Com. v. Stryker, S. ( 2023 )

J-S27007-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SHAWN D. STRYKER :
:
Appellant : No. 173 MDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-36-CR-0000430-2021
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 11, 2023
Appellant, Shawn D. Stryker, appeals from the aggregate judgment of
sentence of 6 to 20 years’ incarceration, imposed after he pled guilty to six
counts of aggravated assault under 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702(a)(2), (a)(3), and
(a)(6), as well as single counts of recklessly endangering another person, 18
Pa.C.S. § 2705, and possessing an instrument of crime, 18 Pa.C.S. § 907(b).
On appeal, Appellant solely contends that the trial court abused its discretion
in fashioning his sentence. After careful review, we affirm.
The trial court set forth a detailed summary of the facts and procedural
history underlying Appellant’s case, which we need not reproduce in full
herein. See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 3/27/22, at 1-7. We only briefly note
that Appellant’s convictions stemmed from a standoff with police during which
Appellant fired shots at two of the officers, who were thankfully unharmed.
Appellant was initially deemed incompetent to stand trial and was committed
J-S27007-23
to a state mental hospital for nearly one year before he was deemed to be
competent to proceed. Appellant pled guilty to the above-stated offenses on
September 16, 2022. After a pre-sentence investigation report was
completed, the court sentenced Appellant on December 29, 2022, to the
aggregate term set forth supra, which included two, consecutive terms of 3 to
10 years’ imprisonment for two of his aggravated assault convictions.
Appellant received concurrent terms of 2 to 10 years’ imprisonment for his
remaining aggravated assault offenses, and no further sentence of
incarceration for his other convictions.
Appellant filed a timely, post-sentence motion, which the court
ultimately denied. He then filed a timely notice of appeal, and he complied
with the trial court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal. The court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on
March 27, 2022. Herein, Appellant states one issue for our review:
I. Was the trial court’s aggregate sentence of 6 to 20 years of
incarceration so manifestly excessive under the circumstances of
the instant case, especially considering [Appellant’s] severe
mental health issues at the time of the incident, and was the
imposition of consecutive sentences an abuse of the court’s
discretion?
Appellant’s Brief at 6.
Appellant’s issue implicates the discretionary aspects of his sentence.
Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not
entitle an appellant to review as of right. Commonwealth v.
Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 912 (Pa. Super. 2000). An appellant
challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke
this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:
-2-
J-S27007-23
We conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether
[the] 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 [the]
appellant’s brief has a fatal 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.[] § 9781(b).
Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa. Super. 2006),
appeal denied, … 909 A.2d 303 ([Pa.] 2006). Objections to the
discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they
are not raised at the sentencing hearing or in a motion to modify
the sentence imposed. Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788,
794 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, … 831 A.2d 599 ([Pa.]
2003).
The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Commonwealth v. Paul,
925 A.2d 825, 828 (Pa. Super. 2007). 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.”
Sierra, supra at 912–13.
Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010)).
Instantly, Appellant preserved his sentencing claim in his post-sentence
motion, he filed a timely appeal, and he has included a Rule 2119(f) statement
in his appellate brief, thereby meeting the first three requirements for review
of a discretionary-aspects-of-sentencing claim. Regarding the fourth
requirement of stating a substantial question, Appellant contends that his
sentence is “clearly unreasonable” and “manifestly excessive” given the
imposition of consecutive terms of incarceration. Appellant’s Brief at 12. He
-3-
J-S27007-23
insists that in imposing consecutive sentences, the court failed to consider his
“incompetency at the time of the offense and his drastic improvement while
receiving treatment and medication….” Id. at 13-14. We agree with Appellant
that his argument constitutes a substantial question for our review. See
Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 339 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“[A]n
excessive sentence claim – in conjunction with an assertion that the court
failed to consider mitigating factors – raises a substantial question.”) (citation
omitted); Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super.
2015) (finding that Caldwell’s “challenge to the imposition of his consecutive
sentences as unduly excessive, together with his claim that the court failed to
consider his rehabilitative needs upon fashioning its sentence, presents a
substantial question”).
