J-A06044-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DYLAN JEFFREY WALTERS
Appellant No. 1470 MDA 2015, 1471
MDA 2015, 1472 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 30, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County
Criminal Division at Nos: CP-31-CR-0000625-2014, CP-31-CR-0000656-
2014, CP-31-CR-0000626-2014
BEFORE: LAZARUS, STABILE, and DUBOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED JUNE 16, 2016
Appellant, Dylan Jeffrey Walters, appeals from the July 30, 2015
sentence imposing an aggregate two to 10 years of incarceration for theft by
unlawful taking, theft by deception, and two counts of corruption of minors. 1
We affirm.
Police charged Appellant with the aforementioned offenses in October
of 2014. On May 5, 2015, pursuant to a consolidated plea agreement,
Appellant pled nolo contendere to one count each of theft by unlawful taking
and theft by deception, and guilty to two counts of corruption by minors.
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3921, 3922, and 6301, respectively.
J-A06044-16
Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion on August 10, 2015,2 and the
trial court denied it the next day. Appellant filed this timely appeal on
August 25, 2015. On August 26, 2015, the trial court directed Appellant to
file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On September 15, 2015, Appellant filed a Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) statement that provided in relevant part:
1. This court erred in imposing [sic] sentence, by taking
into consideration matters beyond the scope of [Appellant’s]
conduct, and imposing a sentence contrary to the goals and
policies of this Commonwealth.
Appellant’s Concise Statement of Errors, 9/15/2015, at ¶ 1.3 The trial court
was unable to discern the specifics of Appellant’s challenge: “First, the
record is silent as to what matters [Appellant] believes were considered
‘beyond the scope of [Appellant’s] conduct.’” Trial Court Opinion,
9/29/2015, at 1.
This Court has held that a vague concise statement results in waiver.
When a court has to guess what issues an appellant is
appealing, that is not enough for meaningful review. When an
appellant fails adequately to identify in a concise manner the
issues sought to be pursued on appeal, the trial court is impeded
in its preparation of a legal analysis which is pertinent to those
issues. In other words, a Concise Statement which is too vague
____________________________________________
2
The tenth day after the trial court’s July 30, 2015 sentence fell on Sunday,
August 9, 2015. Thus, Appellant’s August 10, 2015 post-sentence motion
was timely.
3
In paragraph 2, Appellant complained of the trial court’s failure to give
credit for time served. Appellant has abandoned that issue.
-2-
J-A06044-16
to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the
functional equivalent of no Concise Statement at all.
Commonwealth v. Reeves, 907 A.2d 1, 2 (Pa. Super. 2006) (quoting
Lineberger v. Wyeth, 849 A.2d 141 (Pa. Super. 2006)), appeal denied,
919 A.2d 956 (Pa. 2007).
The questions Appellant presents in his brief are as follows:
1. Did the court below err by failing to properly and
adequately weigh the Appellant’s acceptance of responsibility for
his conduct?
2. Did the court below err in basing its sentences on the
actions of the Appellant’s mother, even though those actions
occurred after charges had been filed, and the Appellant had no
apparent control over those actions?
3. Did the court below err by imposing sentences that
were disproportionate to Appellant’s conduct and unreasonably
excessive?
Appellant’s Brief at 9-10. The trial court was unable to anticipate any of
these arguments in its opinion. Instead, it simply noted that it reviewed the
presentence investigation report and imposed consecutive, standard
guideline range sentences. Trial Court Opinion, 9/29/2015, at 2-3. Under
these circumstances, Appellant has waived the issues presented in his
appellate brief. Reeves, 907 A.2d at 2.
Briefly, we note that Appellant’s arguments would fail even if we
addressed the merits. Appellant’s first argument asserts that the trial court
failed to take account of his acceptance of responsibility. A trial court’s
-3-
J-A06044-16
failure to consider mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for
review. Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010).4
Further, we observe that Appellant’s brief undermines the factual predicate
for this argument. The brief states Appellant believes he was not guilty of
the theft offenses—he pled nolo contendere—because the allegedly stolen
property was abandoned. Appellant’s Brief at 19. Likewise, he argues a
sentence of probation was appropriate because there were grounds to
excuse or justify his conduct. Appellant’s Brief at 26 (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9722(4)). In summary, Appellant’s first argument fails to raise a
substantial question, and his claim that he accepts responsibility appears
dubious.
Appellant’s second argument—that the trial court based its sentence
on the actions of Appellant’s mother (she accused police of harassing
Appellant)—finds no support in the record. The trial court explained in its
opinion that it based its standard range sentencing scheme on the
circumstances of Appellant’s offenses and the presentence investigation
report.
____________________________________________
4
To obtain merits review of a challenge to the trial court’s sentencing
discretion, an appellant must present the issue in a timely-post sentence
motion, file a timely notice of appeal, and include in his brief a Pa.R.A.P.
2119(f) concise statement of reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal
explaining why his argument or arguments present a substantial question as
to the propriety of the trial court’s sentence. Id. at 170.
-4-
J-A06044-16
Finally, Appellant’s claim that his standard range sentences are
excessive fails to raise a substantial question. Commonwealth v. Dodge,
77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 91 A.3d 161 (Pa.
2014). As we have already stated, the record confirms that the trial court
was aware of the circumstances of Appellant’s offenses and imposed
standard range sentences based on Appellants’ conduct. To the extent
Appellant argues his sentence is excessive because the trial court imposed
consecutive standard range sentences, he does not raise a substantial
question under the circumstances of this case. Id. (“The imposition of
consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences may raise a substantial
question in only the most extreme circumstances, such as where the
aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes
and the length of imprisonment.”). The record affords no basis for
concluding the trial court’s sentence is extreme under the circumstances of
this case.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/16/2016
-5-