Com. v. Santana, Z. ( 2023 )

J-A07029-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ZACHARY SANTANA :
:
Appellant : No. 1994 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 28, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-09-CR-0002767-2021
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED MAY 2, 2023
Zachary Santana appeals from the judgment of sentence entered
following his guilty pleas to aggravated assault, conspiracy to commit
aggravated assault, terroristic threats, possession of an instrument of crime,
simple assault, and conspiracy to commit simple assault.1 Santana argues the
court imposed a manifestly excessive sentence, failed to consider all relevant
sentencing factors and to adequately state the reasons relied upon, and relied
on improper factors. We affirm.
At his sentencing hearing, Santana stipulated to the following. A minor,
N.M., posted on social media that Santana was “going crazy at her house and
punching things.” N.T., Sentencing, 6/28/22, at 6. Some of her friends,
including C.S., went to her house to confront Santana. An altercation between
____________________________________________
1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702, 903, 2706, 907, 2701, and 903, respectively.
J-A07029-23
C.S. and Santana ensued. Later that day, C.S. and Santana met at the play
yard of an elementary school to finish the fight. C.S. was accompanied by a
group of his friends. Santana and his companions arrived in several vehicles.
At least one of Santana’s friends had a gun, and Santana had a knife. Most of
C.S.’s friends ran away when Santana’s group began to approach, and
Santana yelled to them, “Stop or we will shoot.” Id. at 7. Santana stabbed
C.S. multiple times in the back, abdomen, and lower thorax area. Once C.S.
was on the ground, Santana and others in the group kicked him. C.S.’s friend,
E.G., helped him contact the police. C.S. was bleeding profusely and was taken
to the hospital. Each of C.S.’s lungs were punctured, and he had fractured
ribs, two broken forearms, “through and through stab wounds,” and superficial
wounds to his face and shoulder. Id. at 7-8.
After Santana fled, he threw the knife out of a car window and went to
a friend’s house to wash off the blood. He posted photos on social media of
police cars looking for him, with captions stating, “[F]uck the police,” and,
“I’m going to die tonight.” Id. at 8. Two days after the assault, Santana’s
mother2 made him turn himself in to the police. He gave a statement admitting
to the assault. Santana told the police the name of one of his friends that had
participated but would not identify any others.
The court acknowledged it had received a pre-sentence investigation
(“PSI”) report, and Santana’s counsel and the attorney for the Commonwealth
____________________________________________
2According to her testimony, she is the ex-wife of Santana’s biological father.
See N.T. at 31.
-2-
J-A07029-23
both told the court they had no objections or corrections to the PSI. Id. at 4,
47. The court acknowledged standard ranges under the Sentencing
Guidelines, and that aggravated range for aggravated assault was a minimum
of 85 to 96 months’ incarceration and the aggravated range for conspiracy
was 67 to 78 months’ incarceration. Id. at 20.
The Commonwealth introduced victim impact statements by C.S., C.S.’s
mother, and C.S.’s father, and read them into the record. In its Rule 1925(a)
opinion, the court summarized the impact of the assault on C.S. and his family
as follows.
While [C.S] has physically recovered from his injuries, mentally
he still suffers tremendously. [C.S.] has nightmares, trouble
sleeping, and constantly experiences pain. He went from being an
aspiring college athlete to no longer even being able to attend high
school after the assault. He underwent several surgeries due to
recovery complications and hours and hours of physical therapy
to perform the most basic of tasks. Further, not only has [C.S.]’s
life been forever changed, but the lives of his family will also never
be the same[.] [C.S.]’s Mother testified that her other children
slept in her bedroom because they were so terrified of someone
coming into their home and harming them. She testified that she
and her husband, [C.S.]’s stepfather, needed to purchase an
alarm system and firearm to even feel an ounce of safety in their
own home and that she still experiences severe anxiety every time
[C.S.] and his siblings are out of sight. [Santana]’s callous
decision shattered the lives of [C.S.] and his family, and they all
will be forever traumatized by the assault.
Trial Court Opinion, filed September 19, 2022, at 7 (internal citations
omitted).
The Commonwealth also informed the court of Santana’s prior record,
including juvenile adjudications of delinquent for simple assault and theft by
-3-
J-A07029-23
unlawful taking, and convictions for unauthorized use of an automobile,
receiving stolen property, and possessing a small amount of marijuana.
