, they
    were adjudged guilty at all counts.      The Defendant Sherryl Feli was
    sentenced on May 23, 2013 to not less than twenty-four (24) months
    nor more than forty-eight ( 48) months of imprisonment at count 1,
    followed by a consecutive period of probation of seven (7) years, and
    to no further penalty on the remaining counts. William Hughes was
    sentenced on July 16, 2013 to not less than seven and one half (7 112)
    years nor more than fifteen (15) years of imprisonment at count 1, to
    five (5) years probation at count 2, to become effective upon his
    parole from the sentence at count 1, and to a consecutive term of
    eight (8) years probation at count 3. No further penalty was imposed
    on the remaining counts.       Both parties filed post-sentence motions
    which were denied. Notices of Appeal were timely filed and, pursuant
    1
    18 Pa. C.S.A. § 901.
    2
    18 Pa. C.S.A.. § 3304.
    3            \
    ··--- )
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    to this court's Order, Concise Statements of Errors Complained of on
    Appeal were filed by both Defendants.
    Defendant Hughes challenged the weight and sufficiency of the
    evidence as to Count 1, Count 2 and Count 4.        Defendant Feli
    challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence as to all counts.
    Both also contended that the sentences imposed constituted an abuse
    of discretion.    Before turning to these claims, it is necessary to review
    the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth
    as the verdict winner.
    John Hrabolowski testified that on March 26, 2012, as he parked
    his car outside the Lawrenceville post office, he was verbally
    confronted by a man he later identified as Defendant Hughes. (N .T. 9-
    11, 14-15).      Hughes made a derogatory comment about Mr.
    Hrabolowski's parking. (N.T. 15, 37). After Defendant Hughes made
    his comment to Mr. Hrabolowski, Mr. Hrabolowski proceeded into the
    post office. (N.T. 15-16).    As he was in the post office, Mr. Hrabolowski
    observed Defendant Hughes turn his bicycle around and head towards
    his vehicle. (N.T. 17, 40). As Mr. Hrabolowski left the post office and
    walked back towards his vehicle, he saw Defendant Hughes grab his
    heavy steel, D-shaped bicycle lock, approach his vehicle and strike his
    4
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    driver side view mirror, breaking it. (N.T. 17-18, 39-40).   Mr.
    Hrabolowski asked Defendant Hughes why he broke his mirror. (N.T.
    18). In response to the question, and as Mr. Hrabolowski approached
    Hughes, Defendant Hughes got off his bike and began swinging the
    lock at Mr. Hrabolowski, coming within two (2) to three (3) feet of
    him, before leaving the area. (N.T. 18-19).
    Mr. Hrabolowski immediately called the police and reported what
    had happened. (N.T. 19-20, 41). Although he was told to wait for the
    police to arrive, Mr. Hrabolowski decided to drive to his nearby
    apartment to have his roommate accompany him when he spoke with
    the police. (N.T. 20-21, 44-45).    As he was heading home, Mr.
    Hrabolowski was again confronted by Defendant Hughes, who got off
    his bicycle and again approached Mr. Hrabolowski, waving his bicycle
    lock at him. (N.T. 44-46).
    Mr. Hrabolowski picked up his roommate, the second victim,
    John Szwaczkowski, at their home and then headed back towards the
    post office. (N.T. 22-23, 47-48).   As he was driving towards the post
    office, he saw the Defendants on their bicycles. (N.T. 24, 48).     Mr.
    Hrabolowski stopped his car, opened the car door, and had his leg out
    to exit, while telling the Defendants that they needed to stay where
    5
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    they were because the police were on their way. (N.T. 23-26).        As Mr.
    Hrabolowski was telling the Defendants to remain until the police
    arrived, Defendant Hughes began approaching him, again swinging the
    bike lock. (N.T. 26, 98-101).   As Defendant Hughes got closer to the
    vehicle, Mr. Szwaczkowski, who had previously exited the car and had
    been standing next to the open passenger door, came around the back
    of the vehicle to tell Mr. Hrabolowski to remain in the vehicle. (N.T.
