Com. v. Heidler, D. ( 2022 )

J-A18042-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
DANIEL WILLIAM HEIDLER :
:
Appellant : No. 1376 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 24, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-62-CR-0000358-2020,
CP-62-CR-0000364-2020
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
DANIEL W. HEIDLER :
:
Appellant : No. 1377 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 24, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-62-CR-0000358-2020,
CP-62-CR-0000364-2020
BEFORE: STABILE, J., MURRAY, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: NOVEMBER 17, 2022
Daniel W. Heidler appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed
following his open guilty pleas to offenses stemming from his operation of a
methamphetamine lab, his possession of a stolen firearm and ATV, and his
high-speed flight from the police. Heidler claims the sentence is excessive and
J-A18042-22
clearly unreasonable, and that the court failed to consider his rehabilitative
needs and the non-violent nature of the offenses. We affirm.
The trial court summarized the underlying facts as follows.
Between June 27, 2020[,] and July 7, 2020, law enforcement was
informed that [Heidler] was allegedly operating a
methamphetamine lab in Warren County. Police found that
[Heidler] was in possession of methamphetamine, numerous drug
paraphernalia used to ingest methamphetamine, multiple raw
ingredients used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, and a
stolen side-by-side ATV. [Heidler] lied to implicate another person
. . . with his own criminal activity. While in possession of a stolen
.22 caliber black composite rifle, he allegedly fired the weapon in
[the victim’s] direction and struck him on the back of the head as
well as kicking the victim in the face. On July 7, 2020, [Heidler]
attempted to evade law enforcement by vehicle, committing
several traffic violations during a high-speed chase.[1]
Trial Court Opinion, filed 12/15/21, at 1-2.
Heidler entered an open guilty plea to Persons not to Possess Firearms,
graded as a first-degree felony; False Reports to Law Enforcement; two counts
of Receiving Stolen Property; Operating a Methamphetamine Lab; Possession
of a Controlled Substance; Fleeing or Attempting to Elude Police Officer;
Driving While Under Suspension; Driving on Right Side of Roadway; Stop
Signs and Yield Signs; Driving Vehicle at Safe Speed; and Reckless Driving.2
As a result of Heidler’s guilty plea, the Commonwealth moved to nolle prosequi
____________________________________________
1According to the transcript of the guilty plea, Heidler admitted to driving over
80 miles an hour on a gravel road. N.T., 7/8/21, at 22-23.
2Respectively, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6105(a)(1), 4906(a), and 3925(a); 35 P.S. §§
780-113.4(a)(1) and 780-113(a)(16); and 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3733(a), 1543(a),
3301(a), 3323(b), 3361, and 3736(a).
-2-
J-A18042-22
16 other counts, including two counts of Aggravated Assault. It also agreed to
make a certain sentence recommendation to the court.
Prior to sentencing, the court ordered and reviewed a Pre-Sentence
Investigation Report (“PSI”). Trial Ct. Op. at 7.3 At the sentencing hearing,
Heidler requested a sentence at the lower end of the standard range. Heidler
also addressed the court, stating, “I take full responsibility for everything. I
ask that you take into consideration what my lawyer has asked and that’s it.”
N.T., 9/24/21, at 8. The Commonwealth stated it was not opposed to the low
end of the standard range for some of the counts and that it was not opposed
to concurrent sentences on other counts, for a recommended aggregate
minimum sentence of 149 months. Id.
Before imposing sentence, the court stated the following:
In considering your sentence I’m taking into account your
comments, the attorneys’ comments, I reviewed probation’s
report, the criminal complaint, affidavit of probable cause, the
report regarding your period of incarceration from the Warren
County Jail.
I can’t imagine a greater threat to the community th[a]n a repeat
felon on state parole possessing a firearm and operating a
methamphetamine lab, and this is your second conviction for
operating a methamphetamine lab.
Your second offense has to do with you fleeing law enforcement
because you know what’s facing you at the end of it and you
driving away from them at a high rate of speed.
These are serious offenses. Your record as a repeat felon obviously
elevates the guidelines as well.
____________________________________________
3 A copy of the PSI is not included in the certified record.
-3-
J-A18042-22
Id. at 8-9.