Santana testified that in 2020, he had been involved in a car accident
which fractured his neck and gave him a traumatic brain injury. He was
hospitalized for two months and is still recovering. Santana’s counsel asked
the court to consider a doctor’s report it had submitted. Santana’s counsel
stressed that the doctor’s report stated that Santana’s brain injury had created
cognitive difficulties in his problem solving, decision making, and controlling
emotional outbursts.
Santana further testified that C.S. had attacked him at N.M.’s house
while he was sleeping but said that his stabbing C.S. in retaliation “was the
stupidest decision of [his] life.” Id. at 26. He claimed the other people in his
group at the fight had been friends of the one person whose name he gave
the police, and not people he knows himself. He apologized to the court and
to C.S. and his family, and stated he takes full responsibility for his actions.
He also stated he “now understand[s] how [his] brain injury played a huge
part into [his] reaction with such violence.” Id. at 28. Santana stated he is
committed to becoming a functioning member of society and bettering his
mental health. He informed the court he now takes Lexapro, Seroquel, and
Remeron. He stated, “I never meant for any of that to happen to C.S. Neither
did I know that things were going to escalate that much just by letting my
friend take me across the street to confront him.” Id. at 46.
-4-
J-A07029-23
Santana’s stepmother, a social worker, also testified. She said she
raised Santana since he was three years old, and that he had “a great
childhood.” Id. at 31. She acknowledged that Santana has had anger issues
throughout his life, and stated he has taken medication for ADHD and received
therapy since he was a juvenile. She stated Santana changed after he turned
18, she believes his brain injury played a role in the current assault, and he
needs mental help.
Before imposing sentence, the court stated the following:
I have to say, I don’t really think I’ve heard a good explanation
for what happened – six, seven, eight of you? That’s not enough?
You’ve got to take a knife to a fight? . . .
Then you have to stab him and stab him again and again
and again stabbing him in the back. And when he’s on the ground,
kick him? And then say that it was just a bad decision and it got
out of hand and you’re sorry? I think you’re sorry. I don’t know if
you’re sorry for what you did to him as much as you are for finding
yourself in this predicament but I will accept what you have to
say. It does not excuse what you did.
Does it really matter if there are guns? You couldn’t just
stand there and have a fight like – not that that’s good but you
couldn’t fight him man to man? You gotta bring a knife and all
your friends? That’s what I don’t understand.
You’re lucky you’re not going to jail for life. Do you realize
how close he came to dying? You stabbed him twice in the back,
once in the stomach. He had broken bones throughout his body
from being kicked and beaten by you and, presumably, your
friends – not that they’re on trial here because you haven’t
revealed the identity of any of them except for the one – multiple
stab wounds to his arms and using his arms to defend himself.
The facts are just – much like other cases we’ve heard today. The
facts of this case are just horrific.
You’re 21 years old. Your life has been changed. His life may
be changed forever. He has to live with not just the physical scars
-5-
J-A07029-23
but the emotional scars of what you did to him and what could
have been for him in his life. We don’t know, but the odds are
from what I’m being told is, he will never fully recover from what
you did to him.
The indication is, he’s had multiple surgeries. Even today,
he still has pain, he’s not pain free, and his one passion in life
playing basketball has been taken from him. Enjoying his senior
year of high school has been taken from him. Over what? Over
doing a good deed trying to protect you from maybe doing
something to a 16-year-old young woman. That’s what we’re
looking at.
And you have a long history of anger and aggressive
behavior. That’s in the report. Anger issues, long history of anger
issues and aggressive behavior. The report says you suffer from
anger issues. You have had multiple misconducts at the Bucks
County Correctional Facility while you’ve been there, you’ve
displayed disregard for others.[3]
You have failed to comply when you were in juvenile
detention with placement. You failed to comply with the directives
when released into the community as an adult. [The doctor’s
report and the PSI] both indicate that you had a neglectful home
environment.
That’s until the young woman who testified before me today
came along and at least someone had a positive influence in your
life. I understand that you’ve had, maybe not an ideal upbringing
but I understand that. You had a bad car accident which resulted
in, perhaps, a brain injury and other issues that affect you to this
day.
But you have displayed anger issues long before that
accident. And I think in the report even, Miss Blancl reported at
the juvenile detention or juvenile proceeding in December of 2018
that you’re extremely disrespectful. You don’t abide by curfews,
____________________________________________
3 The PSI report is not in the certified record. According to the court’s Rule
1925(a) opinion, Santana has “a well-documented history of violent outbursts
— beginning as a juvenile in 2016 when he was adjudicated delinquent of
Simple Assault, Harassment, and Disorderly Conduct and extending to just
before sentencing when he was is in the Bucks County Correctional Facility
and received several misconducts for fighting and threatening guards.” Trial
Ct. Op. at 6-7. Santana does not contest these statements.
