J-A10022-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
NATHANIEL WILLIAMS
Appellant No. 1381 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 14, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0001934-2013
CP-67-CR-0006449-2013
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED APRIL 06, 2015
Appellant, Nathaniel Williams, appeals from the July 14, 2014
aggregate judgment of sentence of 50 to 100 months’ imprisonment
imposed, following an open guilty plea to two counts of simple assault and
one count of endangering the welfare of a child (EWOC).1 After careful
review, we affirm.
The trial court summarized the relevant factual and procedural
background of this case as follows.
Both of the[se] … cases involve [] Appellant’s
actions toward his children. More specifically, in
case [CP-67-CR-6449-2013], [] Appellant admitted
to getting mad at his son N.W. … for “spilling the
beans.” [] Appellant hit N.W. causing the child to fall
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a)(1) and 4304(a)(1), respectively.
J-A10022-15
off the bed, which resulted in N.W.’s leg being
broken. In case [CP-67-CR-1934-2013], [] Appellant
admitted to grabbing his daughter U.W. … by the
throat hard enough to leave a red mark. []
Appellant again stated he did this because he was
mad at his daughter for breaking a DVD player.
Also in case [CP-67-CR-1934-2013], []
Appellant admitted that the living conditions at the
motel where police found his five children were
unkempt. [] Appellant admitted that black trash
bags with garbage spilling out of the top littered the
room; empty food containers were also strewn
about; dirty dishes and cigarette butts were all over
the countertops; numerous soiled diapers were
found on the floor; and that no food or water was
found with the exception of a small can of noodles
that all five children were sharing for dinner. Lastly,
[] Appellant admitted that he left his eleven[-]year[-
]old daughter in charge of the four other children
when he left the motel room.
Trial Court Opinion, 10/8/14, at 2 (internal citations omitted).
On April 11, 2013, the Commonwealth filed an information at docket
number CP-67-CR-1934-2013, charging Appellant with a total of one count
of aggravated assault2, two counts of simple assault, and six counts of
EWOC. On October 10, 2013, the Commonwealth filed an information at
docket number CP-67-CR-6449-2013, charging Appellant with one count
each of harassment3, aggravated assault, and simple assault. On July 14,
2014, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to two counts of simple assault,
____________________________________________
2
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1).
3
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1).
-2-
J-A10022-15
one at each docket number, and one count of EWOC at docket number CP-
67-CR-1934-2013. That same day, the trial court imposed an aggregate
sentence of 50 to 100 months’ imprisonment.4 On July 21, 2014, Appellant
filed a timely motion for modification of sentence, which the trial court
denied on August 1, 2014. On August 12, 2014, Appellant filed a timely
notice of appeal.5
On appeal, Appellant presents one issue for our review.
Whether the aggregate sentence of fifty (50) to one
hundred (100) months[’] incarceration constitutes an
abuse of discretion when the sentence imposed is
inconsistent with the gravity of the offenses and
protection of the public and does not consider
relevant mitigating factors[?]
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
At the outset, we note that Appellant’s argument on appeal pertains to
the discretionary aspects of his sentence. “Pennsylvania law makes clear
that by entering a guilty plea, the defendant waives his right to challenge on
direct appeal all non[-]jurisdictional defects except the legality of the
sentence and the validity of the plea.” Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72
____________________________________________
4
Specifically, at docket number CP-67-CR-1934-2013, the trial court
sentenced Appellant to 16 to 32 months’ imprisonment for simple assault
and 18 to 36 months’ imprisonment for EWOC. At docket number CP-67-
CR-6449-2013, the trial court imposed a sentence of 16 to 32 months’
imprisonment for simple assault. All sentences were to run consecutively.
5
Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925.
-3-
J-A10022-15
A.3d 606, 609 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 87 A.3d
319 (Pa. 2014). However, when a defendant’s plea is an open guilty plea,
he or she does not waive claims regarding the discretionary aspects of the
sentence “because there was no agreement as to the sentence [the
defendant] would receive.” Commonwealth v. Hill, 66 A.3d 359, 363 (Pa.
Super. 2013) (citation omitted). Nevertheless, “[t]here is no absolute right
to appeal when challenging the discretionary aspect of a sentence.”
