J-S41045-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
DANIEL C. WORK, JR. :
:
Appellant : No. 1670 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 23, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0005372-2010
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JULY 24, 2017
Appellant, Daniel C. Work, Jr., appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury
trial convictions of one count of rape of a child, two counts of involuntary
deviate sexual intercourse with a child (“IDSI”), and one count of corruption
of minors.1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them.
Appellant raises one issue for our review:
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3121(c), 3123(b), and 6301(a)(1), respectively.
_____________________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S41045-17
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT’S SENTENCE OF NOT LESS
THAN TEN NOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS WAS AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN VIEW OF [APPELLANT’S] LACK OF
SIGNIFICANT PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD AND HIS
OUTSTANDING ADJUSTMENT TO STATE PRISON?
(Appellant’s Brief at 4).
Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an
appellant to an appeal as of right. Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d
910, 912 (Pa.Super. 2000). Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary
aspects of sentencing issue:
[W]e conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (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, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).
Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal
denied, 589 Pa. 727, 909 A.2d 303 (2006). Objections to the discretionary
aspects of sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the
sentencing hearing or raised in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at
that hearing. Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa.Super.
2003), appeal denied, 574 Pa. 759, 831 A.2d 599 (2003).
When appealing the discretionary aspects of a sentence, an appellant
must invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction by including in his brief a
separate concise statement demonstrating that there is a substantial
-2-
J-S41045-17
question as to the appropriateness of the sentence under the Sentencing
Code. Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 571 Pa. 419, 812 A.2d 617 (2002);
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). “The requirement that an appellant separately set forth
the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal furthers the purpose evident
in the Sentencing Code as a whole of limiting any challenges to the trial
court’s evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging on the sentencing
decision to exceptional cases.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103,
112 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 600 Pa. 745, 964 A.2d 895 (2009),
cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264, 129 S.Ct. 2450, 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830
A.2d 1013 (Pa.Super. 2003). 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.” Sierra, supra at 913.
Instantly, Appellant properly preserved his claim for review.
Nevertheless, after a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties,
the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Dennis E.
Reinaker, we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The trial court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question
presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed November 22, 2016, at 3-7)
-3-
J-S41045-17
(finding: court did not impose manifestly excessive sentence, in view of
circumstances of crime and history and character of Appellant; court was
fully informed by pre-sentence investigative (“PSI”) report and relied on
report in reaching its sentence; Appellant received standard range sentence;
court’s review of PSI report in conjunction with standard range sentence
demonstrates Appellant’s sentence was not manifestly excessive; moreover,
Appellant committed multiple sex acts upon 6-year-old male victim on
multiple occasions; court imposed all sentences concurrently; sentence is
consistent with protection of public as Appellant’s total confinement will
prevent him from having further sexual encounters with children; Victim’s
adoptive mother testified that offenses seriously impaired Victim’s childhood;
Victim can no longer enjoy common activities such as sleepovers and/or
overnight camping trips; Victim now requires specialized bathroom policies
at school due to his sexual experiences; court heard multitude of testimony
regarding devastating impact of Appellant’s acts on Victim and sentence
imposed was consistent with that impact; sentence is consistent with
Appellant’s rehabilitative needs; Appellant states he has had “outstanding
adjustment to prison,” has been free of misconduct during his incarceration,
and has participated in various programs; sentence imposed is addressing
Appellant’s rehabilitative needs; even if Appellant’s claim that court did not
consider Appellant’s “good behavior” while in prison raised substantial
question for appellate review, there is no evidentiary support that court
-4-
J-S41045-17
failed to consider Appellant’s conduct in prison; court heard Appellant’s
testimony regarding his improved conduct in prison and imposed sentence
within guideline range; court did not abuse its discretion). 2 Accordingly, we
affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/24/2017
____________________________________________
2
Appellant claims he is not arguing the court failed to consider, or was
unaware of, Appellant’s positive adjustment in prison when the court re-
sentenced Appellant. (See Appellant’s Brief at 19). Rather, Appellant
argues the court abused its discretion when it imposed an identical sentence
in light of Appellant’s good behavior while in prison. See id. Appellant cites
no relevant legal authority to support this position. Therefore, Appellant
waived this sentencing issue. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 604 Pa.
176, 985 A.2d 915 (2009), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 906, 131 S.Ct. 250, 178
L.Ed.2d 165 (2010) (explaining appellant waives issue on appeal where he
fails to present claim with citations to relevant authority or develop issue in
meaningful fashion capable of review).
-5-
Circulated 07/10/2017 03:36 PM