    26-27, 70-71, 101). Before he moved to the driver's side of the
    vehicle, Mr. Szwaczkowski saw that both Defendants had bike locks in
    their hands. (N.T. 70, 98-101).
    As Mr. Szwaczkowski was turned toward Mr. Hrabolowski to tell
    him to remain in the car, Defendant Hughes struck Mr. Szwaczkowski
    on the back of the head with the bike lock. (N.T. 28, 71-72, 102-103).
    Mr. Szwaczkowski stumbled against the car and eventually fell to the
    ground on the other side of the car. (N.T. 28, 72-73, 103-104).       As
    Defendant Hughes stood over him with his bike lock, appearing ready
    to strike him again, Mr. Hrabolowski grabbed Defendant Hughes' bike
    lock in an effort to prevent Defendant Hughes from striking his friend
    again. (N.T. 28, 73). As he was holding onto the bike lock in
    Defendant Hughes' hands, Defendant Feli began to strike him on his
    arms, attempting to break Mr. Hrabolowski's grip on Defendant
    6            (_)
    i
    .....
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    Hughes' bike lock. (N.T. 28-30).     Mr. Hrabolowski testified that he
    suffered bruising on his arms as a result of being struck by Defendant
    Feli's bike lock. (N.T. 30-31).
    Defendant Hughes, as he straddled his bicycle, struck Mr.
    Szwaczkowski in his ribs repeatedly with his front tire. (N.T. 32, 73,
    105-108). Defendant Feli also used her bike lock to strike Mr.
    Szwaczkowski in the shoulder, neck and head as he lay on the ground.
    (N.T. 74-75, 109, 117).      As Mr. Szwaczkowski struggled to free
    himself, he bit Defendant Hughes in the leg, after which the assault
    abruptly stopped, and the Defendants fled the area on their bicycles.
    (N.T. 32, 75-76, 108-109).
    John Szwaczkowski was taken from the scene by medics to
    Mercy Hospital, where he was admitted for four ( 4) days, having
    suffered a concussion, a laceration on his head that required four ( 4)
    staples to close, five (5) broken ribs and other bruising. (N.T. 77-78).
    Photographs of his injuries, taken while he was at the hospital, were
    admitted into evidence. (See Commonwealth Exhibits 5-30).        This
    court would also note that the injury to Mr. John Szwaczkowski's head
    was clearly visible to, and easily noticed by, this court when Mr.
    Szwaczkowski testified during the non-jury trial, a fact mentioned by
    7
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    the court during the sentencing of each Defendant. (See Hughes
    Sentencing Transcript, 7-8;Feli Sentencing Transcript, 20).
    The Defendants testified that they were simply defending
    themselves from the victims. (N.T. 142-144, 206-208).      Both
    Defendants agreed that Defendant Hughes' bike lock was nine (9)
    inches in length and made of metal and that Defendant Feli's lock was
    seven (7) inches in length and also made of metal. (N.T. 152, 215).
    Defendant Feli denied ever striking anyone with a bike lock, claiming
    that her only involvement was when she punched Mr. Hrabolowski in
    the arms because he would not let go of her bicycle. (N.T. 146-150).
    Despite the Defendants' claims that they acted in self-defense, neither
    Defendant Feli nor Defendant Hughes called the police until four ( 4)
    days after this incident. (N.T. 149).
    Both Defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and
    the weight of the evidence.   Before turning to the specific offenses, the
    court would note that the well-established test for a challenge to the
    sufficiency of the evidence is whether the evidence, taken in the light
    most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, establishes
    each and every element of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable
    doubt. Commonwealth v. Noel Matos Montalvo, 
    956 A.2d 926
    , 932
    8
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    (Pa. 2008). The Commonwealth is entitled to all reasonable inferences
    from the evidence, and it must be remembered that credibility
    determinations are for the fact finder. A challenge to the credibility of
    a witness is not a basis for a claim that the evidence was insufficient.
