Com. v. Coleman, T.

J. S06041/15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
TARON K. COLEMAN, :
:
Appellant : No. 1063 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 6, 2011
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division No(s).: CP-51-CR-0006681-2010
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 13, 2015
Appellant, Taron K. Coleman, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas following his open
plea of guilty to third-degree murder.1 He challenges the discretionary
aspects of his sentence of twelve to thirty years’ imprisonment. We affirm.
We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth in the trial court’s
decision. See Trial Ct. Op., 8/6/14, at 1-2, 4. After the Post Conviction
Relief Act2 (“PCRA”) court reinstated Appellant’s direct appeal rights,
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(c).
2
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J. S06041/15
Appellant timely appealed and timely filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement.
Appellant raises the following issue:
Is [A]ppellant entitled to a remand for resentencing since
the sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive,
unreasonable and not reflect of [A]ppellant’s character,
history and condition?
Appellant’s Brief at 4. For his sole issue, Appellant contends the trial court
failed to consider his character, placed undue emphasis on the seriousness
of the offense, and did not satisfy the sentencing factors. We hold Appellant
is due no relief.
This Court has stated that
[c]hallenges to the discretionary aspects of
sentencing do not entitle an appellant to appellate
review as of right. Prior to reaching the merits of a
discretionary sentencing issue:
[W]e conduct a four part analysis to
determine: (1) whether 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 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.A. §
9781(b).
Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are
generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing
hearing or raised in a motion to modify the sentence
imposed at that hearing.
-2-
J. S06041/15
Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533-34 (Pa. Super. 2006) (some
citations and punctuation omitted).
[T]he Rule 2119(f) statement must specify where the
sentence falls in relation to the sentencing guidelines and
what particular provision of the Code is violated (e.g., the
sentence is outside the guidelines and the court did not
offer any reasons either on the record or in writing, or
double-counted factors already considered). Similarly, the
Rule 2119(f) statement must specify what fundamental
norm the sentence violates and the manner in which it
violates that norm . . . .
Commonwealth v. Googins, 748 A.2d 721, 727 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en
banc). “Our inquiry must focus on the reasons for which the appeal is
sought, in contrast to the facts underlying the appeal, which are necessary
only to decide the appeal on the merits.” Id. at 727.
Instantly, Appellant timely appealed, preserved his issue in his post-
sentence motion, and included a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement in his brief.
See Evans, 901 A.2d at 533. Appellant’s Rule 2119(f) statement complies
with Googins as it contends his sentence was disproportionate and not
individualized to the circumstances. Appellant has raised a substantial
question by asserting that his sentence was contrary to the fundamental
norms underlying the sentencing process. See Googins, 748 A.2d at 727.
Accordingly, we examine the merits.
After careful review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the opinion
of the Honorable Steven R. Geroff, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s
opinion. See Trial Ct. Op. at 1-3 (holding Appellant’s prior record, multiple
-3-
J. S06041/15
arrests while on probation, similarity to prior offense, five infractions while
incarcerated, and results of presentencing investigation report justified
sentence). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/13/2015
-4-
Circulated 02/03/2015 04:12 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TRIAL DIVISION - CRIMINAL SECTION
COMMONWEALTH OF CP-S1-CR-0006681-2010
PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
SUPERIOR COURT
TARON COLEMAN NO. 1063 EDA 2014
FILED CP-51-CR-0006681-2010 Comm.
Opinion
v. Coleman, Taron K
AUG-062014 OPINION
.Criminal Appeals Unit 1111111111111111111111111
7182655751
First Judicial District of PA
GEROFF,J. AUGUST 6, 2014
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 8, 2011, Defendant entered into an open guilty plea to murder of the third
degree. On May 6, 2011, Defendant was sentenced to a term of incarceration of not less than
twelve (12) and not more than thirty (30) years. On May 9, 2011, trial counsel filed a timely
motion for reconsideration of the sentence imposed. On May 19, 2011, the sentencing court
denied the motion for reconsideration. Thereafter, no direct appeal was filed.
On February 23, 2012, Defendant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition. Janis Smarro,
Esquire was appointed to represent Defendant. On October 30, 2013, Janis Smarro filed an
amended PCRA petition raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. On March 20, 2014,
this court reinstated Defendant's appellate rights; Defendant filed a timely 1925 (b) statement.
Circulated 02/03/2015 04:12 PM
II. ISSUE
Defendant raises a single claim for appellate review-the sentence imposed was
unreasonable and excessive. Defendant contends that the sentence did not take into account his
character, history and condition and that the sentencing court impermissibly relied on factors
already contained within the Prior Record Score and Offense Gravity Score in arriving at the
sentence. According to Defendant, his character, history and condition warranted a sentence less
than twelve (12) years.
III. DISCUSSION
The right to appeal the discretionary aspects of a sentence is not absolute.
Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1274-79 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). When a challenge to
the discretionary aspects of a sentence is raised, allowance of appeal will be granted only if the
appellate court can glean that a substantial question exists that the sentence is not appropriate
under the Sentencing Code. 42 PA. C.S.A. § 9781 (b); a "substantial question" exists as to the
propriety of the sentence where a plausible argument is proffered by the Defendant that the
sentence violates a particular provision of the Sentencing Code or is contrary to the base,
fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing scheme. Commonwealth v. Boyer, 856 A.2d
149 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004). A sentence which is "manifestly excessive" has been held to raise a
substantial question warranting allowance of appeal. Id. Since the challenged sentence was
within the Sentencing Guidelines, the appellate court shall affirm the sentence imposed unless
the case involves circumstances where applying the guidelines would be "clearly unreasonable."