In reviewing the merits of Appellant’s sentencing challenge, we are
mindful that,
[s]entencing 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).
Instantly, in assessing Appellant’s claim that his aggregate term of
incarceration is excessive and unreasonable, we have reviewed the arguments
set forth in his brief, the Commonwealth’s response, the certified record, and
-4-
J-S27007-23
the applicable law. We have also examined the thorough opinion of the
Honorable Jeffery D. Wright of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster
County. We conclude that Judge Wright’s analysis demonstrates that he
carefully considered the Sentencing Guidelines, the information set forth in
Appellant’s presentence report, the mitigating circumstances and
characteristics of Appellant, his rehabilitative needs, the seriousness of the
offenses, and the protection of the public. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b); 42
Pa.C.S. § 9781(d). We discern no abuse of discretion in Judge Wright’s
decision to impose consecutive sentences, or in the aggregate term of
incarceration he fashioned in this case. Thus, we adopt Judge Wright’s opinion
as our own and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence for the reasons set
forth therein.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Date: 10/11/2023
-5-
01:31 PM
Circulated 09/13/2023 01.31
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY,
COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v. 0430-2021
0430-2021
SHAWN D.
D. STRYKER
PA. R.A .P. 1925
PA.RA.P. 192$ OPINION
OPINION
1•-
BY; WRIGHT, J
BY: J. March 1"
_, %
2• 2022
Shawn D. Stryker
Stryker (" Appellant") has filed a
("Appellant") a direct appeal
appeal to the Superior
Superior
Court of Pennsylvania
Court of Pennsylvania from
from the Judgment of
the Judgment of Sentence imposed on
Sentence imposed on December
December
29, 2022, as finalized by my January 23, 2023, Order denying
denying his Post Sentence
Sentence
Motion. This
This Opinion is written pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania
Rule 1925(a) Pennsylvania
Rules of Appellate Procedure. For below, the appeal
For the reasons set forth below, is
appeal is
without merit and should be denied.
BACKGROUND
On January 3, 2021, West Hempfield Township Police Officers were
dispatched to 501 Goldfinch Drive, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to investigate a
investigate a
incident. ((Criminal
domestic incident. Criminal Complaint, Affidavit of Probable Cause, Jan. G,
Cause, Jan, 6,
2021, at ¶ 1).
1), The 911 caller, Rebecca Valentine,
Valentine, told the dispatcher
dispatcher that
that
was ""unstable
Appellant, her paramour, was unstable and
ard armed with a rifle .... and a
a rifle a
1
1
he was threatening "to
handgun" and that he "to harm
harm himself and also pointed
pointed one of
guns ...
the guns .., at (Id.) When Officers arrived at
at her." (Id.) at the home, Ms. Valentine
the home, Valentine
was leaving the residence but Appellant remained inside.
inside. (ld.,
(d.., at ,i3). The
I 3),
responding Officers contacted Appellant by phone and spoke with him for
approximately seven minutes, asking him to put down any weapons he had and
to come outside to speak with them.
them. (id..J
(d.) Appellant refused and the Officers
began evacuating the residents of neighboring properties for their safety.
safety. (Id.,
(Id,
at ,i,i
i,i 4-5).
The Sheriff's Emergency Response Team
Team ((SERT)
SERT) eventually responded
responded to
the area and SERT Negotiators again made contact with Appellant by
by phone.
(ld.,at
(d. at ,,i,
i, 7-10). by the SERT Negotiators, Appellant
7-10), After repeated demands by Appellant
eventually emerged from the residence. However, when he exited, he pointed aa
rifle toward the SERT members.
members. (kl..
(d. at, 11). A
L at, A SERT member fired toward
Appellant and Appellant
Appellant retreated
retreated into the residence. Appellant proceeded to
Appellant proceeded to
fire shots on the SERT members from inside the home. Approximately
Approximately one hour
later, Appellant again exited the home and was taken into custody. (Td.)
(Id.)
