Com. v. Lyons, T. ( 2019 )

J-S05023-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
TERRANCE DUPREE LYONS :
:
Appellant : No. 1031 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 24, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-25-CR-0002082-2017
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., NICHOLS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 21, 2019
Appellant Terrance Dupree Lyons appeals from the judgment of
sentence following a bench trial and his convictions for simple assault and
theft by unlawful taking. On appeal, he challenges the weight of the evidence
and the discretionary aspects of his sentence. We affirm.
We adopt the trial court’s facts and procedural history, which we set
forth below:
On Sunday, April 9, 2017, at 7:11 a.m., Erie Police were
dispatched to 2915 Pine Avenue. They were met with the victim,
Ahmyish Canady, and a witness, Tashara Brewton. Canady had a
bruised left eye, abrasions on her left hand and neck, and a clump
of hair that had been pulled out. Canady told the officers that
[Appellant], the father of her children, had just left. He came to
her house at five in the morning and began arguing with her. Both
Canady and Brewton told [Appellant] to leave the residence, but
he refused. He punched the victim in the face and throat. He
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S05023-19
kicked her in the eye th[e]n began dragging her through the
house. He then took her cell phone before he left. [Appellant]
was charged with simple assault, a second degree misdemeanor,
18 [Pa.C.S.] § 2701(a)(1), and theft by unlawful taking, a
misdemeanor, 18 [Pa.C.S. §] 3921(a).
Trial Ct. Op., 9/12/18, at 1-2. Appellant opted for a bench trial at which he
testified, and the court found him guilty.
Following the preparation of a pre-sentence investigation report, the
trial court sentenced Appellant on May 24, 2018, to one to two years’
imprisonment followed by five years’ probation. Appellant filed a timely post-
sentence motion challenging the excessiveness of his sentence and the weight
of the evidence. The court denied Appellant’s motion on June 18, 2018.
Appellant timely appealed and also filed a non-court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) statement incorporating his post-sentence motion.
Appellant raises only the following issues on appeal:
[1.] Whether the interests of justice entitle . . . Appellant to a new
trial as the trial court’s verdict was against the weight of the
evidence such that it effectively shocked the conscience.
[2.] Whether . . . Appellant’s sentence is manifestly excessive,
clearly unreasonable and inconsistent with the objectives of the
Sentencing Code.
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
We summarize Appellant’s arguments for both of his issues together.
Appellant contends the trial court failed to adequately weigh his credibility.
Id. at 12. Appellant also highlights purported contradictions between the
testimony of the victim and a Commonwealth witness. Id. He contends that
-2-
J-S05023-19
the victim was the aggressor. Id. at 13. Appellant also claims that his
sentence was excessive because the court failed to consider or properly
consider the mitigating factors, including that his prior record score was based
largely on offenses committed when he was a juvenile and the fact that
Appellant and the victim were involved in a custody dispute. Id. at 15.
It is well-settled:
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 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. Soto, ___ A.3d ___, ___, 2018 WL 6816969, *11 (Pa.
Super. 2018) (citation omitted).
With respect to challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentence, we
state the following as guidance:
[c]hallenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not
entitle an appellant to review as of right. An appellant challenging
the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court’s
jurisdiction by satisfying a 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, 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
-3-
J-S05023-19
that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the
Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 9781(b).
A substantial question exists only when the 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. Peck, ___ A.3d ___, ___, 2019 WL 124379, *5 (Pa.
Super. 2019) (quotation marks and some citations omitted). Instantly,
Appellant has preserved his sentencing challenge and has raised a substantial
question for our review. See id.The Peck Court explained 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.
Id. at *5 (citation omitted). Furthermore:
Where pre-sentence reports exist, we shall continue to 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
presentence report constitutes the record and speaks for itself. 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.
-4-
J-S05023-19
Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12, 18 (Pa. 1988). Therefore,
“[w]here the sentencing judge had the benefit of a pre-sentence report, it will
be presumed that he was aware of relevant information regarding appellant’s
character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating
statutory factors.” Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843, 849-50 (Pa.
Super. 2006).
