Com. v. Craddock, D.

J-S04024-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
DEVIN CRADDOCK :
:
Appellant : No. 1134 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 11, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000370-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000371-2018, CP-51-CR-0000372-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000373-2018, CP-51-CR-0000374-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000375-2018, CP-51-CR-0004039-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
DEVIN CRADDOCK :
:
Appellant : No. 1135 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 11, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000370-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000371-2018, CP-51-CR-0000372-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000373-2018, CP-51-CR-0000374-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000375-2018, CP-51-CR-0004039-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
DEVIN CRADDOCK :
:
Appellant : No. 1136 EDA 2022
J-S04024-23
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 11, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000370-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000371-2018, CP-51-CR-0000372-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000373-2018, CP-51-CR-0000374-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000375-2018, CP-51-CR-0004039-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
DEVIN CRADDOCK :
:
Appellant : No. 1137 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 11, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000370-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000371-2018, CP-51-CR-0000372-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000373-2018, CP-51-CR-0000374-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000375-2018, CP-51-CR-0004039-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
DEVIN CRADDOCK :
:
Appellant : No. 1138 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 11, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000370-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000371-2018, CP-51-CR-0000372-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000373-2018, CP-51-CR-0000374-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000375-2018, CP-51-CR-004039-2018
-2-
J-S04024-23
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
:
DEVIN CRADDOCK :
:
Appellant No. 1139 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 11, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000370-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000371-2018, CP-51-CR-0000372-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000373-2018, CP-51-CR-0000374-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000375-2018, CP-51-CR-004039-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
v. :
:
:
DEVIN CRADDOCK :
:
Appellant : No. 1140 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 11, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000370-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000371-2018, CP-51-CR-0000372-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000373-2018, CP-51-CR-0000374-2018,
CP-51-CR-0000375-2018, CP-51-CR-0004039-2018
BEFORE: MURRAY, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
-3-
J-S04024-23
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED MAY 18, 2023
Appellant, Devin Craddock, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his open
guilty plea to seven (7) counts each of robbery and possessing instruments of
crime (“PIC”), and one (1) count each of involuntary deviate sexual
intercourse (“IDSI”), attempted IDSI, and attempted rape.1 We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows.
In November 2017, Appellant went on a crime spree, committing several
armed robberies and a sexual assault over the course of a few days. Police
made an arrest after the victims identified Appellant from photo arrays, and
the Commonwealth charged Appellant with multiple offenses at seven (7)
different docket numbers. On October 8, 2021, Appellant entered open guilty
pleas to the aforementioned offenses. Following the entry of the pleas, the
court deferred sentencing and ordered a presentence investigation (“PSI”)
report and mental health evaluation.
On March 11, 2022, the court conducted Appellant’s sentencing hearing.
After receiving argument from counsel, the court imposed an aggregate
sentence of twenty-five (25) to fifty (50) years’ imprisonment, followed by
three (3) years of probation. Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion
on March 21, 2022. In it, Appellant argued that the court violated the
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701, 907, 3123, and 901, respectively.
-4-
J-S04024-23
Sentencing Code “as the court seemed to exclusively focus on the gravity of
the offense and on [Appellant’s] disciplinary infractions while incarcerated
pretrial and while in juvenile placement[.]” (Post-Sentence Motion, filed
3/21/22, at 3). Appellant also claimed that the court “considered improper
sentencing factors in determining the sentence including unsubstantiated
accusations of prior criminal conduct in which formal charges were never
brought[.]” (Id. at 3-4). Despite Appellant’s protestations, the court denied
the post-sentence motion on March 22, 2022.
Appellant timely filed separate notices of appeal on April 20, 2022. On
April 21, 2022, the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement of errors complained of on appeal. Appellant timely filed his Rule
1925(b) statement on May 4, 2022. This Court subsequently consolidated the
appeals sua sponte.
Appellant now raises two issues for this Court’s review:
Did not the sentencing court violate the requirements of 42
Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) of the Sentencing Code, which states that
the sentence imposed should call for confinement that is
consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of
the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim
and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of
Appellant, as the court seemed to exclusively focus on the
gravity of the offense and on Appellant’s purported
disciplinary infractions while incarcerated pre-trial and
during his immediately [preceding] juvenile placements
when it imposed an aggregate sentence that was manifestly
excessive, but did not focus on the rehabilitative needs of
Appellant that were evident in the record from his severe
mental health problems, his severe intellectual disabilities,
his history of being abused and subject to violence as a
child, his lack of maturity having just emerged from years
-5-
J-S04024-23
of Juvenile Court custodial placements, and his serious
medical history of multiple weekly or daily seizures,
amongst his many shortcomings?
