J-S52020-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
TERRANCE FULLER,
Appellant No. 2645 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 31, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-1202721-2004
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE, and STRASSBURGER, * JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED DECEMBER 22, 2016
Appellant, Terrance Fuller, appeals from the July 31, 2015 judgment of
sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (“trial
court”) following the revocation of Appellant’s probation and parole.
Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Upon review,
we affirm.
The trial court summarized the procedural background of this matter in
its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, which we incorporate herein by reference.
Trial Court Opinion, 11/4/2015, at 1-5. Briefly, Appellant pled guilty to
burglary and criminal conspiracy on January 7, 2005, and was sentenced to
three to twenty=three months’ county incarceration plus one year reporting
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S52020-16
probation, with immediate parole. Appellant violated his probation multiple
times and his probation was revoked on November 3, 2005, May 11, 2007,
August 7, 2013, July 30, 2014, and July 31, 2015. Appellant filed the
instant appeal on August 28, 2015.
Appellant raises a sole issue on appeal.
Was not the [trial] court’s imposition [of] a sentence of five to
ten years of incarceration after a revocation of probation
unreasonable, manifestly excessive and an abuse of discretion
where the court failed to conduct an individualized sentencing,
did not properly consider the sentencing factors under 42
Pa.C.S. §9721, failed to order and evaluate a pre-sentence
investigation, failed to place its reasons for dispensing with the
pre-sentence report on the record, ignored whether the sentence
was the least stringent to protect the community or rehabilitate
[Appellant], and did not sufficiently place its reasons for its
sentence on the record.
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
Appellant challenges his sentence following the revocation of his
probation. “Following revocation, a sentencing court need not undertake a
lengthy discourse for its reasons for imposing a sentence or specifically
reference the statutes in question.” Commonwealth v. Pasture, 107 A.3d
21, 28 (Pa. 2014). “When sentencing is a consequence of the revocation of
probation, the trial judge is already fully informed as to the facts and
circumstances of both the crime and the nature of the defendant.” Id.
In the matter sub judice, Judge Genece Brinkley was the original
sentencing judge and presided over Appellant’s violation hearings in
November 2005, May 2007, August 2013, July 2014, and July 2015. The
-2-
J-S52020-16
trial court was familiar with Appellant’s history, including his “criminal
background, history of absconding from supervision, serious substance
abuse problem, and personal circumstances, including the fact that he was
expecting another child.” Trial Court Opinion, 11/4/2015, at 13-14.
Moreover, the trial court had a detailed report from Appellant’s probation
officer. The trial court conducted an individualized sentencing and explained
the reasons for this latest revocation sentence on the record. Furthermore,
the trial court noted the numerous opportunities it had previously provided
Appellant and his failure to comply with such programs.
Upon review of the record, we find the trial court’s opinion of
November 4, 2015, thoroughly addresses all of Appellant’s claims and
therefore affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence on that basis. We direct
that a copy of the opinion be attached to all further filings.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/22/2016
-3-