Appellant was charged the following offenses: two counts of Aggravated
Assault- Attempts to Cause or Causes Serious
Assault-Attempts Serious Bodily Injury to
Bodily Injury Designated
to Designated
Individuals, Felonies in the First Degree; two counts of Aggravated
Aggravated Assault-
Attempts to Cause or Causes Bodily Injury to Designated
Designated Individuals, Felonies in
the Second Degree; two counts of Aggravated Assault- Causes Fear of
Assault-Causes
2
2
Imminent Serious Bodily Injury to Designated Ind1v1duals,
Individuals, Felonies of the
Second Degree; one count of Recklessly Endangering
Endangering Another Person,
Person, a
a
Misdemeanor of the Second Degree; and one count of Possession of a Firearm,
a Firearm,
aa Misdemeanor of the First Degree.1
Degree.1
On April 5, 2021, counsel for Appellant, Samuel C.
On C Stretton, Esquire, filed
aa Motion requesting aacompetency evaluation, alleging,
alleging, inter alia, that
Appellant's ""mental
Appellant's mental status [had] very fragile,"
[had] become very fragile," that
that Appellant
Appellant
"believe[d] he was appointed by
by God
God as a Six- Star General to do
a Six-Star do battle with the
Evil World," and that Appellant was
was ""obsessed
obsessed with auditory and visual
hallucinations." ((Motion
hallucinations." Motion of the Defendant, Shawn Stryker, For a
aCompetency
Competency
Examination, Apr. 5, 2021, at ,,l,i
i,i 1-2). I
I granted the Motion on April
April 15,
15, 2021.
On October 25, 2021, following a
On a stipulation of counsel regarding
regarding
Appellant's competency evaluation, IIentered an order accepting
accepting the report
report of
the evaluating physician and finding Appellant incompetent to proceed. My
M
October 25th Order committed Appellant for involuntary inpatient treatment and
required Appellant
Appellant to
to be
be reevaluated no more than days later,
than 90 days later, and every
every 90
90
days thereafter until such time as Appellant regained competency
competency to proceed.
proceed.
conferring with
On April 25, 2022, after conferring with Appellant's Counsel and the
the Assistant
Assistant
District Attorney assigned to the matter regarding Appellant's
Appellant's refusal to take
1 In violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A.
I Pa.C.S.A. §
5 2702(a)(2); 18 Pa.CS.A.5
Pa.CS.A.§ 2702(a)(3);
2702(a)(3); 18
Pa.C.S.A. §
Pa.C.S.A. Pa.CS.A.§ 2705; and 18 Pa.C.S.A.
5 2702(a)(6); 18 Pa.CS.A.5 Pa.C.S.A. §5 907(b).
907(b).
3
3
any medication, I
I entered an Order allowing Appellant's
Appellant's treating physicians to
treating physicians
administer the appropriate medication to Appellant to
to treat and overcome his
psychosis.
After it was determined that he had regained competency W proceed,
to proceed,
Appellant entered an open guilty plea to all charges on September 16, 2022. II
deferred sentencing and
and ordered a
a Pre-Sentence Investigation
Investigation ((PSI),
PSI). On
December 29, 2022, following receipt of Appellant's PSI, IIsentenced Appellant
Appellant
to an aggregate
aggregate term of 6
6to
tD 20 years SCI as follows:
Count 1, aggravated assault, serious bodily injury,
John Bardo, 3
attempted, Officer John 3to 10 years SCI, plus costs.
Count 2, ag assault, serious bodily
bodily injury, attempted, Nelson
injury, attempted,
Moreno, 33 to 10 years, plus costs, consecutive to Count 1.
1
Counts
Counts 33 through 6, attempted bodily injury
attempted ag assault, bodily injury
attempted, 22 to 10 years SCI each, concurrent with each
other, concurrent W
to Count 2, plus costs.
Count 7, REAP, costs. Count 8, possession
possession of aa weapon,
costs.
(Notes
(Notes of Testimony, Sentencing Dec. 29, 2022.
Sentencing Hearing, Dec. 12:18-13:3).
2022. at 12:18-13:3).
