Com. v. Vetetoe, M. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • J-S40042-14
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee
    v.
    MICHAEL C. VETETOE
    Appellant               No. 183 MDA 2014
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 9, 2014
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-08-CR-0000225-2013
    BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and PANELLA, J.
    MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.:                  FILED SEPTEMBER 04, 2014
    Appellant, Michael C. Vetetoe, appeals from the judgment of sentence
    entered January 9, 2014, by the Honorable Jeffrey A. Smith, Court of
    Common Pleas of Bradford County. We affirm.
    In the afternoon on May 23, 2013, Vetetoe became involved in a
    regarding household chores. When Amons took her pet pit bull for a walk,
    Vetetoe came out of the residence with a rifle and shot the dog three times
    died as a result of its injuries.
    J-S40042-14
    On November 5, 2013, Vetetoe entered an open guilty plea to one
    count of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor of the third degree.1            On
    imprisonment. This timely appeal followed.
    On appeal, Vetetoe raises the following issue for our review:
    The [c]ourt abused its discretion by sentencing the Appellant in
    the aggravated range because there was not any aggravating
    circumstances established from the factors addressed at the time
    of the plea nor was there any aggravating circumstances
    indicated in the pre-
    Our standard when reviewing sentencing matters is as follows:
    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, the appellant 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. Buterbaugh, 
    91 A.3d 1247
    , 1265 (Pa. Super. 2014)
    (en banc) (citation omitted).
    Vetetoe challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence.        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
    ____________________________________________
    1
    18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(4).
    -2-
    J-S40042-14
    Commonwealth v. McAfee, 
    849 A.2d 270
    , 274 (Pa. Super.
    2004) (citation omitted).
    An   appellant    challenging   the   discretionary   aspects   of   his
    four-part test:
    [We] conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (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,
    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. Moury, 
    992 A.2d 162
    , 170 (Pa. Super. 2010)
    (quotation marks and some citations omitted).
    s aggravated range sentence at
    appellate brief also contains the requisite 2119(f) concise statement, in
    which he argues that the trial court incorrectly applied a deadly weapon
    enhancement to his sentence for disorderly conduct. See
    at 4. The application of a deadly weapon enhancement raises a substantial
    question for our review. See 
    Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d at 1266
    .
    The deadly weapon enhancement provides, in part:
    When the court determines that the offender used a deadly
    weapon during the commission of the current conviction offense,
    the court shall consider the DWE/Used Matrix (§ 303.17(b)). An
    offender has used a deadly weapon if any of the following were
    employed by the offender in a way that threatened or injured
    another individual:
    -3-
    J-S40042-14
    (i) Any firearm, (as defined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712) whether
    loaded or unloaded, or
    (ii) Any dangerous weapon (as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 913), or
    (iii) Any device, implement, or instrumentality capable of
    producing death or serious bodily injury.
    204 Pa.Code § 303.10(a)(2)(i)-(iii).
    As noted, Vetetoe objected to the application of a deadly weapon
    enhancement at sentencing.        See N.T., Sentencing, 1/9/2014 at 1.
    Specifically, Vetetoe argued that the deadly weapon enhancement is
    inapplicable in this instance because a weapon was not employed against an
    See 
    id. at 1-2.
    placed Sheilla Amons in danger, and that [he] did shoot a dog three to four
    Vetetoe fired his weapon at t
    that his conduct endangered Amons sufficient proof that Vetetoe employed
    required to support the application of the deadly weapon enhancement. Our
    finding is further bolstered by the on-the-record explanation the trial court
    gave for imposing the aggravated range sentence:
    The reason for sentencing in the aggravated range, the [c]ourt is
    satisfied that a firearm was used although not against an
    individual, there were individuals in close proximity. The firearm
    was fired in excess of two times, that there was an extreme
    danger to others in the vicinity, and you killed a pet of an
    individual in front of them.
    -4-
    J-S40042-14
    
    Id. at 4.
    Based on the foregoing, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial
    without merit.
    Judgment of sentence affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 9/4/2014
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 183 MDA 2014

Filed Date: 9/4/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014