Here, after careful review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the well-
reasoned decision of the trial court, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s
opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., 9/12/18, at 2-7. We perceive no abuse of
discretion by the trial court in its disposition of Appellant’s sentencing claim
given its review of, among other items, the pre-sentence investigation report,
see Peck, 2019 WL 124379, *5, and weight claim. See Soto, 2018 WL
6816969 at *11. For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/21/2019
-5-
Circulated 01/30/2019 03:11 PM
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Appellee, OF ERJE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVlSION
v.
TERRANCEDUPREE LYONS,
Appellant No. 2082 of 2017
1925(a) OPINION
i''I
Garhart, J., September-1.GL._, 2018
Appellant, Terrance Dupree Lyons, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on
May 24, 2018 following a non-jury trial in which he was convicted of simple assault and theft by
unlawful taking. Based on the following, this Court respectfully requests his judgment of
sentence be affirmed.
I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
On Sunday,April9, 2017, at 7:11 a.m., Erie Police were dispatched to2915 Pine Avenue.
They were met with the victim, Ahmyish Canady, and a witness, Tashara Brewton. Canady had a
bruised left eye, abrasions on her left hand and neck, and a clump of hair that had been pulled
out Canady told the officers that Defendant, the father of her children, had just left. He came to
her house at five in the morning and began arguing with her. Both Canady and Brewton told
Defendant to leave the residence, but he refused, He punched the victim in the face and throat
He kicked her in the eye than began dragging herthrough the house. He then took her cell phone
before he left. (Affidavit of Probable Cause, 4/9/17). Defendant was charged with simple assault,
a second degree misdemeanor, 18 P.S. §2701(a)(1), and theft by unlawful taking, a
misdemeanor, 18 PS. 3921(a).
Defendant waived his right to a jury trial pursuantto a waiver of jury trial colloquy held on
-�, November 13, 2017. He was tried before the Honorable John Garhart on March 8, 2018. Judge
1
21
�- Garhart found him guilty on both counts. On May 24, 2018, Judge Garhart sentenced Defendant
to state incarceration for one to two years for simple assault and 5 years of probation for the theft
charge. Defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Modification of Sentence of May 24,
2018, which was denied on June 18, 2018. Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal as well as
his Concise Statement on July 18, 2018. In his appeal, Appellant requests re sentencing as well as
a new trial. His Concise Statement raises a number of issues which can be distilled by two
paragraphs found in Appellant's Concise Statement:
1. "While the Trial Court is given wide discretion in sentencing {including the
decisions whether to run sentences concurrent or consecutive), Appellant
avers the Trial Court nevertheless abused its discretion in imposing a high-
end, near Aggravated Range sentence on the Simple Assault count." {Concise
Statement, 7 /18/18, p. l, �4).
a. Appellant's prior record score of 4 is outdated (based on juvenile
offenses of a felony drug charge and receiving stolen property) and
overstated ( containing subsequent traffic offenses, a DUI and
disorderly conduct conviction). (Concise Statement, p. 2)
b. Appellant has been on probation for the past 11 months without any
violations, he has had no contact with the victim, he has no
documented history of assaultive behavior, he is gainfully employed
selling life insurance and working at Arbys. (Concise Statement, p. 2).
c. The community would be protected and justice would be served if
Defendant were givena county-level sentence incorporating electronic
monitoring/intensive supervision.(Concise Statement, p. 2).
2. "Although the evidence at trial was sufficient to support a conviction, a new
trial should be awarded in the interest of justice because the Trial Court's
verdict was against the weight of the evidence." (Concise Statement, p.3, �2).
(Appellant's Rule 1925(b}Statement, 7/18/18, pp. 1 and 4).
A. Whether the Court appropriately sentenced Appellant?
Pennsylvania law makes clear that an appellant's challenge to the discretionary aspects of
his sentence is not automatically reviewable as a matter of right. Commonwealth V; Hunter, 768
A.2d 1136 (Pa.Super. 2001); Commonwealth v, Darden, 531 A.2d 1144, 1146 (Pa.Super. 1987).