During the Sentencing Hearing, 1provided
1provided the reasoning
reasoning behind the
sentence imposed, explaining:
Mr. Stryker, under thethe law, II must look at the sentencing
sentencing
options, which are consistent with the protection
protection of the
the
public, the
the gravity
gravity of the underlying crimes as they relate to
to
our community
community and, of course, I I look at your
rehabilitative needs.
neds. In doing so I've considered the
nature andand circumstances of thethe underlying crimes, thethe
information I I have about you from your statement to me,
4
4
your daughter's statement,
your daughter's statement, the
the arguments
arguments ofof counsel
counsel and, of
and, of
course, the presentence investigation as well as
sentencing
sentencing guidelines, which must be applied as
must be as aa matter
matter of
law.
law.
I've considered all of these factors and impose sentence for
the following reasons: The The [Appellant]
[Appellant] is 51 years of age,age,
which
which shows sufficient
sufficient maturity to understand the the
significance
significance of The [Appellant]
of his acts. The [Appellant] is intelligent enough
is intelligent enough
to understand the significance of his acts, since he obtained
his GED,
GED. The
The [Appellant]
[Appellant] has a a criminal history consisting of,
of,
by my count, six prior adult convictions. I've considered
the presentence report in detail, the guidelines of the
sentencing code. I've considered the penalties authorized by by
the legislature. I've
I've considered the character of the
[Appellant], argument of your attorney as well as, again, your
statement and the statement of your daughter. I've read
and
and considered the psychological
psychological and and psychiatric
psychiatric
evaluations attached to the PSI.
Because of prior contacts with the Court, II believe society
society
needs to be protected and there needs to be a adeterrent and
there's also the undue risk if given a
a sentence of probation or
partial confinement, he will commit another crime.
is warranted because a
Incarceration is a lesser sentence would
depreciate the seriousness of the crimes.
You are in need of correctional treatment that would
be most effectively provided by your commitment to an
institution.
institution,
Mr.
Mr, Stryker, you are alive today for one reason and one
reason only. On January 3, 2021, Officer John Bardo and
Officer Nelson Moreno allowed you to live. After you took two
shots at them, they would have been entirely Justified to
return that fire to what was, according to the file, a
a very clear
and easy target. They didn't do it. They showed restraint.
They showed the result of thorough training and, most of all,
they showed mercy. For that I I am in
n awe and for that, for
every day you have been alive since January 3, 2021 and
every day you live after, you should show gratitude.
55
(I.d.,_at
(ld, at 10: 25-12: 17) ((emphasis
emphasis supplied).
Appellant's trial counsel also spoke at the Sentencing Hearing,
Hearing, noting:
noting:
I've known Mr.
Mr. Stryker for a
a long time. I've represented him
on some earlier matters.
When I I first met him, he
he had a
a nice business, had aa number
of people working for
for him and, you know, on the whole,
whole, some
DU!s, but
DU!s, but aaresponsible
responsible person.
person. As you
you can
can see
see ... met
. . he met
aa woman and got involved with her. She got him involved
with crystal meth and he was off and running. As As you saw
from the presentence report, he using almost every
he is using day
every day
until he was arrested nin these matters,
Also, because of the use of crystal meth or in addition to it, it,
he developed a a psychosis, which continued long long after he
stopped using crystal
stopped using meth. During
crystal meth. During that
that time
time period, leading
period, leading
up to these events, IIwas talking to him regularly
regularly and he
he was
telling me about God and he's God's general and he had iD to
fight battles. you can talk totD him rationally at one level and
at another level, he's out there.
#
He was evaluated and at some point they found him
by
incompetent. They did the best thing they could for him by
getting him in
in Norristown.
At some point when he didn't take the medication, Your
Honor, 1
1 felt, very wisely, ordered him to take the medicine.
And when he did, tit was like aa change. People
People at Norristown
were shocked how much he changed so quicky when the
medicine did take effect.
I've
I've talked to him aa number of times since then
then and he
he has
certainly gained aa different perspective. He
He said he just
just
wasn't thinking dearly.
clearly. That's not an excuse,
excuse. Im
I'm not trying
to make an excuse.