    A fact-finder is free to believe some, all or none of the testimony of
    any witness presented by either party and to accept or reject any
    evidence submitted by either party. Commonwealth v. Cousar, 
    928 A.2d 1025
    , 1033 (Pa. 2007).
    When reviewing a claim that the verdict was against the weight
    of the evidence, it must be remembered that "[t]he weight of the
    evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact who is free to believe all,
    part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the
    witnesses. An appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of
    the finder of fact. Thus, we may only reverse the jury's verdict if it is
    so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice."
    Commonwealth v. Begley, 
    780 A.2d 605
    , 619 (Pa. 2001).
    When a judge sits as fact-finder in a non-jury trial:
    [A] judge's role ... is not equivalent to his or her role with
    respect to post-trial motions. During trial, the province of a
    trial judge sitting without a jury is to do what the jury is
    required to do, namely, consider all the evidence; reconcile
    contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony, if
    possible; dismiss what is incredible; and, from all that is
    9
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    presented, assemble a logical, continuous account which
    rings with verisimilitude, appeals to reason and convinces
    the judgment that the controverted event occurred in that
    and in no other manner. Commonwealth v. Lemons, 
    404 Pa. 263
    , 268, 
    171 A.2d 785
    , 788 (1961). With respect to
    post-trial motions, however, the trial judge's role is to
    consider and rectify, if necessary, alleged trial errors.
    Commonwealth v. Nock, 
    414 Pa.Super. 326
    , 333, 
    606 A.2d 1380
    , 1383 (1992). When considering a post-verdict
    motion in arrest of judgment or the granting of a new trial,
    "the trial court cannot alter the verdict based upon a
    redetermination of credibility or a re-evaluation of
    evidence." 
    Id. at 334
    , 
    606 A.2d at 1384
    .
    Commonwealth v. Johnson, 
    631 A.2d 639
    , 643 (Pa. Super. 1993).
    Accordingly, in assessing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, a
    judge may not revisit credibility determinations it made when
    rendering its verdict and may not re-weigh the evidence.
    COUNT 4- CRIMINALCONSPIRACY
    To sustain a conviction for criminal conspiracy, the
    Commonwealth must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the presence
    of the following elements: 1) an intent to commit or aid in an unlawful
    act; 2) an agreement with a co-conspirator; and 3) an overt act in
    furtherance of the conspiracy.   18 Pa. C.S.A. § 901.
    Because it is difficult to prove an explicit or formal
    agreement to commit an unlawful act, such an act may
    be proved inferentially by circumstantial evidence, i.e.
    the relations, conduct or circumstances of the parties
    or overt acts on the part of the co-conspirators.
    Commonwealth v. Galinves, 
    786 A.2d 1004
    , 1010 (Pa. Super. 2001).
    10
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    The Defendants contend that the evidence was insufficient to
    establish the existence of a conspiratorial agreement.   They also claim
    the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Neither claim has
    any merit.
    While there was no direct evidence of a conspiratorial agreement
    between the Defendants, the Commonwealth introduced sufficient
    circumstantial evidence to support a conviction for conspiracy.    The
    law is clear that:
    Circumstantial evidence can include, but is not limited
    to, the relationship between the parties, the knowledge
    of and participation in the crime, and the circumstances
    and conduct of the parties surrounding the criminal
    episode. Commonwealth v. French, 396 Pa.
    Super.436, 
    578 A.2d 1292
    , 1294 (1990). These factors
    may coalesce to establish a conspiratorial agreement
    beyond a reasonable doubt where one factor alone
    might fail. 
    Id.
    Commonwealth v. Thoeun Tha, 
    64 A.3d 704
    , 710 (Pa. Super. 2013).
