Com. v. Russell, C. ( 2023 )

J-S18021-23 & J-S18022-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL :
:
Appellant : No. 889 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 5, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0011005-2009
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL :
:
Appellant : No. 890 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 5, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0011006-2009
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL :
:
Appellant : No. 891 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 5, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0011010-2009
COMMONWEALTH OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
PENNSYLVANIA : OF
J-S18021-23 & J-S18022-23
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL :
:
Appellant No. 892 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 5, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal
Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011011-2009
COMMONWEALTH OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
PENNSYLVANIA : OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL :
:
Appellant No. 893 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 5, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal
Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011012-2009
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL :
:
Appellant : No. 894 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 5, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0011013-2009
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
-2-
J-S18021-23 & J-S18022-23
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL :
:
Appellant : No. 895 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 5, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0011030-2009
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL :
:
Appellant : No. 896 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 5, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0011090-2009
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL :
:
Appellant : No. 897 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 5, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0011091-2009
-3-
J-S18021-23 & J-S18022-23
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 13, 2023
In these consolidated appeals,1 Appellant, Christopher Russell, appeals
from the November 5, 2021 orders entered in the Philadelphia County Court
of Common Pleas which granted in part and denied in part his petition filed
pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46.
Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of an aggregate term of 55 to
110 years of incarceration imposed after the PCRA court vacated Appellant’s
judgments of sentence only at Docket Nos. 11006-09 and 11010-09 and
resentenced him. After careful review, we affirm.
The facts and procedural history relevant to our disposition are as
follows. From September 2008 through March 2009, Appellant committed a
series of violent robberies against nine victims, most of them elderly women,
whom he had followed to their homes. The Commonwealth charged Appellant
at separate docket numbers with multiple counts of Aggravated Assault,
Robbery, and related offenses. At Appellant’s July 21 and August 26, 2009
preliminary hearings, the court held over for trial all charged offenses except
the Aggravated Assault charge at Docket No. 11006-09 pertaining to victim
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1On June 6, 2022, this Court consolidated the appeals docketed at Nos. 889
and 892-897 EDA 2022. That same day we separately consolidated the
appeals docketed at Nos. 890 and 891 EDA 2022. Because our review of this
matter indicates that Appellant has raised one identical issue and identical
arguments in each of his previously consolidated appeals, we, thus, further
consolidate these appeals sua sponte.
-4-
J-S18021-23 & J-S18022-23
Patricia Gordon-Mann and the Aggravated Assault charge at Docket No.
11010-09 pertaining to victim Elsie Curry. The court dismissed those charges
and downgraded the Robbery charge pertaining to Ms. Curry to a second-
degree felony.
The trial court consolidated Appellant’s cases and Appellant proceeded
to a jury trial. The jury convicted him of eight counts of Aggravated Assault,
nine counts of Robbery, seven counts of Burglary, and one count of Possession
of Marijuana. Notably, notwithstanding the prior dismissal of two counts of
Aggravated Assault and the downgrading of the Robbery charge, the
Commonwealth pursued those charges at trial and the jury convicted
Appellant of them.2
On August 9, 2010, after considering a pre-sentence investigation
(“PSI”) report and all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, the trial
court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 63 to 126 years of
incarceration.3 Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion.
____________________________________________
2 With respect to Ms. Gordon-Mann, the jury convicted Appellant at Docket
No. 11006-09 of Aggravated Assault, Robbery and Burglary. With respect to
Ms. Curry, the jury also convicted Appellant at Docket No. 11010-09 of
Aggravated Assault, Robbery, and Burglary.
3 Each of the sentences fell within the standard range of the sentencing
guidelines.
-5-
J-S18021-23 & J-S18022-23
Following the reinstatement of his direct appeal rights,4 on May 3, 2019,
this Court affirmed Appellant’s Judgment of Sentence, and, on October 22,
2019, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for
allowance of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Russell, 209 A.3d 419 (Pa.
Super. 2019), appeal denied, 218 A.3d 862 (Pa. 2019).
