Com. v. Moist, A.

J-S51015-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ANTHONY MOIST,
Appellant No. 74 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 6, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Union County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-60-CR-0000008-2008
BEFORE: BOWES, OTT, and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED AUGUST 13, 2014
Anthony Moist appeals from the judgment of sentence of five to ten
years incarceration to be followed by five years probation imposed by the
trial court after he violated the conditions of his State Intermediate
Puni
Appellant was initially sentenced on April 14, 2009, to one and one-
half to three years incarceration to be followed by six years probation for
count of conspiracy to commit PWID. Thereafter, the court revoked
after he acknowledged violating the conditions of the program by using
heroin. It then sentenced Appellant on December 6, 2013, to two
J-S51015-14
concurrent five-to-ten year periods of incarceration followed by five years
probation. Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion contending that the
probati
This appeal ensued and the trial court directed Appellant to file and serve a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.
Appellant complied, and the matter is now ready for our review. The sole
sentencing Appellant, particularly were the sentence was longer than that
requested by the Commonwealth and Appellant is likely to face new
sentence. To adequately preserve a discretionary sentencing claim, the
defendant must present the issue in either a post-sentence motion or raise
the claim during the sentencing proceedings. Commonwealth v.
Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1042 (Pa.Super. 2013) (en banc). Further, the
-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
Id. Importantly,
here is no absolute right to appeal when challenging the discretionary
Id ppeal is permitted only after this Court
determines that there is a substantial question that the sentence was not
Id.-2-
J-S51015-14
Appellant preserved his issue in his post-sentencing motion, 1925(b)
concise statement, and included a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement within his
brief. Therein, he asserts, without citation, that he has raised a substantial
question for review because Appellant admitted his violations, is likely to
receive an additional sentence for the new offenses that resulted in his
The Commonwealth initially counters that Appellant has not raised a
substantial question. In this respect, it notes that bald challenges to
imposition of consecutive sentences has been held not to raise a substantial
question for our review. Cf. Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263(Pa.Super. 2013) (noting distinction between bald challenge to consecutive
nature of sentences with de
does not present a substantial question as to whether the sentence was
appropriate under the sentencing code. Appellant has failed to cite a single
case in support of his contention that he has presented a substantial
question for review. Appellant does not indicate in his 2119(f) statement
what provision of the sentencing code the court allegedly violated, nor does
he marshal any argument that the fundamental norms of the sentencing
process were violated. See e.g. Commonwealth v. Hoch, 936 A.2d 515,
518 (Pa.Super. 2007).
-3-
J-S51015-14
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/13/2014
-4-