-6-
J-A07029-23
you punch holes in the walls, which I find to be ironic since that’s
what you were doing in this case.
So we know that you’ve had a long history of aggressive
behavior and anger issues, and culminating in the stabbing of
another individual. So we’ve taken into consideration the
information I have about you and we’ll incorporate [sic] for the
purposes of this record and our reasons for sentence. We’ll
incorporate the [PSI] and [the doctor’s] report.
I’ve gone over the guidelines with you, discussed with you
the impact upon the victim and, of course, the need to protect the
victim or the community from you going forward. Until you get
your anger under control and your aggressive behavior under
control, I think you present a danger to just about anybody out
there in the community that you disagree with.
As long as you’re out there and you don’t have these things
under control, you’re a danger to anybody and everybody you
come in contact with when you get mad. I think as you stand here
today, you seem like a nice young man. You’re polite, you’re
respectful, but there is a dark side to you that causes you to
behave or act out in way that only those who experience it can
understand.
And so I think the need to protect the community and your
need for rehabilitation which, again, is extensive and considerable
because you will be back here or you will be back in someone
else’s courtroom unless you get this under control. So hopefully
you’ll find some type of program or the state will find some type
of program that can meet your needs. So for those reasons, I
believe a sentence of total confinement is appropriate.
. . . I should say that I do give him credit for turning himself in;
although it was at the insistence of another individual. He did turn
himself in and he did plead guilty and he did give a statement
implicating himself and he had accepted responsibility for his
actions today.
Id. at 47-53.
The court sentenced Santana to nine and one-half to 20 years’
incarceration for aggravated assault, 20 years’ concurrent probation for
conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, and two years’ consecutive
-7-
J-A07029-23
probation for terroristic threats. The court imposed no further penalty on the
remaining charges. The court ordered that Santana have no contact with C.S.
or his family, and that he be assessed for mental health treatment or anger
issues.
Santana filed a motion for reconsideration. He claimed the sentence
“exceeds what is necessary to protect the public and what is necessary to
rehabilitate” him, and that the court “failed to consider mitigating factors” or
his “age, conduct, character, criminal history, [and] rehabilitative needs.”
Motion to Modify and Reconsider Sentence, 7/1/22, at ¶¶ 5-7. The court
denied the motion.
Santana appealed. He raises one issue: “Did the [t]rial [c]ourt abuse its
discretion in sentencing [Santana] by imposing manifestly excessive
sentences, failing to consider all relevant factors, failing to adequately state
the reasons relied upon and relying on improper factors in imposing said
sentence?” Santana’s Br. at 4.
“The right to appellate review of the discretionary aspects of a sentence
is not absolute[.]” Commonwealth v. Snyder, 289 A.3d 1121, 1125
(Pa.Super. 2023) (quoting Commonwealth v. Conte, 198 A.3d 1169, 1173
(Pa.Super. 2018)). Before we reach the merits of a discretionary sentencing
claim, we must determine whether (1) the appeal was timely, (2) the appellant
preserved his issues, (3) the appellant’s brief includes a concise statement for
the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), and
(4) the statement raises a substantial question. Id. at 1126. “A substantial
-8-
J-A07029-23
question exists when the appellant makes a colorable argument that the
sentencing judge’s actions were either inconsistent with a specific provision of
the Sentencing Code or contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the
sentencing process.” Id.
Santana’s appeal was timely, he preserved his issue in his post-sentence
motion, and he included a Rule 2119(f) statement in his brief. In it, Santana
argues the court violated fundamental sentencing norms because it relied
primarily on the nature of the crime and did not contemplate the protection of
the public or Santana’s rehabilitative needs. He contends the sentence was
manifestly excessive considering his youth, his history of mental illness, and
his traumatic brain injury. He has thus presented a substantial question. See
id. (finding substantial question raised where appellant claimed court
“disregarded her rehabilitative potential and sentenced her to a manifestly
excessive sentence”). We therefore turn to the merits of his argument.
Santana asserts his sentence for aggravated assault and conspiracy
each fell above the aggravated range of the Sentencing Guidelines (which
went up to minimums of 96 months and 78 months, respectively), and that
his aggregate sentence of 114 to 240 months was manifestly excessive.
Santana claims that the transcript of the sentencing hearing shows that the
court focused mainly on the gravity of the offense and did not consider the
mitigating factors or Santana’s rehabilitative needs.
