Com. v. Beringer, M. ( 2023 )

J-A05008-23
ON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MARGARET HACHLAF BERINGER, JR. :
:
Appellant : No. 1591 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 14, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-09-CR-0005408-2020
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 26, 2023
Margaret Hachlaf Beringer, Jr., appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County. We affirm.
Beringer entered an open guilty plea to one count each of drug delivery
resulting in death,1 a felony of the first degree, and involuntary
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2506. Section 2506(a) provides:
A person commits a felony of the first degree if the person
intentionally administers, dispenses, delivers, gives, prescribes,
sells or distributes any controlled substance or counterfeit
controlled substance in violation of section 13(a)(14) or (30) of
the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64),1 known as The
Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, and
another person dies as a result of using the substance.
J-A05008-23
manslaughter,2 a misdemeanor of the first degree. The trial court summarized
the facts of this case as follows:
[Beringer] and the victim had a friendly relationship. However,
their relationship centered around drug use. On May 31, 2018,
the victim contacted [Beringer], and told her she was “dope
sick.”[3] The victim requested that [Beringer] obtain heroin for
her. Despite the “close” relationship the pair had, [Beringer] had
never been to the [Warminster, Bucks County] residence of the
victim. The two exchanged messages about “the fire” or potency
of the drugs [Beringer] was to obtain in Philadelphia. [Beringer]
provided the victim with 14 blue bags containing suspected heroin
and needles. The victim paid for the items. The drugs were used
by the victim, in [Beringer’s] presence; [Beringer] subsequently
left, leaving the [victim’s] 7-month-old child attended only by her
intoxicated mother. Lab results confirmed the following: 11 bags
stamped Hellcat were positive for fentanyl; 3 syringes were
positive for heroin and fentanyl; 4 bags stamped Hellcat were
positive for fentanyl; 4 bags stamped Santa Muerte were positive
for heroin and fentanyl; and a silver metal-lid was positive for
heron and fentanyl. . . . [Beringer] confirmed she had delivered
drugs to the victim on the day she died.
Trial Court Opinion, 10/21/22, at 2.
At the guilty plea colloquy, Beringer acknowledged she faced a
maximum term of 45 years’ imprisonment. See N.T. Guilty Plea Colloquy,
9/21/21, at 13-16.4 On March 14, 2022, the court held a sentencing hearing,
____________________________________________
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2504(a).
3 Beringer confirmed this meant the victim was sick from withdrawal from
heroin. See N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 3/14/22, at 40.
4A person convicted of drug delivery resulting in death under section 2506(a)
of the Crimes Code “shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which shall
be fixed by the court at not more than 40 years.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2506(b). A
person convicted of involuntary manslaughter, a misdemeanor of the first
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2-
J-A05008-23
at the conclusion of which the Honorable Raymond F. McHugh sentenced
Beringer to three to six years’ imprisonment. See N.T. Sentencing Hearing,
3/14/22, at 58-59.5 On March 23, 2022, Beringer filed a motion for
reconsideration of her below-mitigated-range sentence. On May 19, 2022,
Judge McHugh held a hearing on that motion and, thereafter, denied relief.
On June 17, 2022, Beringer filed this timely appeal. Both Beringer and
Judge McHugh have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Beringer raises one issue
for our review: “Did the trial court abuse its discretion in sentencing
[Beringer] by imposing a manifestly excessive sentence and failing to consider
all relevant factors?” Appellant’s Brief, at 8. Beringer’s claim on appeal
challenges the discretionary aspects of her sentence.
Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentence are not
appealable as of right. Rather, an appellant challenging the
sentencing court’s discretion must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction
by (1) filing a timely notice of appeal; (2) properly preserving the
issue at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify the
sentence; (3) complying with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), which requires a
separate section of the brief setting forth a concise statement of
the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the
discretionary aspects of a sentence; and (4) presenting a
____________________________________________
degree, is subject to a maximum sentence of no more than five years. See
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2504(b) (“Involuntary manslaughter is a misdemeanor of the
first degree.”); id. at § 106(b)(6) (“A crime is a misdemeanor of the first
degree if it is so designated in this title or if a person convicted thereof may
be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the maximum of which is not more
than five years.”).
5 The court sentenced Beringer below the mitigated range of the Sentencing
Guidelines, which defense counsel acknowledged at the reconsideration of
sentence hearing. See N.T. Reconsideration of Sentence Hearing, 5/19/22,
at 31-32.
-3-
J-A05008-23
substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not
appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9781(b),
or sentencing norms.
Commonwealth v. Miller, 275 A.3d 530, 534 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citations
omitted).
Here, Beringer filed a post-sentence motion for reconsideration and a
timely notice of appeal, and she has included a Rule 2119(f) statement in her
brief.6 In her Rule 2119(f) statement, Beringer contends the sentencing court
“failed to consider all relevant factors such as [Beringer’s] family history, age,
or rehabilitative needs.” See Appellant’s Brief, at 10-11. She also contends
the sentence imposed was “manifestly excessive and unreasonable.” Id. at
11.
We conclude Beringer has raised a substantial question. See
Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987, 992 (Pa. Super. 2016) (substantial
question raised where appellant claimed court “failed to consider relevant
sentencing criteria, including the protection of the public, the gravity of the
underlying offense and the rehabilitative needs of [a]ppellant, as [section]
9721(b) requires”) (citation omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Raven,
97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding “an excessive sentence
claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider
mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.”); Commonwealth v.
