Com. v. Clayton, W. ( 2021 )

J-S11007-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
WILLIAM CALEB CLAYTON
Appellant No. 707 WDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 28, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County
Criminal Division at No: CP-61-CR-0000640-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
WILLIAM CALEB CLAYTON
Appellant No. 708 WDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 28, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County
Criminal Division at No: CP-61-CR-0000641-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
WILLIAM CALEB CLAYTON
Appellant No. 709 WDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 28, 2020
J-S11007-21
In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County
Criminal Division at No: CP-61-CR-0000600-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
WILLIAM CALEB CLAYTON
Appellant No. 710 WDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 28, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County
Criminal Division at No: CP-61-CR-0000636-2019
BEFORE: STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J. FILED: SEPTEMBER 30, 2021
Appellant, William Caleb Clayton, appeals from the May 28, 2020
judgments of sentence1 imposing an aggregate 5½ to 30 years of
incarceration for unlawful contact with a minor-sexual abuse, indecent assault
of a person less than thirteen years of age,2 and related offenses. We affirm.
The four victims were girls aged fifteen, twelve (two victims), and
eleven. N.T. Sentencing, 5/8/20, at 18-20. Appellant, via social media,
provided the victims sexually explicit photos of himself and solicited nude
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 Appellant filed a separate notice of appeal at each docket.
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§6318(a)(1) and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(7).
-2-
J-S11007-21
photos of the victims. Id. During a video chat with one of the twelve-year-
old victims, he persuaded her to remove her clothing while he masturbated to
completion in front of her. Id. at 20. Appellant was eighteen going on
nineteen at the time of the offenses. Id. at 19.
Appellant entered guilty pleas on January 10, 2020. After imposition of
sentence, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion. The trial court denied
that motion on June 17, 2020. This timely appeal followed. Appellant raises
a single issue:
Whether the sentence [sic] court erred or abused its
discretion in that the court imposed a sentence without giving
consideration to all the relevant factors under 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9721(b), including but not limited to [Appellant’s] character and
rehabilitative needs, and the sentence is contrary to the
fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process and
guidelines.
Appellant’s Brief at 5.
Appellant preserved this issue in a post-sentence motion and timely
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. In accord with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), Appellant
claims his sentencing challenge presents a substantial question because it
implicates the trial court’s adherence to the fundamental norms underlying
the sentencing code. See, Commonwealth v. Cannon, 954 A.22d 1222,
1229 (Pa. Super. 2008) (noting that a substantial question exists where the
appellant shows “actions by the sentencing court inconsistent with the
Sentencing Code or contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the
sentencing process”), appeal denied, 964 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2009). We
-3-
J-S11007-21
disagree. In Cannon, the defendant’s assertion that the sentencing court
failed to consider, among other things, his age, rehabilitative needs, and lack
of a prior record, did not raise a substantial question. Id. at 1228-29.
Even if Appellant raised a substantial question, we would find no abuse
of discretion.
[T]he proper standard of review when considering whether
to affirm the sentencing court's determination is an abuse of
discretion. ...[A]n abuse of discretion is more than a mere error
of judgment; thus, a sentencing court will not have abused its
discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment exercised
was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice,
bias or ill-will. In more expansive terms, our Court recently
offered: An abuse of discretion may not be found merely because
an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but
requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality,
prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly
erroneous.
The rationale behind such broad discretion and the
concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review is that the
sentencing court is in the best position to determine the proper
penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the
individual circumstances before it.
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 169–70 (Pa. Super. 2010).
Where, as here, the sentence falls within the sentencing guidelines, this Court
will reverse if we find the application of the guidelines to be “clearly
unreasonable.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c)(2).
The record reflects that the trial court received the pre-sentence
investigation report and confirmed with defense counsel that there were no
corrections to be made. N.T. Sentencing, 5/8/20, at 14-15. The trial court
also received and read victim impact statements. Id. at 17-18. Appellant
-4-
J-S11007-21
testified that he completed his high school diploma and one thousand hours
of community service while incarcerated in county prison awaiting sentencing.
Id. at 27. He accepted responsibility for his actions and expressed remorse.
Id. at 26-27. Appellant’s mother testified that he suffers from bipolar
disorder. Id. at 31.
The district attorney requested an aggregate 82 months to 48 years of
incarceration, noting the impact on the victims and their desire to see long-
term consequences for Appellant. Id. at 21. Defense counsel argued for a
county sentence, noting Appellant’s young age and his need for treatment.
Id. at 23-26. The trial court imposed the sentence set forth above, noting its
disagreement with the severity of the Commonwealth’s recommended
sentence. Id. at 41-42. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences for
each victim. Id. at 41. The court explained that a lesser sentence would not
adequately reflect the seriousness of the offenses. Id. at 47.
In summary, the record reflects that the trial court was aware of
Appellant’s mental health and his need for treatment, and aware of the
progress Appellant made while in prison awaiting sentencing. The court’s
sentence fell at the low end of the standard guideline range and was
considerably less severe than the sentence the Commonwealth requested.
The record does not support Appellant’s contention that the trial court failed
to account for his rehabilitative needs. Rather, the court’s express statement
-5-
J-S11007-21
at the conclusion of sentencing reflected its belief that it imposed the lowest
sentence it could without diminishing the seriousness of the offenses.
Appellant’s reliance on Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927(Pa. Super. 2003), is misplaced. The Parlante Court held that a trial court’s
failure to consider all relevant factors may constitute an abuse of discretion.
Id. at 930. As we have explained, the sentence imposed in this case reflects
the court’s careful consideration of all relevant factors and its effort to impose
the lowest sentence consistent therewith. We discern no abuse of discretion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judge Colins joins the memorandum.
Judge Kunselman files a concurring memorandum in which Judge Colins
joins.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/30/2021
-6-