Santana argues he was only 21 years old at the time of the assault, and
that he had recently been involved in a severe car accident. He asserts that
-9-
J-A07029-23
he was hospitalized for two months following the accident and was unable to
recognize family members and had to relearn to walk. He claims the doctor’s
report discussed his ensuing difficulties with emotional regulation and
explained that his below-average intellect and ADHD can contribute to mood
disorders when coupled with abuse. Santana alleges that when he was three
years old, he was removed from his mother’s care due to abuse and neglect,
and that afterwards, he lived with his father, who was in and out of jail. These
circumstances “detracted . . . from [his] ability to forge a strong sense of self.”
Santana’s Br. at 21 (quoting the doctor’s report). Santana claims the court
also failed to consider that he had accepted full responsibility for his actions,
including turning himself into the police, waiving his preliminary hearing and
arraignment, pleading guilty, and apologizing.
A court has broad discretion over sentencing, and we will only vacate a
sentence falling outside of the guidelines if it is “unreasonable.”
Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957, 961, 963 (Pa. 2007); 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9781(c)(3). A decision is unreasonable in this context if it “is irrational or
not guided by sound judgment.” Walls, 926 A.2d at 963 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted); accord Commonwealth v. Sarvey, 199 A.3d
436, 456 (Pa.Super. 2018).
The Sentencing Code requires a court to impose a sentence 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 the defendant.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b). If it deviates from the ranges
- 10 -
J-A07029-23
of minimum sentence-lengths recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines,
the court must state its reasons for doing so. Id. However, “[a] sentencing
court need not undertake a lengthy discourse for its reasons for imposing a
sentence or specifically reference the statute in question, but the record as a
whole must reflect the sentencing court’s consideration of the facts of the
crime and character of the offender.” Commonwealth v. Rush, 162 A.3d
530, 544 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citation omitted). In addition, “[a] sentencing
court’s indication that it has been informed by a [PSI] report can satisfy the
requirement of placing reasons for imposing the sentence on the record.”
Commonwealth v. Johnson-Daniels, 167 A.3d 17, 26 (Pa.Super. 2017).
The court’s sentence was rational, based on the appropriate factors
under the Sentencing Code, and accompanied by a sufficient statement of
reasons. As the court explained at the time of sentencing, its sentence was
guided by the “horrific” facts of the assault, its impact on the victim, Santana’s
poor excuses for his actions, and his history of violence. N.T. at 47-53. The
record belies any suggestion that the court failed to consider Satana’s
traumatic brain injury or Santana’s need for rehabilitation. Rather, it shows
the court considered these factors in conjunction with Santana’s inability to
control his anger before the accident and his failure to positively respond to
any previous attempts at treatment. Moreover, the court’s consideration of a
PSI report rebuts Santana’s suggestion that the court did not consider all
relevant sentencing criteria or that it failed to state sufficient reasoning for
departing from the Sentencing Guidelines. See Johnson-Daniels, 167 A.3d
- 11 -
J-A07029-23
at 26. To the extent that Santana contends the court did not afford proper
weight to any specific facts related to his personal history or his brain injury,
as detailed in the PSI and doctor’s report, those arguments are waived by
Santana’s failure to ensure those documents’ inclusion in the certified record.
Commonwealth v. Midgley, 289 A.3d 1111, 1120 (Pa.Super. 2023).
The court also duly considered that Santana ultimately turned himself
in to the police and apologized but weighed these facts alongside his failure
to take full responsibility. In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the court further
elaborated on this point as follows.
Offensively, but not shockingly, [Santana] has repeatedly
minimized his role in the assault. He blames his friend for taking
him to confront C.S. and insists he did not know it would “escalate
that much” (despite being the one to bring the knife and gun).
While this [c]ourt considered the fact that [Santana] apologized
for his actions and requested that he be able to give [C.S.] and
his family an apology letter, it is the first time [Santana] had
shown remorse for his actions since the date of the attack.
However, in the same breath he used to apologize, he also
attempted to blame a traumatic brain injury stemming from a
2020 car accident for his aggressive behavior, despite the clear
indication that [Santana] engaged in violent behaviors long before
2020. Unsurprisingly, the PSI indicates [Santana] has a high risk
of reoffending and this [c]ourt has no reason to believe that
conclusion is incorrect.
Trial Ct. Op. at 7-8 (internal citations omitted).
As the court’s sentence was not unreasonable, we affirm.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
- 12 -
J-A07029-23
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/2/2023
- 13 -