    While it is true that there was no evidence of an explicit or
    stated agreement between the parties, the evidence clearly
    established that they were jointly participating in this crime and that
    there was a tacit understanding between them. The evidence proved
    that there was an association between these Defendants and that they
    were together before, during, and after the two (2) incidents involving
    ,;    1
    11            \ ___;
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    these victims.   The evidence also established that both had knowledge
    of the offenses committed by the other conspirator.
    Defendant Feli was present when Defendant Hughes knocked the
    mirror off of Mr. Hrabolowski's vehicle. (N.T. 17-18).   When the
    Defendants encountered the victims again, Defendant Feli was present
    when Defendant Hughes began the assault on the two (2) victims.
    (N.T. 24-26).    She then joined him in the assault, striking John
    Hrabolowski on the arms to break his grip on the bicycle lock Hughes
    was using in the assault (N.T. 28-30) and then striking John
    Szwaczkowski, the second victim, about the head and neck as he lay
    on the ground attempting to defend himself from Defendant Hughes'
    attack. (N.T. 74-75, 109, 117). Also, the Defendants left the scene of
    the attack together. (N.T. 32-33). These facts were sufficient to
    establish a criminal conspiracy between the Defendants in this matter,
    with the object of that conspiracy being the assault on these victims.
    In Commonwealth v. French, 
    578 A.2d 1292
    , 1294 (Pa. Super.
    1990), the Superior Court found the evidence sufficient to prove
    conspiracy to commit aggravated assault where the appellant and a
    group of relatives and friends approached the victim together, knocked
    the victim to the ground, continued to beat the victim and attacked the
    12
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    Po lcu,'\cl    Gi
    police when they arrived.    Similarly, in Commonwealth v .· PoleA-,       
    27 A.3d 518
    , 519-520 (Pa. Super. 2011). The Superior Court affirmed a
    finding that the evidence was sufficient to support an aggravated
    assault conviction where the appellant and a group of individuals
    approached the victims as a group, battered the victim's face,
    knocking out a tooth, and fled the scene together.     In neither of those
    cases was there evidence of a stated or explicit agreement; the
    agreement was inferred from the circumstances.
    The facts in this case are markedly similar.   The Defendants
    were together during the initial encounter between the victim and John
    Hrabolowski. (N.T. 14-16).    They remained together when they
    encountered him and the second victim a few minutes later (N.T. 24-
    26), and both participated in the assaults on both victims, assisting
    one another in doing so. (N.T. 28-30, 32, 73-75).     Both also fled the
    scene of the attack together. (N.T. 32-33). This was sufficient to
    prove the conspiratorial agreement and the required shared intent.
    The actual assaults were clearly the overt acts. Accordingly, the
    challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence as to the charges of
    Criminal Conspiracy was properly rejected by this court.
    13
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    Similarly, the challenge to the weight was also properly rejected.
    This court's verdict turned on an assessment of the credibility of the
    witnesses, an assessment that was unfavorable to the Defendants.              To
    put it simply, where the testimony of the Defendants conflicted with
    the testimony of the victims, this court believed the testimony of the
    victims over that of the Defendants. This court is not only without the
    power to revisit credibility determinations,   it would not, if it had that
    power, change them. The court found the victims to be believable and
    credible, whereas the testimony of the Defendants lacked that "ring of
    truth" necessary for this court to believe their testimony.     The verdict
    was not against the weight of the evidence as to the charge of criminal
    conspiracy.
    COUNTS 2 & 3
    AGGRAVATED ASSAULT- ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON
    It is axiomatic that a defendant who is not a principal actor in
    committing a crime may, nevertheless, be liable for the crime if he was
    an accomplice of the principal actor. Commonwealth v. Bradley, 
    392 A.2d 688
    , 690 (Pa. Super. 1978). A defendant can also be liable for
    the acts of another by virtue of their conspiracy. "Once the trier of
    fact finds that there was an agreement and the defendant intentionally
    entered into the agreement, that defendant may be liable for the overt
    14           r,               )
    \: ... ___. ......