Did not the trial court improperly consider sentencing
factors in its decision to construct a lengthy total sentence
that included the consideration of contested and
unsubstantiated accusations of prior misconduct for which
formal charges were never brought or adjudicated?
(Appellant’s Brief at 3-4).
Appellant’s issues are related, and we address them together. Appellant
contends that the sentencing court violated the Sentencing Code when it
“focused almost exclusively on the gravity of the offense and on an allegation
of a sexual misconduct made while Appellant was in custody at a juvenile
placement.”2 (Appellant’s Brief at 19). Appellant asserts that the court placed
undue emphasis on the misconduct allegation without providing adequate
____________________________________________
2 The PSI report described the incident of “sexual misconduct” as follows:
Juvenile Probation records noted that in 2015, a Special
Report was received from YDC Loysville staff regarding an
incident that occurred at the agency on April 29, 2015. The
report stated that on this date, a roommate of [Appellant]
made an allegation of inappropriate sexual conduct by
[Appellant] in the Allegheny Cottage. It was reported that
[Appellant] approached his roommate’s bed while
masturbating and ejaculated on his bed linens as well as his
head. An internal investigation ensued at which time
[Appellant] denied the allegations. Pennsylvania State
Police were contacted following a request to press charges
from the alleged victim. … [H]owever, the District
Attorney’s Office pursued no charges.
(PSI Report, dated 1/18/22, at 4).
-6-
J-S04024-23
consideration of Appellant’s rehabilitative needs. Appellant insists that the
court did not give proper weight to his health issues, intellectual disabilities,
history of abuse, and lack of maturity following his juvenile placements.
Appellant maintains that the court’s failure to place proper weight on the
relevant sentencing factors resulted in “a lengthy aggregated sentence … that
was manifestly excessive despite the fact that the individual sentences were
at the low end of the Sentencing Guidelines without application of the deadly
weapon enhancement.” (Id. at 20).
Regarding the court’s consideration of the misconduct allegation from
Appellant’s juvenile placement, Appellant relies on Commonwealth v.
P.L.S., 894 A.2d 120, 131 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 588 Pa. 780, 906
A.2d 542 (2006), for the proposition that “uncharged criminal conduct may
not be used for sentencing purposes when the record is devoid of the
necessary evidentiary link between the defendant and the uncharged prior
conduct.” (Id. at 24). While Appellant acknowledges that the PSI report
references the incident of sexual misconduct from his juvenile placement,
Appellant maintains that the Commonwealth did not bring criminal charges
“despite both an internal and an external investigation.” (Id.) As such,
Appellant believes that the court improperly considered this incident at the
time of sentencing, and “the distasteful act of a juvenile … should not be the
basis for lengthening the sentence of an adult.” (Id. at 41). Appellant
concludes that the court abused its discretion in fashioning his sentence, and
-7-
J-S04024-23
this Court must vacate the judgment of sentence and remand the matter for
a new sentencing hearing. We disagree.
As presented, Appellant’s claim challenges the discretionary aspects of
his sentence.3 See Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768
(Pa.Super. 2015) (en banc), appeal denied, 633 Pa. 774, 126 A.3d 1282(2015) (stating challenge to imposition of consecutive sentences as unduly
excessive, together with claim that court failed to consider rehabilitative
needs, constitutes challenge to discretionary aspects of sentencing);
Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa.Super. 2006) (stating claim
that sentence was excessive based on impermissible factors constitutes
challenge to discretionary aspects of sentencing). “Challenges to the
discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as
of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008),
cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264, 129 S. Ct. 2450, 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009). Prior
to reaching the merits of a discretionary aspects of 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
____________________________________________
3 “[W]hile a guilty plea which includes sentence negotiation ordinarily
precludes a defendant from contesting the validity of his … sentence other
than to argue that the sentence is illegal or that the sentencing court did not
have jurisdiction, open plea agreements are an exception in which a
defendant will not be precluded from appealing the discretionary aspects of
the sentence.” Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 365 n.5 (Pa.Super.
2005) (emphasis in original). “An ‘open’ plea agreement is one in which there
is no negotiated sentence.” Id. at 363 n.1. Here, Appellant’s guilty plea did
not include a negotiated sentence.