#%
6
6
It's aa serious case. You can't go around shooting
shooting at police
police
officers. Lucky no one was injured, killed. Lucky he wasn't
Lucky he
killed in
killed in this particular matter. Not acceptable,
acceptable,
On the other hand, driven by mental illness to a
a large
large extent.
As
As you know, originally, the doctor told me to do an insanity
insanity
defense.
I
I said no, I
I don't think he is insane. IIthink he needs
to accept responsibility, which he has done. That's' a
a
good thing.
(4,-A 6: 16-9: 13)
(g,at 13) (emphasis
(emphasis supplied).
supplied).
On January 6, 2023, Appellant filed a
a Post Sentence Motion to Modify
Modify and
Reconsider the Sentence, I denied Appellant's
I denied Appellant's Motion on January 23, 2023.
January 23,
Appellant thereafter filed aa Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court from the
December 29, 2022, Judgment of Sentence. On February 2, 2023,
2023, I
I entered an
Order directing Appellant to
to file aa statement
statement of errors complained
complained of on appeal
appeal
pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b)
1925(b) and requiring
requiring the
Commonwealth to
to file aa response. Appellant
Appellant filed
filed his Statement of Errors on
February 10, 2023, and the Commonwealth responded on February
February 21,
21, 2023.
DISCUSSION
In
In his Statement of Errors, Appellant argues that the
the ""basis
basis for the appeal
appeal
sis an abuse of discretion, even though
though [the
[the sentence imposed] was below the
guidelines." ((1925(b)
guidelines." 1925(b) Statement of the Defendant, Shawn Stryker, 10,
Stryker, Feb. 10,
2023, at ,i
i 3). Appellant claims that IIerred because I "did not
not factor in,
in, at the
77
time of sentencing, the severe mental illness that [he]
[he] had suffered from at the
time of his misconduct." 9L
gt
"Sentencing is a
a matter vested i
in the sound discretion of the
sentencing judge, and aasentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a
a
manifest abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v.
y, Griffin, 932,
Griffin, 65 A.3d 932,
937
937 ( Super. 2013).
Pa. Super.
(Pa. 2013). Pn
An ""abuse
abuse of
of discretion
discretion is shown merely
is not shown merely by
by
an error in Judgment." gL. Instead, "the
"the appellant must establish, by
by
reference to
reference to the record, that
the record, that the sentencing court
the sentencing court ignored
ignored or
or misapplied
misapplied
the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias
or '
11I
Nill, or arrived at aamanifestly unreasonable
11will, 9L
unreasonable decision." gL
In discussing
discussing the
the rationale behind granting
rationale behind granting such deference to the
such deference the
sentencing court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated:
Pennsylvania Supreme
[Tlhe sentencing court isis in the best position to
[T]he
determine the proper penalty
the proper penalty for aa particular offense
particular offense
based upon an evaluation of the individual
circumstances before itit .... ..,. Simply stated, the
sentencing court sentences flesh-and-blood
sentencing flesh-and- blood defendants
and the
and the nuances
nuances of sentencing decisions
decisions are
are difficult
difficult to
gauge from
from the cold
cold transcript
transcript used
used upon appellate
appellate
review. Moreover, the sentencing court enjoys enjoys an
institutional advantage to appellate review, bringing
bringing to
its decisions an expertise, experience,
experience, and judgment
that
that should
should not lightly disturbed.
not be lightly disturbed. Even with with the
advent of
advent of the
the sentencing guidelines, the power power of of
sentencing °1s
sentencing ls aa function to be be performed by by the
sentencing court.
Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
, Walls
Wal,, 926 A.2d 957, 961-62
A.2d 957, 961-62 (Pa.
(Pa. 2007).
2007).
8
8
The sentencing court also has the discretion to impose
impose its sentences
concurrent or consecutive to
bo other sentences being imposed at the same
time. C=monwealth
time. Commonwealth v. Johnson-Daniels,
y, Johnson - Daniels, 167
167 A.3d
A.3d 17,
17, 28
28 (Pa. Super.