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy regardless of which
    co-conspirator committed the act." Commonwealth v. Murphy, 
    844 A.2d 1228
    , 1238 (Pa. 2004).    Accordingly, either Defendant here can
    be held criminally liable for the acts of the other Defendant if those
    acts were done in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy.    Both
    Defendants contend that the evidence was insufficient as to the
    Aggravated Assault charges found at counts 2 and 3. Count 2 charged
    Aggravated Assault -Assault with a Deadly Weapon as to John
    Hrabolowski, while count 3 charged the same as with regard to John
    Szwaczkowski.
    Turning first to Count 2, the evidence established that Defendant
    Feli struck this victim several times on his arms with her heavy, metal
    bicycle lock. (N.T. 28-30, 152).   Mr. Hrabolowski suffered pain and
    bruising in the areas where he was struck. (N.T. 30-31). The lock
    constituted a deadly weapon pursuant to Pennsylvania law, which
    defines a deadly weapon as "[a]ny firearm, whether loaded or
    unloaded, or any device designed as a weapon and capable of
    producing death or serious bodily injury, or any other device or
    instrumentality   which, in the manner in which it is used or
    intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or
    serious bodily injury."    18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2301 (emphasis added).        A
    15
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    heavy blunt object, like a seven (7) inch long metal bicycle lock, is
    capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.                           In this case, a
    similar lock wielded by Defendant Hughes actually caused serious
    bodily injury to John Szwaczkowski. (N.T. 77-78; Commonwealth
    Exhibits 5-30).         Obviously, then, Defendant Feli's bike lock was
    capable of doing the same to Mr. Hrabolowski.
    The evidence also established that, at minimum, the victim
    suffered bodily injury.              He testified that he suffered substantial pain,
    and he had bruising on his arms. (N.T. 30-31). In Commonwealth v.
    q
    Goins, 
    501 A.2d 27
    ~ (Pa. Super. 1985), the Superior Court held that
    bruising and scratching was sufficient to establish that the victim
    3
    suffered bodily injury.              Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to
    prove the Defendant Feli guilty of this offense as a principal.                             The
    verdict was also not against the weight of the evidence.
    Because Defendant Hughes, as a result of his involvement in the
    criminal conspiracy to assault the victims and as Defendant Feli's
    accomplice, is responsible for the crimes committed by his co-
    conspirator in furtherance of their conspiracy, his challenge to the
    sufficiency and weight of the evidence as to Count 2 is likewise without
    3
    As the Court will set forth later in this Opinion, the evidence was also sufficient to establish that
    Defendant Feli attempted to cause serious bodily injury to the victim Hrabolowski when she struck him
    repeatedly with the bicycle lock.
    16
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    merit.        Her assault was in furtherance of the object of the
    conspiratorial agreement, the assault of the victims.
    The evidence was also sufficient as to Count 3 as to Defendant
    Feli both as a principal and as Defendant Hughes' co-conspirator.4
    Because she was Defendant Hughes' accomplice and co-conspirator,
    she could be found guilty of any act committed by Defendant Hughes
    in furtherance of the conspiracy.                      Defendant Hughes struck John
    Szwaczkowski in the head, causing a skull fracture and concussion and
    leaving him with a visible indentation in his head. (N.T. 28, 71-72, 77-
    78, 102-103; Hughes Sentencing Transcript 7-8; Feli Sentencing
    Transcript 20).            Defendant Hughes also struck Mr. Szwaczkowski in the
    ribs with his bicycle, breaking five of them. (N.T. 32, 73, 105-108, 77-
    78). This was certainly sufficient to establish his guilt of aggravated
    assault- assault with a deadly weapon and, because Defendant Feli
    was his co-conspirator and/or accomplice, it was sufficient to establish
    her guilt as well.
    Defendant Feli was also guilty as a principal for her conduct in
    striking this victim as he lay on the ground. Though she denied
    striking him with her lock, and Mr. Szwaczkowski admitted that he did
    4
    Defendant Hughes did not challenge the verdict of guilty at this Count of his information.