-8-
J-S04024-23
at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify
sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410 [now Rule 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).
Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal
denied, 589 Pa. 727, 909 A.2d 303 (2006) (quoting Commonwealth v.
Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2005)).
When appealing the discretionary aspects of a sentence, an appellant
must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by including in his brief a separate concise
statement demonstrating a substantial question as to the appropriateness of
the sentence under the Sentencing Code. Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 571
Pa. 419, 812 A.2d 617 (2002); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). “The requirement that an
appellant separately set forth the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal
furthers the purpose evident in the Sentencing Code as a whole of limiting any
challenges to the trial court’s evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging
on the sentencing decision to exceptional cases.” Phillips, supra at 112
(emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830
A.2d 1013, 1018 (Pa.Super. 2003). “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
-9-
J-S04024-23
process.” Caldwell, supra at 768. An appellant’s “challenge to the
imposition of his consecutive sentences as unduly excessive, together with his
claim that the court failed to consider his rehabilitative needs upon fashioning
its sentence, presents a substantial question.” Id. at 770. Likewise, a
substantial question is raised when an appellant alleges that his sentence is
excessive because of the trial court’s reliance on impermissible factors. See
Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058, 1064-65 (Pa.Super. 2011).
Here, Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal, he preserved his issues
in the post-sentence motion, and his appellate brief includes a Rule 2119(f)
statement. Appellant’s claims also raise substantial questions as to the
appropriateness of the sentence imposed. See Caldwell, supra; Allen,
supra. Accordingly, we proceed to address the merits of Appellant’s claims.
This Court reviews discretionary sentencing challenges based on the
following standard:
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 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. Bankes, 286 A.3d 1302, 1307 (Pa.Super. 2022) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Clemat, 218 A.3d 944, 959 (Pa.Super. 2019)).
When imposing [a] sentence, a court is required to consider
the particular circumstances of the offense and the
- 10 -
J-S04024-23
character of the defendant. In considering these factors,
the court should refer to the defendant’s prior criminal
record, age, personal characteristics and potential for
rehabilitation.
Commonwealth v. Summers, 245 A.3d 686, (Pa.Super. 2021), appeal
denied, ___ Pa. ___, 276 A.3d 700 (2022) (quoting Commonwealth v.
DiClaudio, 210 A.3d 1070, 1075 (Pa.Super. 2019)).
“[L]ong standing precedent … recognizes that [the Sentencing Code]
affords the sentencing court discretion to impose its sentence concurrently or
consecutively to other sentences being imposed at the same time or to
sentences already imposed.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 249 A.3d 1206,
1212 (Pa.Super. 2021) (quoting Commonwealth v. Marts, 889 A.2d 608,
612 (Pa.Super. 2005)). “We will not disturb consecutive sentences unless the
aggregate sentence is ‘grossly disparate’ to the defendant’s conduct, or
‘viscerally appear[s] as patently unreasonable.’” Id. (quoting
Commonwealth v. Gonzalez-Dejusus, 994 A.2d 595, 599 (Pa.Super.
2010)). Defendants convicted of multiple offenses are not entitled to a
“volume discount” on their aggregate sentence. See Commonwealth v.
Clary, 226 A.3d 571, 581 (Pa.Super. 2020), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 281
A.3d 302 (2022).
Additionally, the PSI report “shall include information regarding the
circumstances of the offense and the character of the defendant sufficient to
assist the judge in determining sentence.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 702(A)(3). “[I]t is
well-settled that when the trial court has the benefit of a [PSI] report, it is
- 11 -
J-S04024-23
presumed that the court was both aware of and appropriately weighed all
relevant information contained therein.” Brown, supra at 1212.
Instantly, the court sentenced Appellant, with the benefit of a PSI
report, on March 11, 2022. Prior to imposing the sentence, the court provided
an on-the-record statement of reasons to support the sentence. Contrary to
Appellant’s assertions, the court considered Appellant’s rehabilitative needs
and personal characteristics:
I have considered a lot of things in this case. It starts with
the [PSI] report, mental health, guidelines, sentencing
code, arguments of counsel, … the mitigation report, the
doctor’s report, … as well as the facts and circumstances of
these cases; and I don’t think anybody disputes that you
had a hard life and a hard upbringing. And things have
happened to you and certain limitations and everything else.
The issue here, also, is … public safety and the community.