On August 27, 2020, Appellant filed a timely PCRA petition in which he
claimed that his prior counsel had rendered ineffective assistance. The PCRA
court appointed counsel who, with leave of court, filed amended and
supplemental petitions. In the petitions, Appellant claimed that: (1) trial and
first direct appeal counsel were ineffective for failing to preserve and then
seek reinstatement of Appellant’s post-sentence motion rights regarding the
weight of the evidence in support of the convictions related to Ms. Curry; (2)
trial and first direct appeal counsel were ineffective for failing to preserve and
then seek reinstatement of Appellant’s post-sentence motion rights regarding
the discretionary aspects of his sentence; (3) trial counsel was ineffective for
not moving to quash or dismiss the Aggravated Assault charge as to Ms.
Gordon-Mann because that charge had been dismissed at Appellant’s
____________________________________________
4 After the trial court sentenced Appellant in 2010, Appellant filed a direct
appeal that resulted in our affirmance of his Judgment of Sentence due
Appellant’s failure to develop the argument pertaining to one issue and to
request that the trial transcripts necessary to conduct appellate review of the
other issue be included in the certified record. See Commonwealth v.
Russell, No. 2408 EDA 2010 (Pa. Super. filed July 16, 2012) (unpublished
memorandum). He then successfully petitioned the PCRA court for
reinstatement of his direct appeal rights. He timely appealed and, in 2019,
this Court affirmed his Judgment of Sentence on the merits. At each stage of
the proceedings, Appellant was represented by different counsel.
-6-
J-S18021-23 & J-S18022-23
preliminary hearing; and (4) trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to
quash or dismiss the Aggravated Assault charge as to Ms. Curry as that charge
had been dismissed at Appellant’s preliminary hearing.
On June 23, 2021, the Commonwealth filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss
Appellant’s PCRA petition. The Commonwealth asserted that, while
Appellant’s claims that counsel had not been ineffective for failing to preserve
or to seek reinstatement of Appellant’s post-sentence motion rights lacked
merit, it did not object to the vacatur of the sentences imposed following
Appellant’s conviction of offenses that had been previously dismissed or
downgraded.
On November 5, 2021, the PCRA court entered an order granting in part
and denying in part Appellant’s petition. In particular, the court denied
Appellant relief on his claims that his prior counsel had been ineffective for
failing to preserve or seek reinstatement of his post-sentence motion rights.
The court granted relief, however, on Appellant’s claims related to his
judgments of sentence for the Aggravated Assaults of Ms. Gordon-Mann and
Ms. Curry and the Robbery of Ms. Curry because those charges had been
dismissed at the preliminary hearing. The court, thus, vacated those specific
sentences and proceeded to hold a resentencing hearing on Docket Nos.
11006-09 and 11010-09.5
____________________________________________
5 The PCRA court explained that it “granted the PCRA [insofar] as it was
discovered that [Appellant] went to trial on charges, several charges that had
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-7-
J-S18021-23 & J-S18022-23
At Docket No. 11006-09, the court imposed a term of two to four years
of incarceration for Appellant’s Robbery conviction and to a consecutive term
of two to four years of incarceration for his Burglary conviction. At Docket No.
11010-09, the court resentenced Appellant for his Burglary conviction to a
term of two to four years of incarceration and ordered that Appellant serve
this sentence consecutive to the sentence imposed at Docket No. 11006-09.
Each of these sentences fell below the standard range of the sentencing
guidelines. The court further ordered these new sentences to run
consecutively to the other sentences that were imposed on August 9, 2010,
resulting in a new aggregate sentence of 55 to 110 years of incarceration.
On November 6, 2021, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion in which
he asserted that the court abused its discretion in sentencing him because his
aggregate sentence constituted an “effective life sentence” and the court failed
to consider Appellant’s demonstrated potential for rehabilitation. Motion,
11/6/21, at 2, 4. On March 9, 2022, the lower court clerk entered an order
denying Appellant’s motion by operation of law.