    17
    (                                        Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    not actually see her do so, the circumstantial evidence was sufficient
    to prove that she did.    The victim testified that he was struck in his
    back and around his head and neck as he lay on the ground. (N.T. 74-
    75, 109, 117). The only other person present wielding a bike lock,
    Defendant Hughes, could not have hit him as he and Mr. Hrabolowski
    were struggling over control of his bike lock. (N.T. 28, 73). It was a
    reasonable inference, therefore, that the blows Mr. Szwaczkowski felt
    came from Defendant Feli.
    COUNT 1- AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
    The Defendants both challenge the sufficiency and weight of the
    evidence as to Count 1, which charged them with aggravated assault
    under subsection (a)(l).     This required proof that the Defendants,
    through their own actions or through the actions of another for whom
    they would be legally responsible, attempted to cause, or intentionally,
    knowingly or recklessly caused serious bodily injury to John
    Hrabolowski.
    This victim, John Hrabolowski, was not as seriously injured as
    John Szwaczkowski.       He reported bruises on his arms. (N.T. 30-31).
    This was not sufficient to establish that he actually suffered serious
    bodily injury.   The fact that the injury was caused by the Defendant
    18
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    Feli striking him, repeatedly, with the heavy bike lock, however, was
    enough to prove an attempt to do so. The Superior Court in
    Commonwealth v. Eddowes, 
    580 A.2d 769
    , 773 (Pa. Super. 1990),
    observed:   "The fact that appellant did not cause any serious injury is
    irrelevant, as the statute punishes attempts as well as completed
    assaults. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)."
    To determine whether an assailant possessed the intent to inflict
    serious bodily injury, the totality of the circumstances surrounding the
    assault must be considered.   Commonwealth v. Alexander, 
    383 A.2d 887
    , 889 (Pa. 1978). Among the circumstances that can be considered
    is whether an instrument capable of causing serious bodily injury was
    used in the attack.   Here, a deadly weapon, as has been previously
    discussed, namely, the bicycle lock, was used in the attack.
    In Eddowes, supra, the defendant slashed at the victim with a
    knife, but did not cut him. That behavior was enough to justify his
    conviction at this same statutory section. Here, the Defendant Feli
    swung at, and actually struck, the victim with a weapon capable of
    causing death or serious bodily injury. (N.T. 28-30).   She hit him
    several times, according to the testimony. (N.T. 28-30).   In fact, she
    did so after seeing her co-Defendant strike the other victim with the
    19
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    bike lock in the head, knocking him to the ground and causing him to
    bleed profusely. (N.T. 28). She actually witnessed the infliction of
    serious bodily injury by the heavy bike lock that she wielded before
    she used her nearly identical bike lock to strike repeatedly at John
    Hrabolowski in his arms. She did this while he was simultaneously
    engaged with her co-Defendant, trying to stop further attacks on his
    roommate, Mr. Szwaczkowski. (N.T. 28-30). The court is satisfied that
    her repeated blows, with a deadly weapon, were sufficient to prove
    that her intent was to cause serious bodily injury.    As the evidence
    was sufficient to prove her guilt as a principal for her acts in striking
    the victim, it was likewise sufficient to prove her co-Defendant guilty
    of the same offense as her co-conspirator and/or accomplice. The
    court also does not believe that the verdict was against the weight of
    the evidence as to either Defendant at this count.
    SENTENCING
    Finally, both Defendants have challenged the sentences imposed
    by this court. Trial courts have broad discretion in setting sentences.
    Sentencing is a matter vested within the sound discretion of the
    sentencing judge and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a
    manifest abuse of discretion.    Com. v. Mouzon, 
    828 A.2d 1126
    , 1128
    (Pa. Super. 2003). To constitute an abuse of discretion, the sentence
    20
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    imposed must either exceed the statutory limits or be manifestly
    excessive. Com. v. Gaddis, 
    639 A.2d 462
    , 469 (Pa. Super. 2003).            An
    abuse of discretion is not merely shown by an error in judgment, but
    rather by establishing 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.
