Com. v. Slade, C.

J-S34023-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
COURTNEY LAMAR SLADE :
:
Appellant : No. 134 MDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 18, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-22-CR-0002936-2018
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED SEPTEMBER 16, 2020
Appellant, Courtney Lamar Slade, appeals from the judgment of
sentence of an aggregate term of 15½ to 40 years’ incarceration, imposed
after he pled guilty to robbery (threatening serious bodily injury), 18 Pa.C.S.
§ 3701(a)(1)(ii); aggravated assault, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(4); and burglary,
18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(1). Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of
his sentence on appeal. After careful review, we affirm.
Appellant’s convictions stem from the following facts. Appellant and a
cohort forcibly entered a home in a residential neighborhood at night. Inside
the home were two adult men, one adult female, and two six-year-old
children. Appellant and his companion were wearing gloves and masks, and
both were carrying guns. They held a gun to the head of the adult female,
and also pointed their guns at the two children. Additionally, a scuffle ensued
with one of the adult male victims, and he was badly beaten by Appellant
J-S34023-20
and/or his companion. Appellant and his cohort left the home with
approximately $900 and gaming equipment. Appellant, who had been cut
during the altercation with the victim, was subsequently identified by DNA
evidence obtained from blood found inside the home. He was arrested and
ultimately pled guilty to the above-stated offenses on October 21, 2019. His
cohort, however, was never identified or apprehended.1
On December 18, 2019, Appellant was sentenced as set forth, supra.
He filed a timely post-sentence motion for modification of his sentence, which
the court denied. Appellant then filed a timely notice of appeal, and he also
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 trial court thereafter filed
a Rule 1925(a) opinion. Herein, Appellant states two issues for our review:
A. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it failed to consider
[Appellant’s] long history of mental health and substance abuse
issues at sentencing?
B. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it improperly
considered [Appellant’s] failure to identify his codefendant to the
prosecution at sentencing?
Appellant’s Brief at 6 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
Appellant’s issues implicate 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
____________________________________________
1 We glean the facts of this case from the sentencing transcript, as it appears
that Appellant did not request that his guilty plea proceeding be transcribed.
See N.T. Sentencing, 12/18/19, at 2-3.
-2-
J-S34023-20
challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke
this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:
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, 589 Pa. 727, 909 A.2d 303 (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, 574 Pa. 759, 831
A.2d 599 (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)).
In this case, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and preserved his
issues in his post-sentence motion. However, he failed to include a Rule
2119(f) statement in his brief, and the Commonwealth has objected to that
omission. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 6 (stating that Appellant’s “brief does
not contain a [Rule] 2119(f) statement, which is fatal to [his] brief”).
Therefore, Appellant’s sentencing claims are waived. Commonwealth v.
-3-
J-S34023-20
Griffin, 149 A.3d 349, 353 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“If the Commonwealth objects
to the appellant’s failure to comply with [Rule] 2119(f), the sentencing claim
is waived for purposes of review.”) (citation omitted).2
Nevertheless, even if not waived, we would deem Appellant’s issues
meritless. It is well-settled 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).
Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in fashioning
his sentence because it failed to take into account his mental health and
substance abuse issues. Appellant also avers that the court improperly
considered the fact that he refused to identify his cohort in the armed robbery,
which he claims violated his constitutional right to remain silent.
These arguments are unconvincing. First, the trial court had the benefit
of a pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report and, therefore, we presume that
the court “was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s
character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory
factors.” Commonwealth v. Fowler, 893 A.2d 758, 766-67 (Pa. Super.
____________________________________________
2 We also note our displeasure with the fact that Appellant failed to attach to
his brief his Rule 1925(b) statement or the trial court’s opinion. See Pa.R.A.P.
2111(b), (d).
-4-
J-S34023-20
2006) (citation omitted). Moreover, defense counsel stressed to the court
that Appellant had mental health issues since the age of 17, and detailed his
diagnoses in that regard. Defense counsel also informed the court that
Appellant struggles with drug addiction. N.T. Sentencing at 6-7. Several
witnesses then testified on Appellant’s behalf, noting his efforts at sobriety
and the difficulties he has faced in his life. See id. at 7-14. In its Rule 1925(a)
opinion, the trial court states that it considered this information, as well as the
PSI report, in crafting Appellant’s sentence. Trial Court Opinion, 3/25/2020,
at 4. Based on this record, we would reject Appellant’s claim that the court
did not take into account his mental health and drug addiction issues.
We would also reject Appellant’s assertion that the court improperly
considered the fact that he refused to name his cohort in the robberies.
Appellant urges us to conclude that in taking this fact into account, the court
violated his constitutional right to remain silent. However, the record does
not support Appellant’s claim. Instead, the court considered the fact that he
refused to name his accomplice not to punish Appellant for exercising his right
to remain silent, but in assessing the impact of Appellant’s crimes on the
victims in this case. The court noted that the victims remain in fear that the
second, unidentified robber might return to their home and assault them once
again. See id. at 16. The court also observed that, by choosing not to name
his companion, Appellant was essentially bearing sole responsibility for the
egregious offenses committed in this case. Id. at 14. We would discern no
-5-
J-S34023-20
abuse of discretion in the court’s considering Appellant’s decision not to name
his cohort for these purposes.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 09/16/2020
-6-