This appeal followed. Both Appellant and the PCRA court complied with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
____________________________________________
been quashed at the lower level; that went unrealized and undetected at the
trial level, so that he went to trial on several charges where he had not been
held over for trial.” N.T., 11/5/21, at 4-5. Thus, the court had determined
that Appellant was entitled to vacatur of the sentences imposed following his
conviction of the Aggravated Assault of Ms. Gordon-Mann and Aggravated
Assault and Robbery of Ms. Curry, and, therefore, it “granted resentencing.”
Id. at 5.
-8-
J-S18021-23 & J-S18022-23
Appellant raises the following issue challenging only the discretionary
aspects of his sentence:
Did the resentencing court abuse its discretion in resentencing
Appellant to an aggregate global sentence of 55 to 110 years of
incarceration because the [c]ourt did not give justification for
imposing an effective life sentence and there were excessive
retribution considerations and inadequate consideration of
rehabilitation especially because even with a lesser sentence,
Appellant would not pose a danger to society if released at an
elderly age and, in addition, despite [vacatur] of several
sentences, all other sentences remained the same, again
indicating excessive retribution considerations only?
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
Appellant’s issue challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence.
See id. at 12-17. Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentence are not
appealable as of right. Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73, 83 (Pa.
Super. 2015). Rather, an appellant challenging the sentencing court’s
discretion must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by (1) filing a timely notice of
appeal; (2) properly preserving the issue at sentencing or in a motion to
reconsider and modify the sentence; (3) complying with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f),
which requires a separate section of the brief setting forth a concise statement
of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the
discretionary aspects of a sentence; and (4) presenting a substantial question
that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b). Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d
788, 797-98 (Pa. Super. 2015)
-9-
J-S18021-23 & J-S18022-23
Appellant preserved this sentencing challenge in a post-sentence
motion, filed a timely notice of appeal, and included a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f)
Statement in his Brief. See Appellant’s Brief at 12-15 (asserting that the
resentencing court violated the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing
process by imposing a “life sentence” that “goes beyond that required to
protect the public”). We, thus, proceed to consider whether Appellant has
raised a substantial question for our review.
Appellant argues that the resentencing court abused its discretion in
imposing Appellant’s sentence because “[r]etribution was overemphasized by
the sentencing court with little consideration for Appellant’s potential for
rehabilitation.” Appellant’s Brief at 15. We conclude that Appellant has raised
a substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788,
793 (Pa. Super. 2010) (finding that a claim that the trial court failed to
consider a defendant’s rehabilitative needs raises a substantial question).
Therefore, we now proceed to the merits of the claim raised on appeal.
Appellant argues that the sentencing court failed to justify “what goes
beyond a life sentence.” Appellant’s Brief at 16. He concedes that he had a
prior record and that his crimes warrant incarceration but asserts that his
sentence is excessive because it “ignores substantive potential for
rehabilitation and overemphasizes deterrence and realistic protection of the
public.” Id. He further posits that “[r]etribution considerations are singular
and excessive especially considering that there were no permanent physical
- 10 -
J-S18021-23 & J-S18022-23
injuries to [the c]omplainants.” Id. at 16-17. Appellant’s argument is without
merit.
“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.” Commonwealth v. Barnes, 167 A.3d 110, 122 n.9 (Pa.
Super. 2017) (en banc) (citation omitted). A sentencing court has broad
discretion in choosing the range of permissible confinement that best suits a
particular defendant and the circumstances surrounding his or her crime.
Commonwealth v. Celestin, 825 A.2d 670, 676 (Pa. Super. 2003).
Where the sentencing court has the benefit of a PSI report, we presume
that it is “aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations,” and
we will not disturb the sentencing court’s discretion. Commonwealth v.
Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1135 (Pa. Super. 2009) (discussing
Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12, 18-19 (Pa. 1988)). Moreover,
when the trial court reviews the PSI report, it satisfies “the requirement that
reasons for imposing sentence be placed on the record by indicating that he
or she has been informed by the [PSI]; thus properly considering and weighing
all relevant factors.” Id. (citation omitted)
In addition, courts have consistently found that sentences imposed
within the standard range of the sentencing guidelines are not excessive or
unreasonable. See, e.g., id. at 1134 (explaining that a sentence within the
guidelines is presumed to be reasonable); see also Commonwealth v.