42 PA. C.S.A. § 9781 (c)(2).
The cOUli is vested with broad discretion in sentencing criminal defendants, because the
2
Circulated 02/03/2015 04:12 PM
trial court is in the best position to determine the proper penalty based on the individual
circumstances of the case. Commonwealth v. Ward, 568 A.2d 1242, 1243 (Pa. 1990). The court
must follow the general principles outlined in the Sentencing Code that the sentence imposed
should call for confinement consistent with: (l) the protection of the public; (2) the gravity of the
offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and the community; and (3) the
rehabilitative needs of the defendant. 42 PA. C.S.A. § 9721 (b). The Sentencing Guidelines are
not mandatory, and the trial court retains broad discretion in sentencing matters and may
sentence outside the Guidelines should the individualized facts and circumstances require. 42 PA.
C.S.A. § 9721(b); Commonwealth v. Ellis, 700 A.2d 948,958 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997).
Where a sentence is within the standard range of the Guidelines, the law in this
jurisdiction views the sentence as appropriate. Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centeno, 668 A.2d 536(Pa. Super. Ct. 1995) (stating that the combination of PSI and standard range sentence, absent
more, cannot be considered excessive or unreasonable). An allegation that a sentencing court
failed to consider certain mitigating factors generally does not necessarily raise a substantial
question warranting appellate review. Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54, 57 (Pa. Super.
Ct. 2003). When imposing a sentence, a court is required to consider the particular circumstances
of the offense and the character of the defendant. Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162,171-
72 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010). The character of the Defendant incorporates such factors as his prior
criminal record, age, personal characteristics, and potential for rehabilitation, all of which should
be weighed in the calculus to reach an appropriate sentence; when the court had the benefit of a
Pre-Sentence Investigation Report, it is presumed that the court was aware of relevant
information contained within and weighed those considerations along with any mitigating
circumstances. Commonwealth v. Ellis, 700 A.2d 948 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). Those who corne
3
Circulated 02/03/2015 04:12 PM
with a pattern of serious conduct are to be judged more harshly than those whose conduct
evidences no such pattern. Commonwealth v. Phillips, 492 A.2d 55 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985). When
a prior record score does not adequately represent Defendant's criminal background, both the
Sentencing Guidelines and case law authorize the court to consider unprosecuted criminal
conduct. Commonwealth v. P.L.s., 894 A.2d 120,131 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006).
The facts in this case are not in dispute. On the night in question, the Defendant's brother
was f()1'cibly removed from his home and beaten. In response, the Defendant took to the streets
with a weapon; he threatened to shoot anyone who did not get off the streets and return to their
homes. Rasheed Farrell unwarily walked into the center of the commotion on the streets and did
not hear the Defendant's rants. The Defendant shot and killed Mr. Farrell, a person uncOlmected
to the incident involving Defendant's brother; Mr. Farrell's death was a by-product of the
Defendant's uncontrollable anger and Mr. Farrell's presence at that point in time where
Defendant sought to wage war on anyone in his sights. The Defendant fired four shots, all of
which struck Mr. Farrell. (N.T. 05/06/2011, pp. 7-8, 19-20).
Defendant had a prior record score of one (1) and the offense gravity score was fourteen
(14). The Sentencing Guidelines called for a minimum sentence between 8Yz to 20 years.
Defendant was sentenced to a term of not less thm1 12 years and not more th,m 30 years in
prison. (N.T. 05/06/2011, pp. 6,24).
A presentence investigation report (PSI) was ordered. The PSI stated that the Defendant's
formidable years were mired in a very dysfunctional environment-his mother was addicted to
drugs, his father was in m1d out of prison for drug convictions, m1d a history of domestic violence
existed between his mother and his mother's boyfriend. (N.T. 05/06/2011, pp. 4-6).
The mental health report stated that the Defendant, then 23 years old, had been on his
4
Circulated 02/03/2015 04:12 PM
own since he was fourteen. The Defendant is unmarried even though he has three (3) confirmed
children with two women and possibly a fOUlih child with another female; there is also a history
of domestic violence with one of the females with whom he was involved. Defendant dropped
out of high school in the tenth grade, attended special classes for students with learning
disabilities and emotional disturbances while in school, and was determined to have a second
grade reading level when tested in the tenth grade. According to the mental health exam,
Defendant has deficiencies in short- and long-term memory and has developed emotional
solutions when placed under stress. (N. T. 05/06/2011, pp. 4-6).
Defendant's ability to abide by societal norms is speckled and suspect; notwithstanding
the two convictions incorporated into the prior record score, Defendant has had multiple arrests
tmd was on probation when the instant offense was committed. After the instant crime was
committed, Defendant was charged with VUFA and subsequently pled guilty, a conviction which
is not represented in the prior record score. The incident surroUllding the VUF A conviction
camlot be discounted; in a fashion exactly like the incident in the case sub judice, Defendant took
to the streets, yelling and screaming for people to vacate while waving and pointing a weapon at
bystanders. The only difference between the two cases is the result. FurthelIDore, even after
killing Mr. Fanell, Defendant engaged in the same f