J-S58035-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ROBERT WILLIAM DIXON, JR.
Appellant No. 490 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 11, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0000364-2013
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 10, 2014
Appellant, Robert William Dixon, Jr., appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, following his
open guilty plea to criminal conspiracy, aggravated assault, and recklessly
endangering another person (“REAP”).1 We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows.
On October 28, 2012, the victim was delivering pizza to a residence on West
11th Street in Erie. When the victim exited his vehicle, Appellant and an
unidentified female approached. Appellant struck the victim in the head with
the firearm and demanded money. The victim wrestled with Appellant, and
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903, 2702, 2705.
_________________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S58035-14
the firearm fell to the ground. Appellant ordered his companion to retrieve
the firearm and shoot the victim. Appellant’s companion picked up the
weapon, but she did not open fire. Instead, Appellant’s companion fled.
Appellant fled shortly thereafter.
On March 20, 2013, the Commonwealth filed a criminal information
charging Appellant with conspiracy, robbery, aggravated assault, terroristic
threats, possessing instruments of crime, and REAP. Appellant subsequently
filed a motion to suppress evidence, which the court denied.2 Following trial,
a jury could not reach a verdict on any of the charges, and the court
declared a mistrial.
On December 17, 2013, Appellant pled guilty to conspiracy,
aggravated assault, and REAP. In exchange, the Commonwealth agreed to
withdraw the remaining charges. The parties also agreed that the court
would apply the deadly weapon “used” sentencing matrix. The plea
agreement did not include a negotiated sentence. Following an oral
colloquy, the court accepted Appellant’s plea.
With the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”) report, the
court conducted Appellant’s sentencing hearing on February 11, 2014. At
the conclusion of the hearing, the court sentenced Appellant to sixty-six (66)
to one hundred thirty-two (132) months’ imprisonment for the conspiracy
____________________________________________
2
The suppression motion, suppression hearing transcripts and exhibits, and
order disposing of the suppression motion are not in the certified record.
-2-
J-S58035-14
conviction. The court ordered the sentence to run consecutive to another
sentence at an unrelated docket number. For the aggravated assault
conviction, the court sentenced Appellant to twenty-seven (27) to fifty-four
(54) months’ imprisonment, concurrent to the conspiracy sentence.
Additionally, the court determined the REAP conviction merged for
sentencing purposes with the aggravated assault conviction.
On February 21, 2014, Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion
to modify and/or reduce sentence. In it, Appellant claimed he had already
received a minimum term of ten (10) years nine (9) months’ imprisonment
for the conviction at the unrelated docket number. Further, Appellant
indicated he had “another active case with Allegheny County” that could
result in additional incarceration. (Post-Sentence Motion, filed 2/21/14, at
2). Appellant explained he has “a long standing drug addiction problem,”
and he committed the current offenses “while under the influence of illegal
substances.” (Id.) Nevertheless, Appellant “graduated high school and has
completed a fiber optics certification program and has a long life ahead of
him at the current age of twenty-eight (28).” (Id.) Based upon the
foregoing, Appellant asked the court to, inter alia, impose the instant
sentences concurrent to the sentence at the unrelated docket number. The
court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion on February 24, 2014.
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on March 26, 2014. On April
2, 2014, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors
-3-
J-S58035-14
complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant timely
filed a Rule 1925(b) statement on April 23, 2014.
Appellant now raises two issues for our review:
THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING [APPELLANT’S] PRETRIAL
MOTIONS WHEN IT RULED THAT THE POLICE DID NOT
VIOLATE [APPELLANT’S] CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHEN
ITS INVESTIGATION AND PHOTO LINEUP WAS NOT BASED
ON REASONABLE SUSPICION AND/OR PROBABLE CAUSE
AND THAT THE ARREST WHICH FOLLOWED THUS WAS
NOT BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE[.]
THE SENTENCE IN THIS CASE WAS MANIFESTLY
EXCESSIVE AND CLEARLY UNREASONABLE, AS [CERTAIN
FACTORS] WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN FASHIONING
[APPELLANT’S] SENTENCE.
(Appellant’s Brief at 2) (internal footnote omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Ernest J.
DiSantis, Jr., we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court’s
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions
presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed May 5, 2014, at 3-7) (finding: 1)
Appellant’s decision to enter guilty plea resulted in waiver of suppression
claim; 2) record belies Appellant’s claim that court failed to consider
mitigating factors; court considered PSI report, Sentencing Code, guidelines,
Appellant’s remorse, and statements made by Appellant and counsel; court
tailored sentence to Appellant’s individual situation, and court provided on-
the-record statement of reasons for sentence; court appropriately decided to
impose sentences consecutive to sentence at unrelated docket number;
-4-
J-S58035-14
Appellant was not entitled to “volume discount” for multiple convictions).
Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/10/2014
-5-