    Mouzon, supra, at 1128. In determining whether a sentence is
    manifestly excessive, the appellate court must give great weight to the
    sentencing court's discretion, as the court is in the best position to
    measure factors such as the nature of the crime, the defendant's
    character, and the defendant's display of remorse, defiance or
    indifference.   Com. v. Ellis, 
    700 A.2d 948
    , 958 (Pa. Super. 1997).
    Where an excessiveness claim is based on a court's sentencing
    outside of the standard guideline ranges, an appellate court looks, at a
    minimum, for an indication on the record that the sentencing court
    understood the suggested sentencing range. Com. v. Rodda, 
    723 A.2d 212
    , 214 (Pa. Super. 1999). When the court so indicates, it may
    deviate from the guidelines to fashion a sentence which takes into
    account the protection of the public, the rehabilitative needs of the
    defendant, and the gravity of the particular offenses as it relates to the
    impact on the victim and the community, so long as the court also
    21
    '
    \ ...   ...   \
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    states the factual basis and specific reasons to deviate from the
    guidelines.   Mouzon, supra, at 1128. Sentencing guidelines are merely
    advisory, and the sentencing court may sentence a defendant outside
    of the guidelines so long as it places its reasons for deviation on the
    record.   Com. v. Cunningham, 
    805 A.2d 566
    , 575 (Pa. Super. 2002).
    In setting a sentence, a court has discretion to run the sentence
    concurrently with or consecutively to other sentences being imposed.
    Mouzon, 
    supra, at 1130
    . The Superior Court has expressed concern
    that running sentences concurrently as a matter of habit can give a
    defendant a "volume discount" for separate criminal acts. Com. v.
    Hoag, 
    665 A.2d 1212
    , 1214 (Pa. Super. 1995).
    Defendant Hughes claims that his sentence was an abuse of
    discretion because his prior record score was calculated using
    convictions that occurred nine (9) and ten (10) years ago and because
    the sentence did not "properly reflect the nature of the offense, the
    impact on the victim or the rehabilitative needs of the defendant."
    This claim is specious. How a prior record score is calculated is set by
    statute and regulation.   (See 42 Pa. C.S.A. §9721 (b) and 
    204 Pa. Code §303.1
    , et seq.) The age of the prior offenses that determine
    the prior record score is not taken into account in determining that
    22            \.
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    score. While a court may consider the age of the offenses that
    resulted in the prior record score in determining what sentence to
    impose, the Defendant's claim that the court erred in utilizing those
    older convictions to calculate the prior record score is without merit.
    To the extent that the Defendant is claiming that the age of the
    convictions warranted a lesser sentence, that claim is likewise without
    merit.    These prior convictions were not offenses committed decades
    ago, when the Defendant was barely an adult; having been born in
    1978, he was in his mid to late-twenties when he committed those
    offenses. They occurred less than ten (10) years prior to this violent
    incident, and the court gave them proper consideration in formulating
    the sentence.
    Defendant Hughes also generally complains that the sentence
    was an abuse of discretion.     He does not explain with any specificity
    why the sentence was supposedly an abuse of this court's broad
    sentencing discretion.    Defendant Hughes simply states that the
    sentence imposed did not "properly reflect the nature of the offense,
    the impact on the victim or the rehabilitative needs of the defendant."
    Simply mimicking the language of the sentencing code does not
    provide the court with an explanation for "why" the sentence failed to
    23
    (
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    comply with the sentencing code. In Commonwealth v. Bullock, 
    948 A.2d 818
     (Pa. Super. 2008), the court held that, where the defendant
    claimed that the sentence " ... was unduly harsh given the nature and
    the circumstances of the case ... [and] was inconsistent with the
    Sentencing Act which provides for the balancing of the welfare of the
    community with the rehabilitative needs of the Appellant ... ," failed to
    preserve, for appellate review, a challenge to the discretionary aspect
    of the sentence. The Defendant's claim here similarly fails to explain
    how the court abused its discretion.   Other than the incorrect claim
    that the court should not have considered nine (9) and ten (10) year
    old convictions in calculating his prior record score, Defendant Hughes
    has cited to no specific provision of the sentencing act this court
    supposedly violated.   Accordingly, the sentencing claims should be
    considered waived.
