Com. v. Mendez, C. ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • J-S35022-17
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    v.                              :
    :
    :
    CHRISTOPHER A. MENDEZ                      :
    :
    Appellant                :   No. 1637 WDA 2016
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 11, 2016
    in the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-61-CR-0000069-2015,
    CP-61-CR-0000376-2016
    BEFORE:      LAZARUS, J., RANSOM, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
    MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.:                              FILED AUGUST 17, 2017
    Appellant, Christopher A. Mendez, appeals from the judgment of
    sentence of three to ten years of imprisonment, imposed following his guilty
    plea to criminal trespass, endangering the welfare of children, and driving
    under the influence.1 We affirm.
    The following statement of facts and procedural history is garnered
    from the trial court opinion, which is supported by the record.        See Trial
    Court Opinion, 12/14/2016, at 1-3. Following a hearing with the trial court
    in March 2015, Appellant entered a guilty plea to criminal trespass. In May
    2015, Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for eight to twenty-four
    ____________________________________________
    1
    Respectively, see 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3503(a)(1)(ii), 4304(a)(1); and 75 Pa.C.S.
    § 3802(a)(1).
    *
    Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
    J-S35022-17
    months less one day, followed by two years of probation.           Appellant was
    given credit for time served.         In September 2015, Appellant was paroled
    until his maximum expiration date of January 2017.
    In May 2016, Appellant was pulled over by law enforcement for driving
    erratically.   There was an odor of alcohol on his breath, and Appellant’s
    speech was slurred. Two children, ages three and four, were in the car at
    the time of this incident.        Appellant was arrested.   Thereafter, Appellant
    stipulated to violation of his parole, which was revoked, and pleaded guilty
    to endangering the welfare of children as well as driving under the influence
    (“DUI”) – minor occupants.
    In October 2016, Appellant was resentenced on the criminal trespass
    to two to five years of imprisonment. Appellant was also sentenced to one
    to five years of imprisonment for endangering the welfare of children, and
    one to five years of imprisonment on the DUI - minor occupants2 to be
    served concurrent to each other, but consecutive to the criminal trespass
    conviction.    This resulted in an aggregate term of three to ten years of
    incarceration. Appellant was again given credit for time served. Appellant
    ____________________________________________
    2
    Although the instant DUI was Appellant’s first, which would typically limit
    his sentence to six months maximum imprisonment, the presence of minors
    in the vehicle resulted in the offense being graded as a first-degree
    misdemeanor punishable by five years imprisonment. See 75 Pa.C.S. §
    3803(b)(5).
    -2-
    J-S35022-17
    filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence, which was denied in October
    2016.
    Thereafter, Appellant timely filed an appeal and a court-ordered
    Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court issued a responsive opinion.
    Appellant presents the following question for our review:
    1.   Is the sentence imposed upon Mr. Mendez unreasonable,
    manifestly excessive and thus an abuse of discretion?
    Appellant’s Brief at 5.
    In the sole issue before this Court, Appellant argues that his sentence
    was manifestly excessive and that the court failed to adequately consider
    evidence presented at sentencing.        Appellant’s Brief at 17.   Appellant’s
    challenge is to the discretionary aspects of his sentence.          See, e.g.,
    Commonwealth v. Lutes, 
    793 A.2d 949
    , 964 (Pa. Super. 2002) (stating
    claim that sentence is manifestly excessive challenges discretionary aspects
    of sentencing).
    Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an
    appellant to an appeal as of right.     Commonwealth v. Sierra, 
    752 A.2d 910
    , 913 (Pa. Super. 2000). 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
    -3-
    J-S35022-17
    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) (most
    citations omitted), appeal denied, 
    909 A.2d 303
    (Pa. 2006).
    When appealing the discretionary aspects of a sentence, an appellant
    must invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction by including in his brief a
    separate concise statement demonstrating that there is a substantial
    question as to the appropriateness of the sentence under the Sentencing
    Code.     Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 
    812 A.2d 617
    , 621 (Pa. 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.”     Commonwealth v. Phillips, 
    946 A.2d 103
    , 112 (Pa. Super. 2008) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks
    omitted), appeal denied, 
    954 A.2d 895
    (Pa. 2008), cert. denied, 
    129 S. Ct. 2450
    , (2009).
    The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be
    evaluated on a case-by-case basis.     See 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 process.”     
    Sierra, 752 A.2d at 912-13
    .      A claim that a
    -4-
    J-S35022-17
    sentence is manifestly excessive might raise a substantial question if the
    appellant’s Rule 2119(f) statement sufficiently articulates the manner in
    which the sentence imposed violates a specific provision of the Sentencing
    Code or the norms underlying the sentencing process.        See 
    Mouzon, 812 A.2d at 627
    . The court's exercise of discretion in imposing consecutive as
    opposed to concurrent sentences is generally not viewed as raising a
    substantial question.   Commonwealth v. Gonzalez-Dejusus, 
    994 A.2d 595
    , 598 (Pa. Super. 2010); see also Commonwealth v. Hoag, 
    665 A.2d 1212
    , 1214 (Pa. Super. 1995) (explaining that a defendant is not entitled to
    a ‘volume discount’ for his or her crimes).
    As an initial matter, we note that Appellant timely filed a notice of
    appeal, preserved the instant issue in a motion to reconsider sentence, and
    included a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement in his brief. Therefore, our analysis
    turns on whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed
    from is inappropriate under the Sentencing Code.          See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
    9781(b). We conclude Appellant has failed to present a substantial question
    for our review.
    Appellant argues that the sentencing scheme in the instant case was
    at the higher range of the possible sentences and that all the sentences
    should have run concurrent.     Appellant’s Brief at 9.   However, Appellant’s
    aggregate sentence was composed exclusively of standard range guideline
    sentences and was less than the statutory maximum for the crimes charged.
    Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 10/11/2016, at 18-20. As previously stated, a
    -5-
    J-S35022-17
    sentencing court’s       decision to      impose   consecutive   versus concurrent
    sentences does not generally raise a substantial question. See Gonzalez-
    
    Dejusus, 994 A.2d at 598
    . Likewise, Appellant’s contention that the court
    failed to consider mitigating circumstances does not present a substantial
    question. Commonwealth v. Moury, 
    992 A.2d 162
    , 175 (Pa. Super. 2010)
    (observing that the sentencing court’s refusal to weigh the proposed
    mitigating factors as Appellant wished does not raise a substantial
    question).3     Moreover, Appellant’s bald assertion that his sentence was
    unreasonable lacked citation to specific provisions of the Sentencing Code
    allegedly violated and was devoid of argument that the sentence was
    contrary to sentencing norms.
    Accordingly, Appellant has failed to raise a substantial question for our
    review, and no relief is due.
    Judgement of sentence affirmed.
    ____________________________________________
    3
    We note that the trial court was aware of Appellant’s parental
    responsibilities and acceptance of his actions. N.T., 10/11/2016, at 19-22.
    The court also had the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation report. 
    Id. at 16.
    “Our Supreme Court has ruled that where pre-sentence reports exist,
    the presumption will stand that the sentencing judge was both aware of and
    appropriately weighed all relevant information contained therein.”
    Commonwealth v. Griffin, 
    804 A.2d 1
    , 9 (Pa. Super. 2002), appeal
    denied, 
    868 A.2d 1198
    (Pa. 2005), cert. denied, 
    125 S. Ct. 2984
    (2005).
    -6-
    J-S35022-17
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 8/17/2017
    -7-