J-S40040-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
THOMAS EARL BECKER
Appellant No. 64 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 2, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0002306-2012
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and PANELLA, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED OCTOBER 07, 2014
Appellant, Thomas Earl Becker, appeals from the judgment of sentence
1
and related charges entered August 2, 2013, by the Honorable Dennis E.
Reinaker, Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County. On appeal, Becker
raises a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. We affirm.
On May 15, 2013, following a jury trial, Becker was convicted of one
count of Rape of a Child, two counts of Aggravated Indecent Assault of a
Child,2 three counts of Indecent Assault,3 and three counts of Corruption of
Minors.4 of
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(c).
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 3125(b).
3
18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(7).
4
18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1).
J-S40040-14
his two step-granddaughters and his granddaughter at his home in
Lancaster County. Following a hearing on August 2, 2013, Becker was
PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. §§ 9791-9799.7, and sentenced to an aggregate term of
Becker filed a post-trial motion to modify sentence, which the trial court
denied. This timely appeal followed.5
On appeal, Becker raises the following issue for our review:
Was an aggregate sentence of thirty-two years and nine months
to sixty-
circumstances of this case, imposed for the improper reason of
constitutional rights, and did it improperly constitute a virtual life
sentence?
Our standard when reviewing sentencing matters is as follows:
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.
____________________________________________
5
appeal rights nunc pro tunc.
-2-
J-S40040-14
Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247, 1265 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(en banc) (citation omitted).
considered a petition for permission to appeal, as the right to pursue such a
Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270, 274 (Pa.
Super. 2004) (citation omitted). When challenging the discretionary aspects
of the sentence imposed, an appellant must present a substantial question
as to the inappropriateness of the sentence. See Commonwealth v.
Tirado
McAfee, 849 A.2d
the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the
Id
that there is a substantial question that the sentence imposed is not
Id violates
either a specific provision of the sentencing scheme set forth in the
Sentencing Code or a particular fundamental norm underlying the sentencing
Tirado
2119(f) statement to determine whether a substantial question exists.6 See
____________________________________________
6
Rule 2119 provides the following, in pertinent part:
(f) Discretionary aspects of sentence. An appellant who
challenges the discretionary aspects of a sentence in a criminal matter
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3-
J-S40040-14
id reasons for which the appeal is sought,
in contrast to the facts underlying the appeal, which are necessary only to
Id.
In the present case,
2119(f) concise statement, and, as such, is in technical compliance with the
requirements to challenge the discretionary aspects of a sentence. Becker
was clearly unreasonable, and so manifestly excessive as to constitute an
at 14. Becker additionally argues that the trial court imposed a severe
sentence in order to punish him for choosing to go to trial rather than
pleading guilty. See id. at 15. These claims raise substantial questions for
our review. See Commonwealth v. Kelly, 33 A.3d 638, 640 (Pa. Super.
2011) (claim that a sentence is manifestly excessive such that it constitutes
too severe a punishment raises a substantial question for our review);
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010)
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
shall set forth in his brief a concise statement of the reasons relied
upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects
of a sentence. The statement shall immediately precede the argument
on the merits with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence.
Pa.R.A.P., Rule 2119(f), 42 PA.CONS.STAT.ANN.
-4-
J-S40040-14
(allegation that trial cou
rather than accept a plea bargain constitutes a substantial question).
Preliminarily, we note that Becker did not object at sentencing or in his
post- upon his decision to
Objections to the
discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they are not
raised at the sentencing hearing or in a motion to modify the sentence
Moury, 992 A.2d at 170 (citation omitted). Accordingly, we are
sentence on that basis waived.
imposed by the trial court constituted too severe a punishment. Specifically,
incarceration is a virtual life sentence,7
no prior criminal record, and had a significant work his
Brief at 19.
we note that
sentences may raise a substantial question in only the most extreme
circumstances, such as where the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh,
____________________________________________
7
Becker was 54 years old when sentenced.
-5-
J-S40040-14
Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365, 372 (Pa. Super. 2012) (en
banc) (citation omitted). Here, Becker does not dispute that the individual
sentences imposed are within the guideline range, notwithstanding the trial
consideration of the serious nature of the crimes committed in this case,
which included rape
designation as a sexually violent predator, and of the pre-sentence
investigation report8
sentence appears, on its face, manifestly excessive. Further, the record is
devoid of any evidence that the trial court imposed a more severe sentence
discretion in the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
____________________________________________
8
Where the sentencing court had the benefit of a presentence investigation
report, we can assume the sentencing court was aware of relevant
information regarding the defendant's character and weighed those
Commonwealth v.
Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 937 (Pa. Super. 2013) (internal quotes and citation
omitted), appeal denied, 76 A.3d 538 (Pa. 2013).
-6-
J-S40040-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/7/2014
-7-