J-S16025-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
JEFFREY ALBERT EVERETTS
Appellant No. 1079 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 3, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-61-CR-0000153-2016
BEFORE: MOULTON, J., RANSOM, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED MAY 12, 2017
Appellant, Jeffrey Albert Everetts, appeals from the judgment of
sentence, imposed June 3, 2016, following a negotiated guilty plea resulting
in his conviction for identify theft, habitual offenders, and false identification
to law enforcement.1 We affirm.
On April 14, 2016, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to the
charges listed above. On June 3, 2016, the trial court sentenced Appellant
to an aggregate sentence of thirty to ninety-six months of incarceration.
The court relied upon the presentence investigation report and Appellant’s
lengthy criminal history in fashioning its sentence. See Notes of Testimony
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 4120(a), 75 P.S. §§ 6503.1, and 18 Pa.C.S. § 4914(a).
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S16025-17
(N.T.), 6/3/16, at 14. Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion, which
the court denied.
Appellant timely appealed and filed a court-ordered statement of
errors complained of on pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The trial court
issued a responsive opinion.
On appeal, Appellant raises a single issue:
1. Are the sentences imposed upon [Appellant] unreasonable,
manifestly excessive, and an abuse of discretion?
Appellant’s Brief at 5.
Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence, a
challenge which does not entitle him to review as of right. Commonwealth
v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058, 1064 (Pa. Super. 2011). Prior to addressing a
discretionary challenge, this Court engages in a four-part analysis: 1)
whether the appeal is timely; 2) whether Appellant preserved his issue; 3)
whether Appellant’s brief contains a concise statement of the reasons relied
upon for allowance of appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and 4) whether
that statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is
inappropriate under the sentencing code. See Commonwealth v. Austin,
66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa. Super. 2013); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f).
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, preserved his claim in a post-
sentence motion, and included in his brief an appropriate Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f)
statement. We must now determine whether he has raised a substantial
-2-
J-S16025-17
question that the sentence is inappropriate under the sentencing code and, if
so, review the merits.
A substantial question must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830 A.2d 1013, 1018 (Pa. Super. 2003). A
substantial question exists only where the Appellant advances a colorable
argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were either inconsistent with a
specific provision of the Sentencing Code, or contrary to the fundamental
norms which underlie the sentencing process. Commonwealth v. Sierra,
752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 2000). A claim that a sentence is manifestly
excessive may raise a substantial question if Appellant’s Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f)
statement sufficiently articulates the manner in which the sentence was
inconsistent with the Code or contrary to its norms. Commonwealth v.
Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 627-28 (Pa. 2002).
In his Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement, Appellant asserts that the court’s
imposition of a sentence of thirty to ninety-six months of incarceration was
unreasonable and manifestly excessive. See Appellant’s Brief at 9.
Appellant asserts that he should not have received consecutive sentences
while also being sentenced at the high end of the standard range for each
sentence. Id. He avers that the counts did not derive from separate
incidents, which typically justifies consecutive sentences. See Appellant’s
Brief at 9. Further, Appellant contends that the trial court failed to consider
certain mitigating factors. Id.
-3-
J-S16025-17
Appellant has not raised a substantial question. First, Appellant was
sentenced within the standard range of the guidelines. See, e.g.,
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010) (noting
that where a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines
Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing
Code). Second, Appellant’s argument regarding the imposition of
consecutive sentences does not raise a substantial question where he has
failed to prove an “extreme circumstance . . . where the aggregate sentence
is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the length of
imprisonment.” See Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa.
Super. 2013).
Finally, although Appellant also avers that the sentencing court failed
to consider several mitigating factors, Appellant did not preserve this issue
in his post-sentence motion. See Appellant’s Brief at 9; see also Pa.R.A.P.
302; Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 355 (Pa. Super. 2007)
(noting that a defendant waives challenges to the discretionary aspects of
his sentence if he does not preserve them at the sentencing hearing or in
post-sentence motions). Even if properly preserved, this claim does not
raise a substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932,
937 (Pa. Super. 2013) (noting that a claim the trial court failed to consider
mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question, especially where the
sentencing court had the benefit of a presentence investigation report).
Accordingly, we decline to examine the merits of his claim.
-4-
J-S16025-17
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/12/2017
-5-