J-S26023-18
J-S26024-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ERIC S. ROLLE, :
:
Appellant : No. 3299 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 8, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-45-CR-0002373-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ERIC S. ROLLE, :
:
Appellant : No. 3301 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 8, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-45-CR-0002374-2015
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED JULY 17, 2018
Eric S. Rolle appeals from the aggregate judgment of sentence of six to
twelve years incarceration imposed following the entry of his guilty pleas at
two separate dockets to trafficking in individuals.1 We affirm.
____________________________________________
1 We consolidated Appellant’s appeals for ease of disposition, as they involve
the same underlying facts and legal issues.
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S26023-18
In November 2014, Appellant was arrested in Lehigh County and
charged with promoting prostitution and other offenses. On January 7, 2015,
Appellant entered a guilty plea to promoting prostitution, and was immediately
sentenced to time served and placed on parole for twenty-three months. In
October 2015, Appellant was arrested and charged at two separate dockets
with, inter alia, involuntary servitude, human trafficking and promoting
prostitution as a result of having provided heroin to two female victims in
exchange for prostituting themselves and providing him with the proceeds
from their illegal activities.2
According to the criminal information filed at 2373 CR 2015, on
September 29, 2015, police responded to an advertisement on
www.backpage.com in the adult entertainment section for an hour of sexual
intercourse for $180. When the female, K.S., arrived at the predetermined
location, police took her into custody. K.S. indicated that she had been
working for Appellant for approximately one year, and that, against her will,
he took pictures of her and posted them in an advertisement for her services
on the internet. K.S. reported that Appellant arranged her “dates” for
prostitution, demanded the money she received for her prostitution services,
and supplied K.S. with heroin. K.S. told police that Appellant was a drug
____________________________________________
2At the time of his arrest, police found fifteen bags of heroin on Appellant’s
person. Thus, at docket No. 2374 CR 2015, Appellant was also charged with
numerous drug offenses.
-2-
J-S26023-18
dealer who took advantage of her heroin addiction by ensuring that she did
not obtain heroin from anyone else. She also stated that Appellant physically
abused her by strangling, slapping, or hitting her when she did not want to go
on the prostitution “dates” he had arranged. K.S. also related Appellant’s
threat to kill her by giving her a “hot shot” of heroin laced with rat poison if
she told police that he was pimping her. Criminal Information (Affidavit of
Probable Cause), 9/30/15, at 1-2.
According to the criminal information filed at 2374 CR 2015, on
September 3, 2015, police met with C.W., who indicated that, for
approximately one year, she had been working as a prostitute, being forcibly
pimped by Appellant. C.W.’s account was similar to the statement K.S.
provided. Appellant would post advertisements for her in the adult
entertainment section on www.backpage.com, and physically abuse her if she
declined to go on dates he arranged for prostitution. Once a date was
completed, she had to give Appellant all of the money she received for her
prostitution services. In return, he would provide her with heroin. She also
indicated that Appellant would physically abuse her and force her to perform
sex acts on him. C.W. identified, by photograph, Appellant’s girlfriend,
Nefertari Rouse, who assisted Appellant with the human trafficking of C.W.
and other victims. Appellant and Rouse would put C.W. and other victims into
separate hotel rooms for extended periods of time and bring them food and
heroin. Criminal Information (Affidavit of Probable Cause), 10/5/15, at 1-2.
-3-
J-S26023-18
On May 8, 2017, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to one count of
trafficking in individuals at both 2373 CR 2015 and 2374 CR 2015. In
exchange, the Commonwealth agreed to nolle pros the remaining charges,
and to discontinue its investigation regarding drug charges in a fourth case
filed against Appellant at 2749 CR 2015. On the same date, the trial court
sentenced Appellant. At 2373 CR 2015, the trial court imposed a term of
thirty-six to seventy-two months incarceration.3 At 2374 CR 2015, the trial
court imposed a term of thirty-six to seventy-two months incarceration, to be
served consecutively to the sentence imposed at 2373 CR 2015. Appellant
timely filed timely post-sentence motions. Upon reconsideration, the trial
court found Appellant eligible for the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive
(“RRRI”) program, and modified his sentences accordingly. The trial court
denied the remaining post-sentence motions. Appellant thereafter filed timely
notices of appeal and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statements of
matters complained of on appeal.
On appeal, Appellant raises a single issue for our review at both dockets:
Did the honorable trial court abuse its discretion in sentencing
Appellant to serve two consecutive terms of imprisonment at the
highest aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines where the
reasons cited by the court were that he had committed these
offenses after he had been placed on parole after having been
convicted of one prior count of promoting prostitution in Lehigh
____________________________________________
3The sentence was to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed for
Appellant’s conviction for promoting prostitution.
-4-
J-S26023-18
County, Pennsylvania, a contention that is not supported in the
record?
Appellant’s briefs at 8.
Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence.4
“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). 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.
§ 9781(b).
Moury, supra at 170 (citation omitted). When an appellant challenges the
discretionary aspects of his sentence, we must consider his brief on this issue
as a petition for permission to appeal. Commonwealth v. Yanoff, 690 A.2d
260, 267 (Pa.Super. 1997); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b).
In the instant case, Appellant filed timely notice of appeals, preserved
his claims in timely post-sentence motions, and included in his appellate briefs
____________________________________________
4 While a guilty plea which includes sentence negotiation ordinarily precludes
a defendant from contesting the validity of his sentence other than to argue
that the sentence is illegal or that the sentencing court did not have
jurisdiction, open plea agreements such as the one herein do not preclude a
defendant from appealing the discretionary aspects of the sentence. See
Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 365 n.5 (Pa.Super. 2005).
