Com. v. Madison, R. ( 2020 )

J-S61003-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
RONALD MADISON :
:
Appellant : No. 3383 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 1, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0004207-2017,
CP-51-CR-0004248-2017, CP-51-CR-0004366-2017
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED JULY 24, 2020
Ronald Madison appeals from the aggregate judgment of sentence of
ten to twenty years of imprisonment imposed after he entered open guilty
pleas to various counts of robbery in the above-captioned cases.1 We affirm.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 Appellant’s notices of appeal, filed at each docket implicated at Appellant’s
sentencing hearing, include all three case numbers, in violation of this Court’s
ruling in Commonwealth v. Creese, 216 A.3d 1142, 1143 (Pa.Super. 2019),
that such practice violates our Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth
v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018). By order of November 25, 2019, we
stayed this appeal pending en banc consideration of whether the inclusion of
more than one number a notice of appeal violates Walker. On July 9, 2020,
this Court held that it does not. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, ___ A.3d
___, 2020 Pa. Super. 164 (Pa.Super. July 9, 2020) (en banc). Accordingly, we
lift the stay and proceed to address the merits of the appeal.
J-S61003-19
The Commonwealth offered the following factual bases for Appellant’s
guilty pleas.
On March 7, 2017, approximately 9:15 a.m., this defendant
walked into the Wells Fargo bank located at 2843 North Broad
Street. He handed a withdrawal slip in the name of Jason Williams
over to the teller.
On the back of that slip was the words, Put money over now.
That teller handed this defendant $2,500 in U.S. currency, and the
male fled, leaving behind the demand letter.
It was tested by Philadelphia Police, and a positive
fingerprint came back to [Appellant].
A photo . . . of [Appellant] was shown to the victim, who
positively identified this defendant as the person who handed him
the note.
On March 13, 2017, at approximately 11:25 a.m. -- and this
is going to No. 3, Your Honor, which is 4207-2017 -- March 13,
2017, at 11:25 a.m., [Appellant] walked into the Wells Fargo bank
located at 700 Adams Avenue, here in the City and County of
Philadelphia. He handed over a withdrawal slip with the name
Jason Williams on it and a piece of paper which read, Give me the
money before someone gets hurt.
Before any money could be handed over, [Appellant] did flee
the scene. Surveillance video was shown to -- was viewed by
detectives, who looked similar to the person that robbed the last
Wells Fargo bank. A photo array was shown to the victim. He did
positively identify [Appellant] a[s] the one who handed over the
note.
N.T. Guilty Plea, 8/9/18, at 9-11.
On March 27, 2017, at approximately 4:10 in the morning,
the victim in this case was walking to his house at the 1300 block
of West Allegheny Avenue when a navy blue Chevy TrailBlazer
pulled up. [Appellant] got out, approached the victim, pulled out
a black handgun and stated, Give me everything. [Appellant]
turned the victim around, reached into the victim’s pocket and
pulled out his cell phone and some money -- the cell phone was a
-2-
J-S61003-19
Galaxy S7 -- and fled in that Chevy TrailBlazer. Police were called.
When they arrived on scene, they asked the victim for his phone
number. He gave it to them, and they tracked it to the 1100 block
of Roy Street. Officers responded to that location, which is just
down the street.
They did see [Appellant] inside the blue Chevy TrailBlazer
on the stolen cell phone. The victim was brought to the scene
where he identified this individual as the person that robbed him.
He also has a previous conviction, which would make him ineligible
to carry a firearm.
N.T. Guilty Plea, 8/6/18, at 9-10.
Upon these facts, the trial court accepted Appellant’s guilty pleas to two
counts of robbery, one count of attempted robbery, and one violation of the
uniform firearms act (“VUFA”). At a November 1, 2018 sentencing hearing,
the trial court heard substantial mitigating evidence presented by Appellant,
including testimony from a social worker with the Institute for Community
Justice who indicated that Appellant was eager to utilize the provided services
and now had a support system that he has never had before. See N.T.
Sentencing, 11/1/18, at 9-11. The Commonwealth, however, noted that while
many people suffer from addiction, they do not all turn to violence the way
Appellant repeatedly had done; therefore, it requested consecutive standard-
range sentences for an aggregate term of fifteen to thirty years. Id. at 13-
14. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court imposed concurrent,
standard-range sentences on the convictions, resulting in an aggregate
sentence of ten to twenty years of imprisonment.
-3-
J-S61003-19
Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, and a timely notice of
appeal after the trial court denied the motion. Both Appellant and the trial
court thereafter complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Appellant presents one
question for this Court’s consideration: “Is the sentence imposed unduly harsh
and excessive under the circumstances of this case?” Appellant’s brief at 5.
We begin with a review of the applicable law.
An appellant is not entitled to the review of challenges to the
discretionary aspects of a sentence as of right. Rather, an
appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence
must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. We determine whether the
appellant has invoked our jurisdiction by considering the following
four factors:
(1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of
appeal; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved
at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify
sentence; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal
defect; and (4) whether there is a substantial question
that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate
under the Sentencing Code.
Commonwealth v. Samuel, 102 A.3d 1001, 1006-07 (Pa.Super. 2014)
(citations omitted).