The court imposed the following sentences. For Persons not to Possess
Firearms: 84 to 168 months’ incarceration; for False Reports: six to 12
months’ incarceration; for Operating a Methamphetamine Lab: 35 to 70
months’ incarceration; for Possession of a Controlled Substance: six to 12
months’ incarceration; for two counts of Receiving Stolen Property: 40 to 80
months’ and 27 to 54 months’ incarceration; and for Fleeing or Attempting to
Elude Police Officer: 24 to 48 months’ incarceration. The court imposed fines
on the remaining counts. Each of the sentences of incarceration fell in the
standard range of the sentencing guidelines. The court ran all periods of
incarceration consecutively, such that the aggregate sentence was 222 to 444
months’ (18.5 to 37 years’) incarceration.
Heidler filed a post-sentence motion. The court held a hearing, at which
it noted the sentences would run concurrently with the sentence imposed by
another trial court. N.T., 10/22/21, at 6. It also stated,
I disagreed with the Commonwealth on this one. I think [Heidler]
will open his third meth lab the first opportunity he gets. His
record as a repeat felon, his record through the years, his fleeing
from police, he’s convicted of operating a meth lab while he’s on
state parole for operating a meth lab. So, yeah, a message needs
to be sent to him.
Id. at 8. The court denied the motion.
Heidler appealed. His sole issue is “Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt issued an
excessive and unduly harsh sentence where the [c]ourt imposed consecutive
sentences for each offense [Heidler] had plead[ed] guilty to and failed to take
-4-
J-A18042-22
into consideration [Heidler]’s rehabilitative needs and the non-violent nature
and circumstances of the offenses?” Heidler’s Br. at 10.
A criminal appellant does not have an automatic right to review of the
discretionary aspects of a sentence. Commonwealth v. King, 182 A.3d 449,
453 (Pa.Super. 2018). An appellant seeking our review of discretionary
sentencing claims must (1) timely appeal; (2) preserve the issue in the trial
court; (3) include in the appellate brief a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) concise statement
of the reasons for the appeal; and (4) present a substantial question in the
Rule 2119(f) statement that the sentence is not appropriate under the
Sentencing Code. Id.Heidler filed timely notices of appeal, preserved his discretionary
sentencing claims in a timely post-sentence motion, and included a Rule
2119(f) statement. In the statement, Heidler argues he raises a substantial
question because he alleges the length of the aggregate sentence—222 to 444
months’ incarceration—is clearly unreasonable and excessive, considering the
non-violent nature of his crimes. Heidler’s Br. at 21-24. Heidler also asserts
the court’s statements on the record prior to imposing sentence reveal that
the court failed to consider his rehabilitative needs and the non-violent nature
of the offenses, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b). Id. at 23-24. We have
previously found that a claim of excessiveness in conjunction with a claim that
the court did not consider relevant sentencing criteria poses a substantial
question. See Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1272-74 (Pa.Super.
2013). We therefore turn to the merits of Heidler’s claims.
-5-
J-A18042-22
Heidler argues, “A sentence may be unreasonable if the sentencing court
fails to consider the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.” Heidler’s Br. at 27
(citing Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957, 964 (Pa. 2007)); see also
id. at 29 (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721). He claims a consideration of his
rehabilitative needs is lacking from the factors the court recited in open court.
Id. at 29.
Heidler also likens his case to Commonwealth v. Dodge, 957 A.2d
1198, 1202 (Pa.Super. 2008). He argues that in that case, this Court held the
imposition of consecutive, standard-range sentences on 37 counts of receiving
stolen property—an aggregate of 52½ to 111 years’ incarceration—was an
abuse of discretion, due to the non-violent nature of the offenses and limited
financial impact of the crimes. Id. at 27-28. Heidler contends that his
aggregate sentence is similarly excessive given the fact that he pleaded guilty
to “non-violent offenses with little financial impact.” Id. at 28.
We will not disturb a sentence absent an abuse of discretion. Walls, 926
A.2d at 961. “An abuse of discretion may not be found merely because an
appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a
result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will,
or such lack of support so as to be clearly erroneous.” Id. (citation omitted).