Commonwealth v. Tobin, 89 A.3d 663, 666 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation
omitted). When an appellant forwards an argument pertaining to the
discretionary aspects of the sentence, this Court considers such an argument
to be a petition for permission to appeal. Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh,
91 A.3d 1247, 1265 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (citation omitted), appeal
denied, 104 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014). “[A]n [a]ppeal is permitted only after this
Court determines that there is a substantial question that the sentence was
not appropriate under the sentencing code.” Commonwealth v. Cartrette,
83 A.3d 1030, 1042 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary aspects of sentencing
issue, this Court is required to conduct a four-part analysis to determine
whether a petition for permission to appeal should be granted.
Commonwealth v. Trinidad, 96 A.3d 1031, 1039 (Pa. Super. 2014)
-4-
J-A10022-15
(citation omitted), appeal denied, 99 A.3d 925 (Pa. 2014). Specifically, we
must determine the following.
(1) [W]hether appellant has filed a timely notice of
appeal, Pa.R.A.P. 902, 903; (2) whether the issue
was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion
to reconsider and modify sentence, Pa.R.Crim.P.
[720]; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal
defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a
substantial question that the sentence appealed from
is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42
[Pa.C.S.A.] § 9781(b).
Id.
In the case sub judice, we note that Appellant filed a timely motion for
modification of sentence and notice of appeal. We further observe that
Appellant has included a Rule 2119(f) statement in his brief. Thus, we
proceed to determine whether Appellant has raised a substantial question for
our review.
“The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” Commonwealth v. Edwards, 71 A.3d
323, 330 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted), appeal denied, 81 A.3d 75
(Pa. 2013). “A substantial question exists only when the appellant advances
a colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were either: (1)
inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary
to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.” Id.
(citations omitted). “Additionally, we cannot look beyond the statement of
questions presented and the prefatory 2119(f) statement to determine
-5-
J-A10022-15
whether a substantial question exists.” Commonwealth v. Provenzano,
50 A.3d 148, 154 (Pa. Super. 2012).
In this case, Appellant avers that the trial court abused its discretion
based on the following.
[The sentence is] inconsistent with the rehabilitative
needs of Appellant; inconsistent with the gravity of
the offenses as they relate to the impact on the lives
of the victim and on the community; inconsistent
with the protection of the public; and exceedingly
punitive in nature in light of Appellant’s admission of
guilt and other relevant factors such as Appellant’s
age and rehabilitative ability.
Appellant’s Brief at 7.
This Court has long recognized that “an allegation that a sentencing
court … did not adequately consider certain factors does not raise a
substantial question that the sentence was inappropriate.” Commonwealth
v. Johnson, 961 A.2d 877, 880 (Pa. Super. 2008), appeal denied, 968 A.2d
1280 (Pa. 2009); see also Commonwealth v. Bullock, 868 A.2d 516, 529
(Pa. Super. 2005) (stating “a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating
factors does not raise a substantial question for our review”). Furthermore,
this Court has held that an argument that the trial court failed to consider
certain mitigating factors in favor of a lesser sentence does not present a
substantial question appropriate for our review. Commonwealth v.
Ratushny, 17 A.3d 1269, 1273 (Pa. Super. 2011); accord
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010). As a
-6-
J-A10022-15
result, Appellant has failed to a raise a substantial question for our review.6
See Edwards, supra.
Based on the foregoing, we deny Appellant’s petition for permission to
appeal the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Accordingly, the trial
court’s July 14, 2014 judgment of sentence is affirmed.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/6/2015
____________________________________________
6
Even if we were permitted to address the merits, Appellant would not be
entitled to relief. We note that Appellant waived the preparation of a PSI for
the two docket numbers in this appeal. N.T., 7/14/14, at 18. Furthermore,
the trial court states that “[a]ll relevant factors were considered, including
that pre-sentence report prepared for an unrelated case[, but a sentence
imposed at the same proceeding with those in this appeal], the gravity of
the offenses, protection of the public, and mitigating factors[.]” Trial Court
Opinion, 10/8/14, at 6.
-7-
Com. v. Williams, N.
Combined Opinion