2
.,......,,,.. When appealing the discretionary aspects of a sentence, an appellant: (I} must set forth in a
separate concise statement the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal, and (2) demonstrate a
substantial question that the sentence imposed was not appropriate. Commonwealth v. Lee, 876
A.2d 408, 411 (Pa.Super. 2005); see also Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002);
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 978l(b). The requirementthat an appellant separately set forth the reasons relied
upon for allowance of appeal "furthers the purpose evident in the Sentencing Code as a whole of
limiting any challenges to the trial court's evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging on the
sentencing decision to exceptional cases." Commonwealth v. Williams, 562 A.2d 1385, 1387
(Pa.Super, 1989) (en bane) (emphasis in original).
The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be evaluated on a case-
by-case basis. Commonwealth v. Losch, 535 A.2d 115, 119 n.T(Pa.Super. 1987). In this regard,
.,-�., our Supreme Court has stated:
To demonstrate that a substantial question exists, a party must articulate reasons
why a particular sentence raises doubts that the trial court did not properly
consider [the] general guidelines provided by the legislature.
Mouzon, supra, at 622. Appellant is required to raise a colorable argument that the decision of
the sentencing court was either inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code or
inappropriate under the Sentencing Code as a whole; that is, contrary to the fundamental norms
that underlie the sentencing ptocess. Id. An allegation that a sentencing court failed to consider
or did not adequately consider certain factors does not raise a substantial question that the
sentence was inappropriate. Such a challenge goes to the weight afforded the evidence and will
not be considered absent extraordinary circumstances. Commonwealth v, Urrutia, 653 A.2d 706,
710 {Pa . Super. 1995).
3
· "--\
Here, Appellant alleges that his sentence is inconsistent with Section 9721 (b) of the
Sentencing Code, which specifies that confinement shall be consistent with the protection of the
public, the gravity of the offense and the rehabilitative needs of the Appellant Appellant avers
that a lesser sentence would have accomplished the same goals. (Concise Statement, p. 1, �3).
Appellant further claims that the sentencing court should not have considered Appellant's prior
record score of a 4, since some of his underlying offenses occurred while he was a juvenile
(felony drug, receiving stolen property). H0Weve1·, we note that the Pennsylvania Superior Court
has made it clear that a sentencing court may considerjuvenile adjudications when calculating a
prior record score. Commonwealth v. Bonner, 135 A. 3d 592 (Pa. Super. 20l6)(sentencing
guideline allowing use of juvenile adjudications in calculating defendant's prior record score did
not violate Eighth Amendment). We further note that the severity of Appellant's other charges
.�-,.., (summary traffic, DUI, disorderly conduct) are taken into account in the calculation of the prior
record score. See 204 Pa. Code §303.7.
Furthermore, 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.
Commonwealth v. Rodda, 723 A.2d 212, 214 '(Pa.Super, 1999). The Superior Court noted:
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,
Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Where the sentencing court has the benefit of a pre-sentence report, the law presumes that
the court was aware of the relevant informationregarding the appellant's character and weighed
those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors delineated in the Sentencing
4
·-, Code. Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centeno, 668 A.2d 536, 545 (Pa.Super. 1995)(quotation and
citations omitted). Having been fully informed by the pre-sentence report, the sentencing court's
discretion should not be disturbed. Id.Here, Judge Garhart considered the following: (I) pre-sentence investigative report; (2)
Pennsylvania Sentencing Code and all its factors; (3) the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines;
(4} statements by Appellant and his counsel; (5) a letter from the victim; (6) Appellant's age,
background and rehabilitative needs; (7) the nature, circumstances, and seriousness of the
offense; and (8) the protection of the community. N.T. Sentencing, 5/24/18, at 12-13. Judge
Garhart further noted that he was sentencing Appellant in the high end of the standard range of
the sentencing guidelines because Appellant failed to show any "shred of responsibility" for his
actions and that it was clear that Appellant was and continues to be a batterer who subjected his
-� significant other to "a reign of terror". Id., at 8-9. We also note that Judge Garhart gave
Appellant a more lenient sentence on Count 2, theft of movable property. Instead of five years of
incarceration, Judge Garhart sentenced Appellant to five years of probation, noting:
THE COURT: ... And so this is the case in which the sentencing standard
range the guidelines is appropriate. The defendant has got a prior record score
of
of 4. But the point of this sentence would be lost if it didn't take into account
sending a message .to this defendant, and a message to the community, that
inflicting physical harm on your significant other is not just an offense, but a
serious offense.