(Pa. Super.
2017). When the court relies on the defendant's prior criminal history
history
and finds that the defendant ISa high risk to
to re-offend and aadanger
danger to
the public, consecutive sentences are not clearly unreasonable. See
.Commonwealth v. Klueber, 904 A.2d 911,911
Commonwealth v, 911,911 (Pa.
(Pa. 2006).
Finally, the ""Supreme
Supreme Court has determined that where the trial
court is informed by aapre-sentence report, it is
is presumed that the court
is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations,
s considerations, and that
were the court has been s
so informed, its discretion should not be
disturbed." Commonwtlalth v Ventura,
Commonwtlalth v. Ventura, 975 1128, 1133 (Pa.
975 A.2d 1128, (Pa. Super.
Super.
Ct 2009) (citing
0 Co moonwealth
(citing f.D mmonwealth ,
v. Dev erg, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa.
Dyers, 1988)).
(Pa. 1988)).
Instantly, as noted
noted above, Appellant concedes that the sentencing
sentencing
guidelines for Counts 11and 22 provide aastandard sentencing range of 48
to 60 months incarceration. Appellant also acknowledges both
acknowledges that on both
Counts 11and 2, IIimposed a
aminimum sentence of 36 months-which
months- which is
in
n the mitigated range. Although IIalso imposed guideline-range
guideline- range
sentences on Counts 3
3through 8, IImade all periods of incarceration
concurrent to those imposed on Counts 1 2. Further,
1 and 2 Further, because
Appellant fired shots at two Officers, Appellant undoubtedly poses
poses a
agrave
grave
9
9
risk to the public and my decision to impose consecutive sentences on
Iand 2
Counts 1and 2 is not
not clearly unreasonable.
Appellant claims that IIdid not factor in
n the severe mental illness
that he allegedly suffered from at
at the time of his misconduct. However,
However,
the transcript of the Sentencing Hearing demonstrates that IIcarefully
considered Appellant's rehabilitative needs and the psychological and
psychiatric evaluations provided
provided to me. In
in addition tD being intimately
addition to intimately
familiar with the facts of the case and with Appellant's
Appellant's mental health from
my 'involvement
my involvement with the matter prior to Appellant's decision to enter aa
guilty plea, I
I relied on all of the information presented to me in the PSI
when fashioning Appellant's sentence.
Interestingly,
Interestingly, although
although Appellant claims
daims on appeal that he was
clearly suffering from aasevere psychosis during the pertinent
pertinent times, his
own trial
trial counsel admitted at sentencing that he chose not to pursue
pursue
an insanity defense because counsel did not think that Appellant
Appellant was
"insane." Instead, trial counsel emphasized that Appellant needed to
"accept responsibility" for his actions.
For these reasons, Appellant simply has no basis to claim that II
manifestly abused the discretion afforded to me to fashion aasentence
that IIdeemed appropriate. I
I correctly applied the sentencing guidelines
and relied on the psI
PSI In
in imposing aa mitigated- range sentence that
mitigated-range
acknowledged the grave danger that Appellant created by firing at Police
10
Officers who risked their lives to try to help him and who showed mercy
mercy
in
n sparing his life.
CONCLUSION
For these
For each of the
these reasons, each the errors that
that Appellant complains of
Appellant complains
are without merit and the
the appeal should be
be denied. Accordingly,
Accordingly, IIenter
the
the following:
11
THE COURT OF COMMON PLUS OP LANCASTIIR COUNTY, PIINNSYLVANIA
IN THI! PLNNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ••
••
V.
0430-2021
:
SHAWN Q
O STRYKER
STRYKER
ORD!R
AND NOW, this _ZL
7,1 day
'day of March, 2023, the Court hereby submits
1
this Opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania
Pennsylvanla Rules of Appetliite
Procedure.
ATTEST:
Copies to:
Coples Diana C. Kelleher, Esquire, Public Defender's Office
Andrew Gonzalez, Esquire, District Attorney's Office