    To the extent that the claims are not deemed waived, the court
    set forth, at length, on the record, why it imposed the standard range
    sentence it did. (Hughes' Sentencing Transcript, 24-28). The court
    could very well have imposed standard range sentences at all but one
    of the other counts, but, instead, imposed probationary sentences.
    The court is satisfied that the sentence imposed on the Defendant
    Hughes was the appropriate sentence given the severity of the
    24                i    \
    \.._-/
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    offenses, the impact on the victim and the rehabilitative needs of the
    Defendant.
    Defendant Feli claims that court failed to properly consider the
    factors required by the sentencing code. The record of the trial and
    sentencing hearing belies this claim. The suggestion that Defendant
    Feli had a "limited role" in the incident is contrary to the facts that the
    Commonwealth established at trial.     While Defendant Feli described
    her role as limited, this court, in rendering its verdict, concluded
    otherwise. She struck both victims with her bicycle lock, hitting Mr.
    Hrabolowski repeatedly in the arms and hitting Mr. Szwaczkowski in
    his back, neck and head. She assisted her co-Defendant in his
    assaults on both victims. The Defendant's insistence that she played a
    "limited role" in these assaults when she spoke at the sentencing
    hearing, contrary to the- evidence presented at trial and the verdicts
    this court rendered, was a large factor in causing this court to impose
    the sentence it did. The court explained:
    THE COURT: I've been tossing around sentences in my
    mind for the last two weeks for you. Some ranged from
    things that you would very much like, to some things you
    would not much like. My sort of final decision is I always
    need to hear what people say at the time of sentencing.
    And what you have said today, quite frankly, to me does
    not err on the side of giving you time served and letting
    you go back to Connecticut at this point in time. Because I
    don't think you fully realize what you did in this situation.
    I don't think you fully comprehend your actions here. You
    25                <.._)
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    weren't a puppet on a string. You weren't a programmed
    robot. You are a person who has free will, who is able to
    exercise that free will to do the right thing. And you failed
    to do that here today and on that day.
    (Feli Sentencing Transcript, 23-24). The court properly considered this
    Defendant's substantial role in this incident. (Feli Sentencing
    Transcript, 19-24 ).
    The court also considered the impact on the victims and the
    need for the protection of society, as well as the rehabilitative needs of
    Defendant Feli. The harm to each victim was considered by the court
    and mentioned by the court at the sentencing hearing. The court also
    noted that it had received, read and considered several letters
    provided on the Defendant's behalf.    The availability of rehabilitative
    programs at the state prison was also discussed.
    The minimum sentence of incarceration imposed at Count 1,
    twenty-four (24) months, was near the bottom of the standard range
    of twenty-two (22) to thirty-six (36) months.    No other sentence of
    incarceration was imposed on the other counts, even though some of
    those involved a second victim. The court properly weighed the
    statutory sentencing factors and imposed a sentence that was
    consistent with the protection of society, the severity of the offense,
    the impact of the offense on the victims and the rehabilitative needs of
    26
    Circulated 09/04/2015 02:11 PM
    Defendant Feli. The court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed
    sentence.
    Given that there was sufficient, credible evidence to support the
    convictions of the Defendants as to all counts, and that this court
    sentenced in the standard range for both Defendants after considering
    the severity of the offenses, the impact on the victims, the protection
    of society and the needs of the Defendants, this court's convictions
    and sentences of both Defendants should be upheld.
    BY THE COURT:
    Date:
    27                     )
    \,~.:,,,/