J-S67024-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
GREGORY WOODS, :
:
Appellant : No. 639 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 28, 2013
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0508941-2005
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUSMANNO, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED DECEMBER 29, 2017
Gregory Woods (“Woods”) appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed following the revocation of his probation. We affirm.
In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant factual and
procedural background, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See
Trial Court Opinion, 11/03/16, at 1-3.
On appeal, Woods raises the following issue for our review: “Must a
sentencing court place on the record the reasons it failed to order a
pre[-]sentence investigation report [(“PSI”)] pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 702?”
Brief for Appellant at 7.1
____________________________________________
1 Although Woods framed his issue somewhat differently in his Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) Concise Statement, we decline to find waiver on this basis. See
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)(vii) (providing that “[i]ssues not included in the
Statement … are waived.”).
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S67024-17
Woods challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. See
Commonwealth v. Flowers, 950 A.2d 330, 331 (Pa. Super. 2008) (holding
that “a claim that the court erred in failing to order a PSI report raises a
discretionary aspect of sentencing of which a defendant’s right to appellate
review is exceptionally limited.”). “Challenges to the discretionary aspects of
sentencing do not entitle an appellant to review as of right.”
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010). Rather,
we must consider an appellant’s brief on this issue as a petition for
permission to appeal. See Commonwealth v. Yanoff, 690 A.2d 260, 267
(Pa. Super. 1997). Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing
issue,
[this Court conducts] 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, [see] 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, [see] 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).
Moury, 992 A.2d at 170 (citation omitted).
In the instant case, Woods filed a timely Notice of Appeal, and
included in his appellate brief a separate Rule 2119(f) statement. However,
Woods failed to properly preserve his discretionary sentencing issue at
sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, in compliance
with Pa.R.Crim.P. 720. Our review of the transcript of the June 28, 2013
-2-
J-S67024-17
sentencing hearing reflects that the issue was not raised at any time during
the sentencing hearing. See N.T., 6/28/13, at 1-37. Further, our review of
the docket reflects no filing of a motion to reconsider and modify sentence.
Because Woods failed to comply with the requirements to challenge the
discretionary aspects of his sentence, he failed to preserve the issue for our
review. See Moury, supra.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/29/17
-3-
0024_Opinion
r�Lt:D
Circulated 12/07/2017 04:06 PM
Firsr:��j:frsrn� J PA
NOV O 3 2016
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUN1cfr· . I I U it
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : TRIAL DIVISION
v. CP 51-CR-0508941-2005
GREGORY WOODS, APPELLANT No. 639 EDA 2016
OPINION
This opinion addresses issues the Appellant raises by way of his reinstated direct
appellate rights. His issues have no merit for the reasons set forth below.
I. CASE HISTORY
On October 27, 2004, police arrested the Appellant and charged him with Burglary (FI),
Criminal Trespass (F2), Theft by Unlawful Taking (Ml), and Theft by Receiving Stolen
Property (Ml). On February 6, 2006, the Appellant entered an open guilty plea for Burglary
before the Honorable George W. Overton in this case and nine other cases. After the Appellant
pied, Judge Overton sentenced him to 11 Yi - 23 months incarceration followed by four years
probation on each case. Each case was to be served concurrently to one another.
On June 15, 2010, while serving Judge Overton's probationary sentence, the Appellant
was arrested on another Burglary case. 1 On February 9, 2011, the Appellant was placed on
House Arrest by the Honorable Rayford A. Means. On March 19, 2012, the Appellant entered an
open guilty plea before the Honorable Lisette Shirdan-Harris in the open burglary case, and she
deferred sentencing pending a presentence investigatory report. However, the Appellant cut off
CP-51-CR�l-2005Comm v Woods GCom. v. Woods, G.
Combined Opinion