Com. v. Porter, J. ( 2021 )

J-S16026-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JAHLIL PORTER :
:
Appellant : No. 1833 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 14, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0003319-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JAHLIL PORTER :
:
Appellant : No. 1834 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 14, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0003320-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JAHLIL PORTER :
:
Appellant : No. 1835 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 14, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0003321-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
J-S16026-21
:
v. :
:
:
JAHLIL PORTER :
:
Appellant : No. 1836 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 14, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0003322-2019
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 16, 2021
Jahlil Porter appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after he
pleaded guilty to four counts of Third-Degree Murder, two counts of
Conspiracy to Commit Murder, two counts of Robbery, and one count of
Firearms not to be Carried Without a License.1 We affirm based on the trial
court’s opinion.
On January 28, 2020, Porter pleaded guilty to Third-Degree Murder and
related offenses after he master-minded the execution style killing of four
individuals. Porter and his two co-conspirators entered the house of his victims
under the guise of buying drugs, but with the intent of killing the two men and
stealing the drugs. Upon finding two women in the house in addition to the
two men, Porter amended the plan to kill all four. The three armed
conspirators ambushed the four individuals, demanding their drug stash and
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c), 903(c), 3701(a)(1)(i), and 6106(a)(1),
respectfully.
-2-
J-S16026-21
forcing them into the basement. Porter executed each victim with a shot to
the head.
After his arrest, Porter initially attempted to implicate a third-party as
the shooter, but ultimately admitted his role in the killings and pleaded guilty.
In preparation for sentencing, the court ordered completion of a presentence
investigation report (“PSI”). After reviewing the report and holding a hearing,
the court sentenced Porter to 12½ to 25 years of imprisonment for each count
of murder, with concurrent sentences of 12½ to 25 years of imprisonment for
conspiracy and one to two years’ for the possession of a firearm. The court
imposed no further penalty on the remaining charges. The aggregate sentence
imposed was 50 to 100 years of imprisonment. After the court denied Porter’s
motion for reconsideration of sentence, this timely appeal followed.
Porter raises one issue in this appeal: a challenge to discretionary
aspects of sentencing.
1. Did not the trial court impose an unreasonable and excessive
sentence of 50 to 100 years, which ensures that appellant will
remain imprisoned during his lifetime, where the sentence was
based upon the nature of the crimes and society’s protection,
but failed to account for appellant’s background, character or
rehabilitative needs, all in violation of the fundamental norms
which underlie the Sentencing Code?
Porter’s Br. at 3.
We review a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence for an
abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 206 A.3d 551, 567
(Pa.Super. 2019). Before exercising our jurisdiction to review the merits of
-3-
J-S16026-21
such a challenge, we must determine whether: 1) the appellant preserved the
issue; 2) the appeal is timely; 3) the brief includes a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f)
statement; and 4) the appellant has raised a substantial question. See
Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033, 1042–43 (Pa.Super. 2014). Here,
Porter preserved the issue in his post-sentence motion, filed a timely appeal,
and his brief includes a Rule 2119(f) statement. Therefore, we must consider
whether he raised a substantial question.
A defendant presents a substantial question if the defendant “sets forth
a plausible argument that the sentence violates a provision of the sentencing
code or is contrary to the fundamental norms of the sentencing process.”
Commonwealth v. Conte, 198 A.3d 1169, 1174 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation
omitted).
In his Rule 2119(f) statement, Porter argues that the trial court imposed
an excessive, aggregate sentence that was a de facto life sentence. He also
claims that the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors. Porter has
raised a substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Coulverson, 34 A.3d
135, 143 (Pa.Super. 2011) (finding substantial question raised in claim of
manifestly excessive aggregate sentence where court failed to consider
appellant’s rehabilitative needs). Accordingly, we will consider Porter’s
sentencing claim on the merits.
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
-4-
J-S16026-21
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. Shull, 148 A.3d 820, 831 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citation
omitted). “Where a pre-sentence investigation report exists, we presume that
the sentencing judge was aware of the relevant information regarding the
defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating
statutory factors.” Commonwealth v. Guth, 735 A.2d 709, 712 (Pa.Super.
1999) (citation omitted). Imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent
sentences lies within the sound discretion of the sentencing court. See
Commonwealth v. Lloyd, 878 A.2d 867, 873 (Pa.Super. 2005).
After a review of the parties’ briefs, the certified record, and the relevant
law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Barbara A. McDermott,
we conclude that Porter’s issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion
comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented.
See Trial Ct. Op., filed Nov. 19, 2020, at 4-11 (“1925(a) Op.”) (finding that
sentencing court considered gravity of offense, protection of public, and
Porter’s rehabilitative needs when it imposed sentence; court considered PSI
and all relevant factors at sentencing; court considered mitigating evidence
including Porter’s personal history and his cooperation in this matter). The
record supports the trial court’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm based on the
trial court’s opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-5-
J-S16026-21
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/16/2021
-6-
Circulated 09/01/2021 02:21 PM