These robberies, I don’t think people fully understand
sometimes how both scary and dangerous gunpoint robbery
is without knowing whether somebody is going to shoot you
anyway because that is what happens today. People get
shot even when they give up their stuff. And the gunpoint
robberies are very dangerous and concerning.
But then you have the two sexual assault cases, which take
it into another realm of whatever the issues are that you
have that would cause you to—these were males who were
attacked at gunpoint.
I read through the [PSI] and I read through it a number of
times. And what happened in juvenile custody is extremely
concerning. Because from what I can see, … there seem to
be other cases.
But in any case, you went to a number of places. You were
at Wordsworth Academy and then you went to YDC Loysville
for almost a year and a half and then Caring People’s
Alliance, and the last commitment was to YDC Danville.
- 12 -
J-S04024-23
Loysville and Danville are the most severe security juvenile
placement facilities for those who need to really be in those
facilities.
And from what I can see here from the report, at Loysville,
which is very concerning to me, that there is a report that
you approached your roommate’s bed while masturbating.
You masturbated on his head, and I am referring to Page 4
on the report. And that you admitted to that. There were
no charges pursued. This was not in Philadelphia. It was
reported to the Loysville staff.
And then I also noticed that in custody—I am just looking
here. There were a number of incidents in the county
prison. And I … believe there were disciplinary actions and
stuff like that. And you did all of these crimes basically a
month after you got out of, what was supposed to be,
treatment; extensive treatment, I think over three or four
years, it seems like, at different facilities.
This is very concerning, because you had the potential and
ability to deal with a lot of problems or people who wanted
to help you deal with a lot of problems. And yet all of these
things occurred.
The mental health exam in this case has you with PTSD,
anxiety disorder, et cetera. But I don’t know what will help
you, particularly. And I don’t know whether you can move
forward. I hope you can, because you will be released at
some point.
But I can say this, with all the juvenile treatment and all of
everything else that has happened, you still went out and
did these things.
(N.T. Sentencing, 3/11/22, at 19-21).
After announcing the sentences for each offense, the court reiterated its
hope that Appellant could achieve rehabilitation by utilizing the programs
available in the state prison system:
And I want to say something, I would have given you a lot
- 13 -
J-S04024-23
more, frankly, but for the fact of your age and for the fact
that you have served time during COVID; and the fact that
I hope you will get the tools never to do this again.
What happened to these victims is not just appalling, it is
disgraceful. It is people just walking down the street, gun
pulled on them, their stuff taken, which is bad enough; and
a couple of people sexually assaulted.
I can’t rewind the tape of what happened to you as a
juvenile, but I hope you will get the necessary help,
treatment, and avail yourself of that in whatever state
prison you go to. And when you are classified, it is going to
be very important that you tell them what exactly has
happened to you, your mental health history, and
everything so they can get you the right treatment and get
you to the right place.
(Id. at 24). Finally, the court emphasized that Appellant’s sentences fell
“within a standard range,” and the court “gave [Appellant] credit for pleading
guilty.” (Id. at 26).
On this record, the court did not commit an abuse of discretion. See
Bankes, supra. The court’s reliance on the PSI report, combined with its on-
the-record statements in support of the sentences, demonstrates that it was
aware of the relevant sentencing considerations. See Summers, supra. We
conclude that the court appropriately weighed those considerations.
Moreover, the PSI report detailed the allegation of misconduct from
Appellant’s juvenile placement. We cannot say that such information
constituted an impermissible sentencing factor. Compare P.L.S., supra(holding relevant case law did not prohibit sentencing court from considering
prior uncharged criminal conduct where evidence linking defendant to other
- 14 -
J-S04024-23
crimes stood unrefuted).4 Therefore, Appellant is not entitled to relief on his
challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing. Accordingly, we affirm
the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/18/2023
____________________________________________
4 In his brief, Appellant does not exactly deny his involvement in the
misconduct. Rather, Appellant notes that the “allegation was originally
contested, and only later did Appellant make some type of admission to the
State Police.” (Appellant’s Brief at 40). Appellant also suggests that “we do
not know the nature of the interrogation that occurred between the police
and” Appellant. (Id.) Under these circumstances, we disagree with
Appellant’s conclusion that the record is devoid of the necessary evidentiary
link between Appellant and the uncharged conduct. Moreover, when viewed
in context, the court’s on-the-record statement in support of Appellant’s
sentence makes clear that the uncharged conduct was just one of many facts
impacting the sentencing decision.
- 15 -