Further, where the court has imposed a sentence falling within the
sentencing guidelines, we will only vacate and remand where “the case
involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be
-6-
J-A18042-22
clearly unreasonable[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c)(2). In making this
determination, we will consider:
(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history
and characteristics of the defendant.
(2) The opportunity of the sentencing court to observe the
defendant, including any presentence investigation.
(3) The findings upon which the sentence was based.
(4) The guidelines promulgated by the commission.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(d). Our scope of review is plenary. Walls, 926 A.2d at
961 n.2.
The Sentencing Code requires the trial court to “follow the general
principle that the sentence imposed should call for total confinement that is
consistent with section 9725 (relating to total confinement) and 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 the
defendant.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b). However, the court need not “parrot the
words of the Sentencing Code, stating every factor that must be considered
under Section 9721(b).” Commonwealth v. Feucht, 955 A.2d 377, 383
(Pa.Super. 2008). Rather, “the record as a whole must reflect due
consideration by the court of the statutory considerations.” Id. Where the
court has the benefit of a PSI report, we presume the court was aware of all
appropriate sentencing factors and considerations and consider the
requirement that the court place its reasoning on the record to be satisfied.
Commonwealth v. Johnson-Daniels, 167 A.3d 17, 26 (Pa.Super. 2017)
-7-
J-A18042-22
(citing, inter alia, Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12, 18-19 (Pa.
1988)).
Here, the court had the benefit of a PSI report. We therefore presume
the court weighed all relevant factors, including Heidler’s rehabilitative needs.
Id.Moreover, the court’s statements at sentencing do not reflect that the
court neglected to consider Heidler’s rehabilitative needs. Rather, the court
considered that Heidler committed the offense of operating a
methamphetamine laboratory while on state parole for that very same
offense, and that Heidler’s response to contact with law enforcement was to
engage in a high-speed chase. The court posited that given these facts, upon
Heidler’s release, he is likely to reoffend.4 The court therefore considered
____________________________________________
4 The trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion also expresses the court’s
consideration of Heidler’s likelihood of reoffense in response to Heidler’s claim
of excessiveness:
[Heidler]’s sentence is not unduly harsh considering the nature of
the crimes. [Heidler] committed these crimes while on state
parole, and he committed these crimes while in possession of a
loaded illegal firearm. [Heidler] has a prior record going back to
2002 including a previous conviction for operating a
methamphetamine lab in Erie County in 2017. He was on parole
for that conviction at the time the present offenses were
committed. . . .
The Court reviewed the pre-sentence report prepared by the
Warren County Probation Department and imposed an
individualized sentence considering all relevant sentencing
factors. [Heidler]’s prior state sentence for operating a
methamphetamine lab did not dissuade him from committing the
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-8-
J-A18042-22
Heidler’s rehabilitative needs but concluded that Heidler is not amenable to
rehabilitation. See Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721, 732
(Pa.Super. 2000) (a record of prior police involvement goes to a defendant’s
amenability to rehabilitation, a factor the court must consider under 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b)).
Nor do we find grounds to disturb Heidler’s sentence upon his claim that
his offenses were “non-violent offenses with little financial impact.” In Dodge,
we found the imposition of 52½ to 111 years’ incarceration clearly
unreasonable, as “the life sentence [was] comprised largely of consecutive
sentences for receiving stolen costume jewelry.” 957 A.2d at 1202; see also
id. at 1201 n.4 (discussing value of stolen items). Here, in contrast, Heidler’s
operation of a methamphetamine lab, possession of a firearm, and high-speed
flight from the police posed life-threatening dangers to himself and others.
And, while the precise value of the stolen firearm and ATV are not of record,
it is evident they are worth more than the items at issue in Dodge.
Heidler’s aggregate sentence of 18.5 to 37 years’ incarceration is not
clearly unreasonable given his criminal conduct, and the court did not abuse
its discretion in imposing it.
____________________________________________
same offense while under supervision. Nor did it prevent him from
unlawfully possessing a firearm and eluding the police. The Court
viewed [Heidler] as a significant danger to the community and saw
nothing in the pre-sentence report or sentencing record that
justified a “volume discount” and concurrent sentences.
Trial Ct. Op. at 7-8.
-9-
J-A18042-22
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/17/2022
- 10 -