Cruz–Centeno, 668 A.2d 536, 546 (Pa. Super. 1995) (finding that a standard
- 11 -
J-S18021-23 & J-S18022-23
range sentence imposed following consideration of a PSI report was neither
excessive nor unreasonable).
In its Rule 1925(a) Opinion, the PCRA court, who presided over
Appellant’s original 2010 trial and sentencing, opined that, when resentencing
Appellant, it “took into consideration the [PSI] report from 2010, Appellant[’]s
prior record score;6 the recommended Sentencing Guidelines; Appellant’s
allocution; his involvement and participation in educational programs and
victims[’] awareness programs while incarcerated; and the fact that Appellant
had only incurred one misconduct while incarcerated.” PCRA Ct. Op.,
10/11/22, at 5. The court also noted that it “referenced the factors considered
at Appellant’s original sentencing,”7 and that Appellant had originally received
a guideline sentence on each charge. Id.____________________________________________
6The court observed that Appellant had a “very serious prior record score.”
PCRA Ct. Op., 10/11/22, at 5 (citing N.T., 11/5/21, at 25.)
7 The court noted both on the record at sentencing and in a prior opinion
issued in connection with Appellant’s direct appeal, that, in sentencing
Appellant in 2010, it considered, inter alia, the PSI report, the sentencing
guidelines, victim impact statements, the testimony from the sentencing
hearing, “the violent and predatory nature of Appellant’s offenses,” the
protection of the public, the gravity of the offenses, the character and
condition of Appellant, his family background and children, his scant work
history, his passive expression of remorse and failure to accept responsibility
for his actions, his extraordinary criminal history, the escalating levels of
violence Appellant demonstrated, and the paucity of mitigating factors,
including Appellant’s failure to make use of programs available to him during
his multiple prior periods of imprisonment. N.T., 8/9/10, at 14-17; Trial Ct.
Op., 3/18/20, at 24-25.
- 12 -
J-S18021-23 & J-S18022-23
The court, describing the brutality of Appellant’s crimes, further
explained as follows:
Ultimately, Appellant was convicted of six (6) counts of
aggravated assault and eight (8) counts of robbery. The victims
were elderly women who were entering their homes when
Appellant attacked them. He grabbed one woman by the back of
the neck and slammed her face[] into the pavement, breaking her
front teeth. He came up behind another woman who was pulling
into her driveway, followed her to her door, then threw her to the
floor and held her down with his foot while he punched her in the
stomach. He approached a 79-year-old woman who was entering
her house, and under the ruse of selling Girl Scout cookies,
followed her into her house, knocked her to the ground in front of
her 85-year-old husband and robbed him of $80. Before he left,
he threatened to kill them both if they told anyone. He attacked
an 84-year-old woman and repeatedly banged her head against
metal shelving in her basement. In the end, Appellant stole
handbags from these women and fled.
Id. at 6.
Finally, the court concluded that notwithstanding the positive use
Appellant has made of his time in prison, which includes completing 11
rehabilitative programs, given Appellant’s long criminal history and the facts
of the instant crimes, the court had followed the law by vacating what was
previously an illegal sentence and properly exercised its discretion in
resentencing Appellant. The court acknowledged that it had imposed
“essentially . . . a life sentence.” N.T., 8/9/10, at 18. However, it concluded
that it was a “just sentence” in light of “the number of victims, the ages of the
victims and the acts that [Appellant] perpetrated upon them.” Id.
Following our review, we conclude that the record belies Appellant’s
claim that the court placed undue emphasis on retribution and did not consider
- 13 -
J-S18021-23 & J-S18022-23
Appellant’s rehabilitative possibilities. To the contrary, as set forth above, the
record shows that the court considered all of the relevant sentencing factors.8
Appellant is, thus, not entitled to relief.
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/13/2023
____________________________________________
8 Moreover, because the court also considered the PSI report, we presume
that it was aware of and weighed all relevant factors.
- 14 -