____________________________________________
6 “If the defendant files a timely post-sentence motion, the notice of appeal
shall be filed . . . within 30 days of the entry of the order deciding the
motion[.]” Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(2)(a).
-4-
J-A05008-23
Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1273 (Pa. Super. 2013) (claim sentencing court
“disregarded rehabilitation and the nature and circumstances of the offense in
handing down its sentence” presented substantial question). Thus, we grant
Beringer’s petition for allowance of appeal and address the merits of her claim.
Our standard of review of a sentencing claim 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. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1275 (Pa. Super. 2006).
After a comprehensive review, we conclude that the record belies
Beringer’s claim that the sentencing court failed to consider her rehabilitative
needs. The record reflects that Judge McHugh considered the circumstances
surrounding this drug delivery, as well as Beringer’s troubled family history,
her struggles with addiction, her lack of a prior record, and her admirable
efforts at rehabilitation. See N.T. Sentencing Hearing, supra at 56-60.
Judge McHugh stated the following on the record:
Any time I impose a criminal sentence[,] I’m required to consider
the sentencing guidelines, and those guidelines in this case for
drug delivery resulting in death in the mitigation range are four
years, in the standard range, five to six-and-a-half years, and in
the aggravated range[,] nine-and-a-half years. I also need to
consider defendant’s criminal history, and I note that she has a
prior record score of zero, and that [is] what I will consider. I
have to consider the gravity of the offense as it relates to the
impact on the life of the victim and the community. I do so,
-5-
J-A05008-23
obviously, in this case. There’s a person who is deceased, and I
have letters from her family requesting me to impose the
maximum sentence in this case, which is not unusual for a []
family member of a victim to request that. I consider the statute
here, and I consider the fact that Ms. Beringer did what she did at
the request of the victim. She was contacted, she was asked to
go get this. This isn’t somebody that’s driving around with an
inventory of drugs in their car[.] She was specifically asked to get
this, and she specifically got what she was asked to get.
Nonetheless, that provision of those drugs led to the death of the
victim, and that’s why we’re here. And I have to consider what’s
appropriate in considering all those factors[.] I’m very
impressed by the rehabilitative treatment that the
defendant has already received, all I hear from everyone
who is here, and I was very impressed with the people from
Sacred Heart [Recovery Residence] who came, and I do
believe their testimony[;] I think they were very credible.
I think that Ms. Beringer is very dedicated to sobriety, she
obviously has some issues, but she’s working hard, and I
think that I heard from the defense she just doesn’t stop.
She’s just not going to be defeated, she’s going to continue
to get treatment until she’s living a sober life. And I
consider all that. And I consider the circumstances of the crime
and the history, character[,] and condition of the defendant.
Id. at 56-58 (emphasis added). Subsequently, at the hearing on Beringer’s
motion for reconsideration of sentence, Judge McHugh heard additional
testimony from several character witnesses, all of whom praised Beringer’s
empathy, her positive outlook, and her commitment to helping others
experiencing homelessness or addiction. N.T. Reconsideration of Sentence
Hearing, supra at 5-24. In particular, the court heard testimony from Renata
Hill, the residential services coordinator at Project Home Sacred Heart, where
Beringer intends to return after serving her sentence. Hill, who also testified
at sentencing, stated:
-6-
J-A05008-23
[W]e will continue to support [Beringer] once she does return, and
[it] doesn’t matter when, but we will have an open door for her.
[Beringer] is to understand—and we had this conversation—that
we will create a structure for her that is a lot stricter than what
we have in place right now, you know, in order for her to continue
to reside there. She, for the most part, even in the past, when
we had to enforce or—you know, reduce her time outside, she was
willing and okay with that, followed rules and protocols with no
problem. [Beringer] takes a lot of accountability. . . . I believe
she can rehabilitate better in a structured environment such as
Sacred Heart.
N.T. Reconsideration of Sentence Hearing, supra at 19-20, 23.
The record reflects that the sentencing court was acutely aware of
Beringer’s rehabilitative needs and took those needs into account when
imposing sentence. Notably, at the hearing on reconsideration, defense
counsel acknowledged as much. See id. at 31 (defense counsel stating:
“Judge, I certainly think you considered it, [h]owever, we did receive
additional treatment letters and have contacted people who wanted to come
up and testify that didn’t the first time[.]”) (emphasis added). The court,
however, as it is required, also considered the gravity of the offense, and its
sentence reflects those considerations. See id. at 30 (Judge McHugh stating:
“No matter how much treatment, no matter what her rehabilitative needs are,
she’s responsible for the death of another human being.”); see also 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b) (“[T]he court shall follow the general principle that the
sentence imposed should call for total confinement that is consistent with
section 9725 (relating to total confinement) and the protection of the public,
the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim
and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.”). There
-7-
J-A05008-23
is no requirement that a sentencing court elevate consideration of
rehabilitative needs over that of the gravity of the offense.
In light of the foregoing, we find no abuse of discretion. Shugars,
supra. Accordingly, we affirm Beringer’s judgment of sentence.
Judgement of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/26/2023
-8-