J-A06028-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JOSEPH T. GARLOCK
Appellant No. 1465 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 30, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-31-CR-0000501-2014
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 26, 2016
Joseph T. Garlock appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in
the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County following his conviction by
a jury of retail theft.1 The trial judge also found Garlock guilty of the
summary offense of driving with a suspended license.2 After review, we
affirm on the basis of the opinion of the Honorable George N. Zanic, dated
September 23, 2015.
A jury found Garlock guilty of retail theft after he stole merchandise
from Walmart. Based upon a lengthy criminal history involving various
felonies, misdemeanors and revocations of probation, the trial court
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(a)(1).
2
75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(b)(1).
J-A06028-16
sentenced Garlock on July 30, 2015, to a sentence beyond the sentencing
guidelines range.3 The court sentenced Garlock to 30 to 60 months’
incarceration, to be served consecutively to a sentence of three months’
incarceration for driving with a suspended license.
Garlock filed a timely post-sentence motion and notice of appeal,
asserting that the trial court erred by imposing a sentence beyond the
standard range recommended in the sentencing guidelines. Specifically,
Garlock raises the following issues for our review:
1. Did the court below err by failing to consider that the
Sentencing Guidelines adequately account for [Garlock’s]
prior criminal history?
2. Did the court below err by failing to consider that the
Sentencing Guidelines adequately account for the seriousness
of the crime for which [Garlock] was convicted?
3. Did the court below err by failing to consider that [Garlock]
had remained relatively crime-free for six years prior to the
incident for which he was convicted, and that his addiction
contributed to the incident?
4. Did the court err below by failing to consider [Garlock’s]
acceptance of responsibility for his actions and efforts to
rehabilitate himself?
5. Did the court below err in failing to sentence [Garlock] within
the Sentencing Guidelines, given the issues raised above?
Brief for Appellant, at 5-6.
____________________________________________
3
The sentencing guidelines called for a sentence of 12 to 18 months’
incarceration.
-2-
J-A06028-16
Each of Garlock’s issues raised is a contention that his sentence is
excessive, which presents a challenge to the discretionary aspects of
sentencing. See Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 625 (Pa.
2002). An appellant is not entitled to review of the discretionary aspects of
sentencing unless he or she satisfies a four-part test:
(1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see
Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly
preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify
sentence, see 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.
Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en
banc) (quoting Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058, 1064 (Pa. Super.
2011)).
Here, Garlock has filed a timely notice of appeal, preserved his claims
in a post-sentence motion, and his brief is without a fatal defect. Thus, we
must consider whether Garlock raises a substantial question.
Garlock argues that the trial court failed to state adequate reasons for
imposing a sentence outside the sentencing guidelines. Indeed, when a trial
court imposes a sentence outside the guidelines, the court must state on the
record the reasons for deviating from the guidelines. Commonwealth v.
Johnson, 666 A.2d 690, 693 (Pa. Super. 1995); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b). We
have found that a failure to do so creates a substantial question. See
Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1133 (Pa. Super. 2009)
(holding a claim that the trial court did not state on the record adequate
-3-
J-A06028-16
reasons for sentencing outside the guidelines creates a substantial
question).
Though Garlock argues that the trial court’s stated explanation for
deviating from the sentencing guidelines was inadequate, we note that the
court specifically mentioned several compelling reasons for imposing the
particular sentence in this case. These included Garlock’s inability to achieve
rehabilitation, the repetitive nature of his criminal activity, and his
dangerous getaway from the crime scene as reasons for deviating from the
sentencing guidelines.
We find that Judge Zanic’s opinion, dated September 23, 2015,
effectively addresses each of Garlock’s arguments regarding the length of his
sentence, and we affirm on that basis. We direct the parties to attach a
copy of the trial court’s opinion in the event of further proceedings.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/26/2016
-4-
Circulated 03/29/2016 01:36 PM
!I::
f5~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HUNTINGDON COUNTY,
-.J •
Cl w. PENNSYLVANIA
LU ~
--
O::z:
E ~o
oC
C!)
§~OMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
.._j-...;;
: CRIMINAL DIVISION
1-:2:
o~
c:::r
o,
vs. : NO. CP-31-CR-0000501-2014
JOSEPH T. GARLOCK
Defendant
1925(a) MEMORANDUM
The Defendant, Joseph T. Garlock, was found guilty of retail theft,1 graded as a
felony of the third degree and driving while operating privilege is suspended or
revoked,2 a summary offense. On July 30, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to serve a·
minimum term of 30 (thirty} months and a maximum term of 60 (sixty) months in a
state correctional institution on the retail theft charge; and a consecutive 3 (three}
month sentence on summary charge. 3 Defendant.filed a timely Post-Sentence Motion
which was denied on August 11, 2015. Defendant then filed a timely appeal to the
Pennsylvania Superior Court on August 25, 2015. We write to fulfil out duties pursuant
to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
Counsel agreed at sentencing that Defendant presented with a prior record score
of 5 (five) and that, under thecircumstances, retail theft carried an offense gravity score
of 3 (three). Therefore, the agreed upon standard range of sentence was 12 (twelve) to
18 (eighteen} months. {July 30, 2015, Sentencing Transcript, p. 3). It was also undisputed
that Defendant's c.rime was properly graded as a third-degree felony, which carries a
maximum penalty of 7 (seven) years of incarceration.