So, all things considered, I'm going to choose a sentence atthe top end of
the standard range. And I'm going to impose one year to two years at 2028 of
2017 on Count 1. And it's my intention that that sentence be a state sentence ....
On the second count, theft of moveable property, here the phone, that
surprisingly carries five years, and yet the phone is a small part of this. I'm not
going to use the phone, which I could, as a way to punish the defendant more for
the assault. lthink there's some degree of integrity required.
This is a large tail, but it's not a tail on a small, this [one] count,' it's a tail
on a serious assault. So here I'm going to impose an additional five years of
supervision, state supervised, consecutive to the one to two years I'm imposing
forassaulting his significant other.
5
-°"'. --�-
,,,.-..,..,, (Sentencing Tr., 5/24/18, pp.13-14). The sentence was tailored to Appellant's individual situation
and the reasons for the sentence imposed were clearly set forth on the record. Any lesser
sentence would have depreciated the nature of the offense. Because Appellant's sentence was
within the statutory limits and not manifestly excessive, there was no sentencing error.
B. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence?
Appellant has preserved his weight of the evidence challenge by raising this issue in his
Motion for Reconsideration. However, the Court's verdictwas not "so contrary to the evidence"
that it "shocks one's sense of justice," as required by the Pennsylvania Superior Court:
When we.review aweight-of-the-evidence challenge, we do not actually
examine the underlying question; instead, we examine the trial court's exercise
of discretion in resolving the challenge. This type of review is necessitated by
the fact that the trial judge heard and saw the evidence presented. Simply put,
[o ]ne ofthe 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. A
new trial is warranted in this context only when the verdict is so contrary
to the evidence that it shocks one's sense of justice and the award of a new
trial is imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to
prevail.
Of equal importance is the precept that, [t]he finder of fact ... exclusively
weighs the evidence, assesses the credibility of witnesses, and may choose to
believe all, part, or none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Konias, 136 A.3d 1014, 1022-23 (Pa. Super. 2016), appealdenied, 145 A.3d
724 (Pa. 2016} (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Here, a review of the trial transcript demonstrates that the verdict was not against the
weight ofthe evidence. The credible testimony of the victim (who presented to the police with a
black eye, abrasions on her hand and neck, and a clump of pulled out hair) was that the
Defendant assaulted her. The credible testimony of both the victim: and her girlfriend, Tashara
Brewton, was consistent. Both testified that the Defendant entered the victim's apartment early
6
....-...,, in the morning and passed out on her bed. Sometime later he awoke and got into an argument
with Canady. Both Canady and Brewton's testimony about the physical altercationwas
congruous and matched Canady' s resulting physical injuries which are apparent in the photos
taken of Canady' s body in the emergency room immediately after the incident, (Commonwealth
Exhibits #1 -6), as well as the responding police officer's observation of the victim's injuries,
Furthermore, the Defendant himself testified that: (1) he grabbed the victim by her hair; (2)
he grabbed her by the neck; and (3) he hither in the eye with an open hand. (Trial
Transcript,3/8/18, pp. 111- l 16). However, Defendant denied ever hitting the victim such that he
would have left bruises on her body, except when he hit her in the eye. (Trial Tr; p. 116). We
find Defendant's testimony.less than credible in light of the photos of Defendant's injuries which
comport with the corroborating testimony of the responding police officer, the victim, and the
.......,,, witness, Ms. Brewton.
Here, the court, as the finder of fact, exclusively weighed the evidence, assessed the
credibility of witnesses, and had the discretion to choose to believe-the consistent testimony
of the witnesses for the. prosecution. As a result, this verdict was not so contrary to the
evidence that it "shocks" one's sense of justice. Accordingly, the verdict was not against the
weight of the evidence.
_,..,...._,,.. ,_
7
_..-� III. CO.NCLUSlON
Based on the above, this Court respectfully requests that Appellant's judgment of
sentence be affirmed, The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to submit the record to the
Pennsylvania Superior Court for its review.
BY THE_596RT:
/
Garhart, Judge
,.
--
·"'\;_
cc: District Attorney's Office
Michael A. DeJohn, Esq.
8