-5-
J-S26023-18
a separate Rule 2119(f) statement. As such, he is in technical compliance
with the requirements to challenge the discretionary aspects of his sentence.
See Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912, 916 (Pa.Super. 2010). Thus,
we will proceed to determine whether Appellant has presented a substantial
question for our review.
In his Rule 2119(f) statements, Appellant contends that a substantial
question is presented because the trial court imposed consecutive,
aggravated-range sentences based on its unsupported finding that Appellant
had been trafficking in individuals while on parole for his January 2015
conviction of promoting prostitution.5 Appellant’s contention raises a
substantial question that the sentence imposed was inconsistent with Section
9781(c)(2) of the Sentencing Guidelines. See Commonwealth v. Stewart,
867 A.2d 589, 592 (Pa.Super. 2005) (holding that a substantial question
exists when a defendant alleges the sentencing court considered improper
factors when imposing an aggravated range sentence).
____________________________________________
5Appellant also contends that the trial court based the severity of its sentence
upon Appellant’s prior conviction for promoting prostitution, which was already
accounted for in his prior record score. Appellant’s briefs at 27-29. However,
this discretionary sentencing issue was not raised before the trial court either
at sentencing or in Appellant’s post-sentence motions; nor was it raised in
Appellant’s concise statements. Therefore, it is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302
(providing that issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal); see also Commonwealth v. Lord, 719
A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998) (holding that if an appellant is directed to file a
concise statement of matters to be raised on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b), any issues not raised in that statement are waived).
-6-
J-S26023-18
When evaluating the merits of sentencing claims, we are guided by the
following standard:
Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the
sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal
absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this context, an abuse
of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather,
the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the
sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its
judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or
arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.
....
When imposing sentence, a court is required to consider the
particular circumstances of the offense and the character of the
defendant. In considering these factors, the court should refer to
the defendant’s prior criminal record, age, personal characteristics
and potential for rehabilitation.
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 760-61 (Pa.Super. 2014).
Additionally, “the sentence imposed should call for confinement that is
consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it
relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on the community, and the
rehabilitative needs of the defendant.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b).
Here, Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in
imposing consecutive, aggravated-range sentences based on its
determination that he had committed trafficking in individuals while on parole
following his January 7, 2015 conviction of promoting prostitution. Appellant
claims that both K.S. and C.W. told police that they engaged in prostitution
for Appellant in 2014, not 2015. On this basis, Appellant argues that the trial
court erroneously “accepted as fact without sufficient evidence” that he
-7-
J-S26023-18
committed trafficking in individuals while on parole. Appellant’s briefs at 29-
30.
At the sentencing hearing, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to one
count of trafficking in individuals at count two of the criminal information filed
at 2373 CR 2015, and one count of trafficking in individuals at count two of
the criminal information filed at 2374 CR 2015. The criminal informations filed
at 2373 CR 2015 and 2374 CR 2015 were supported by affidavits of probable
cause which alleged that Appellant had been trafficking in individuals for
approximately one year, during which Appellant was on parole for his
conviction of promoting prostitution.6 By entering his guilty pleas to the
charges at 2373 CR 2015 and 2374 CR 2015, Appellant admitted that he
committed those crimes as alleged. See N.T. Guilty Plea, 5/8/17, at 29.
Therefore, we find no merit to his claim that, at the time of sentencing, the
trial court had no evidence that Appellant committed trafficking in individuals
while on parole from his conviction of promoting prostitution. See
Commonwealth v. Simpson, 829 A.2d 334, 339 (Pa.Super. 2003) (holding
that the fact a defendant is on parole at the time he committed new offenses
is an extraneous factor that can be separately considered by the sentencing
court).
____________________________________________
6 On January 7, 2015, Appellant was placed on twenty-three months of
probation for his conviction of promoting prostitution.
-8-
J-S26023-18
Moreover, we find that the trial court at sentencing offered sufficient,
valid reasons for imposing aggravated-range sentences:
Instantly, [Appellant] entered his guilty plea[s] and waived a pre-
sentence investigation report, thus we sentenced him
immediately, noting as an aggravated factor that he was under
supervision from his [promoting prostitution] conviction when
these offenses were committed. Further, we considered that
[Appellant] had been charged after an investigation which
included [Appellant] placing newspaper advertisements for
prostitution in February 2015. There were subsequent
advertisements for prostitution throughout 2015. We considered
the facts supporting the convictions as well as the rehabilitative
needs of [Appellant]. We are mindful of the seriousness of
[Appellant’s] crimes and the significant effect on the victims,
which is long[-]lasting. At the time of sentencing, Ms. Rouse, a
codefendant, who later cooperated with the Commonwealth,
addressed the court. She expressed the profound impact that
case has had on her life and continues to affect her. She
expressed disgust for [Appellant] who was a long-time friend and
paramour. Ms. Rouse was forthright in her statements when she
addressed the court. We also considered the protection of the
public when we imposed the sentence on [Appellant]. Given all of
our considerations and concerns, we imposed a proper and legal
sentence on [Appellant]. Our sentence falls squarely within the
aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines established for the
crimes committed and does not exceed the statutory parameters.
Trial Court Opinion, 9/14/17, at unnumbered 4-5.
Our review of the record reveals no abuse of discretion on the part of
the trial court. The court’s comments during the hearings reveal that it
considered all the evidence presented by both the Commonwealth and the
defense before concluding consecutive, aggravated-range sentences were
appropriate. Therefore, Appellant’s discretionary sentencing claims warrant
no relief.
Judgments of sentence affirmed.
-9-
J-S26023-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/17/18
- 10 -
Com. v. Rolle, E.
Combined Opinion