In his Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, Defendant raises the
following two issues:
118
Pa.C.S. § 3929(a)(1)
2
75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(b)(l}
3 On September 8, 2015 we entered an Order giving Defendant credit for the time from his date of incarceration
until the date of his sentencing. The credit amounted to 342 days.
1
1. "This Court erred in.imposing sentence, by taking into consideration matters
beyond the scope of the Defendant's conduct, and imposing a sentence
contrary to the goals and policies of this Commonwealth."
2. "This Court erred in failing to impose a sentence within the Sentencing
Guidelines."
First, we did not consider any external factors at sentencing. Furthermore, the
record is silent as to what "matters" that Defendant believes were considered "beyond
the scope of the Defendant's conduct."4 The trial court is afforded broad discretion in
sentencing criminal defendants "becauseof the perception that the trial court is in the
'1 best position to determine the proper penalty for a particular offense based upon an
evaluation of the individual circumstances before lt." Commonwealth v. Ward, 524 Pa.
I 48, 568 A.2d 1242, 1243 (Pa. 1990).
under Pennsylvania's Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9701 et seq., a trial court
must "follow the general principle that the sentence imposed should call for
confinement that is 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." !g_. § 9721(b}. The court must also consider
the statutory Sentencing Guidelines, which were promulgated in order to address the
problems associated with disparity in sentencing. See id.; see also 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 2151-
2155 (governing creation and adoption of the Sentencing Guidelines}; 204 Pa. Code §§
303.1- 303.18 {Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines); see generally, Commonwealth v.
Sessoms, 516 Pa. 365, 532 A.2d 775, 776-77 (Pa. 1987) (discussing the formation of the
Sentencing Commission and the development of the Guidelines). Commonwealth v.
Mouzon, 571 Pa. 419, 423-24, 812 A.2d 617., 620 (2002).
We agree that' the Defendant was sentenced outside of the recommended
standard range. However, we did explain on the record that we had considered the
sentencing guidelines. We also explained our reasons for deviating from the established
guidelines. (July 30, 2015, Sentencing Transcript pp. 5-7).
4 In his Post-Sentence Motion, Defendant expounded upon other sentences handed down by this Court on the
same day that this Def~ndant was sentenced. Such an exercise is not only outside of the record in this case, but
certainly irrelevant. While we could explain the reasoning for each sentence that was imposed by this Court on July
30, 2015, we will not compare the facts and circumstances of unrelated cases. On any given miscellaneous criminal
court session we handle between 50 and 100 cases. To review the record in each case and to then compare
sentences would be an Impossible task.
2
Our Supreme Court has recognized that a trial court could abuse its discretion by
imposing a sentence that was "manifestly excessive," even when that sentence was
within the statutory limits. Sentencing, however, is "within the sole discretion of the
trial court, and the sentence imposed will not be reviewed by an appellate court, unless
it exceeds the statutorily prescribed limits or is so manifestly excessive as to constitute
too severe a punishment." Commonwealth v. Wrona, 442 Pa. 201, 275 A.2d 78, 81 (Pa.
1971); see also Commonwealth v. Garramone, 307 Pa. 507, 161 A. 733, 735 {Pa. 1932}
(applying "manifestly excessive" exception to conclude trial court abused its discretion
in imposing death sentence). Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Person, 450 Pa. 1, 297 A.2d
I 460, 462 (Pa. 1972), the Supreme Court concluded that when a trial court imposes a
I sentence that is within the statutory limits, "there is no abuse of discretion unless the
lsentence is manifestly excessive so as to inflict too severe a punishment." Mouzon, at
430-31:
This Defendant has shown a propensity to ignore authority, and he has failed
I miserably in every attempt to rehabilitate himself. The sentencing guidelines are not
suitable as they do not take into consideration the multiple failures of Defendant while
on probation, nor do they consider the severity of the theft and Defendant's brazen get-
away which put the public at risk. The sentence is not manifestly excessive, but
necessary, when considering all of the relevant circumstances.
As the sentence is well within the statutory range of seven years, the Order of
Sentence imposed July 30, 2015 should be affirmed.
BY THE COURT,
George N. Zanic, P.J.
3