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and raised his sentencing claims
in a timely post-sentence motion seeking reconsideration of his sentence.
Appellant’s brief contains a statement of reasons relied upon for his challenge
to the discretionary aspects of his sentence as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f).
Thus, we consider whether Appellant has raised a substantial question.
Appellant raises a claim that his sentence is excessive in conjunction
with an assertion that the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors. See
-4-
J-S61003-19
Appellant’s brief at 19. We have held that this combination raises a substantial
question that the sentence is not appropriate under the sentencing code. See
Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa.Super. 2014).
Therefore, we proceed to address the merits of Appellant’s claim.
“When reviewing sentencing matters, this Court must accord the
sentencing court great weight as it is in the best position to view the
defendant’s character, displays of remorse, defiance or indifference, and the
overall effect and nature of the crime.” Commonwealth v. Edwards, 194
A.3d 625, 637 (Pa.Super. 2018) (cleaned up). “We cannot re-weigh the
sentencing factors and impose our judgment in the place of the sentencing
court.” Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 778 (Pa.Super. 2009).
Rather, we review the sentencing court’s sentencing determination for an
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. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 760 (Pa.Super. 2014).
“When imposing sentence, a court is required to consider the particular
circumstances of the offense and the character of the defendant. In
considering these factors, the court should refer to the defendant’s prior
criminal record, age, personal characteristics and potential for rehabilitation.”
Id. at 761 (citations and quotation marks omitted). “And, of course, the court
-5-
J-S61003-19
must consider the sentencing guidelines.” Commonwealth v. Coulverson,
34 A.3d 135, 144 (Pa.Super. 2011) (cleaned up).
With these principles in mind, we consider Appellant’s arguments, which
he summarizes as follows:
The imposition of a non-mitigated sentence is excessive
under the circumstances. Several mitigating factors are present
in the matters sub judice. The 47 year-old [Appellant] accepted
responsibility, exhibited remorse, was apologetic for his actions,
did not physically injure anyone during his crimes, committed the
crimes over a relatively brief three week period, committed the
crimes as a result of opiate addiction, and took steps to address
and rectify his drug dependence while incarcerated. These facts
warrant imposition of a mitigated sentence.
The imposition of a non -mitigated sentence upon
[Appellant], in light of the numerous mitigating factors referenced
above, results in a sentence that is both clearly unreasonable and
excessive under the circumstances including the appellant’s age,
lawful work history, drug addiction, acceptance of responsibility,
remorse, and rehabilitative needs.
Appellant’s brief at 26.
The trial court responded to Appellant’s arguments as follows.
During the sentencing hearing, this court carefully listened as
Appellant’s counsel set forth mitigating circumstances calling for
a reduced sentence and also the court reviewed the pre-sentence
reports, which outlined Appellant’s horrendous criminal history.
This court also considered Appellant’s mitigating evidence, which
is reflected in the record where this Court noted that it had
considered that evidence in deciding upon a sentence.
Regarding the claim alleging that this court did not consider
Appellant’s rehabilitative needs, this court did consider them in
fashioning the sentence imposed on Appellant. This court
carefully reviewed all of the reports and despite the seriousness
of the underlying crimes, it decided against imposing a more
serious sentence, one which would have reflected the seriousness
of the offenses committed by Appellant and which would have
-6-
J-S61003-19
protected the public from Appellant for a far longer period of time.
Although this court did not parrot every word in 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9721(b), the certified record reveals it thoroughly considered
appropriate factors prior to imposing sentence. This court
witnessed [A]ppellant during the guilty plea hearing and properly
considered the nature and circumstances of his offenses, as well
as his personal history and sincere expression of remorse.
Finally, Appellant’s sentence was not excessive in light of
the seriousness of the underlying matters and the fact that
Appellant committed three separate robberies and during one of
them he threatened the victim with a firearm. In fact, in this
court’s view the aggregate sentence manifested leniency given the
underlying facts and the importance of protecting the public from
criminal violence. In a case where the maximum imposable
sentence was far greater, it could be said that the sentence was
too low. In any event, this court considered all relevant factors in
deciding upon a sentence. That was all the law required and, thus,
it is suggested that the Honorable Court deem this issue to be
lacking in merit.
Trial Court Opinion, 3/25/19, at 3-4 (citations and unnecessary capitalization
omitted).
Reviewing the certified record in accordance with the applicable legal
principles, we discern no basis to disturb Appellant’s sentence. The trial court
considered the applicable sentencing factors, including the mitigating evidence
and Appellant’s rehabilitative needs, and imposed standard-range, concurrent
sentences for a term less that the Commonwealth sought, but appropriate to
protect society. See N.T. Sentencing, 11/1/18, at 15-17. Hence, Appellant
has failed to demonstrate that “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,” and thus has not established
that the trial court abused its discretion. Antidormi, supra at 760.
-7-
J-S61003-19
Appellant essentially asks this Court to re-weigh the factors and
conclude that a mitigated-range sentence is more appropriate, an undertaking
this Court cannot do. See Macias, supra at 778. Consequently, no relief is
due.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/24/20
-8-