J-S43006-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
CURTIS LEE MAHNKE :
:
Appellant : No. 394 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 22, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-35-CR-0000740-2018
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 20, 2019
Appellant, Curtis Lee Mahnke, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, following his
negotiated guilty plea to two counts of simple assault.1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court correctly set forth the relevant facts and
most of the procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no need to
restate them. We add that on March 7, 2019, the court ordered Appellant to
file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant timely complied on March 25, 2019.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT IMPOSED HARSH AND
UNREASONABLE SENTENCES?
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(3).
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S43006-19
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT
IMPOSE CONCURRENT SENTENCES?
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO STATE ON THE
RECORD ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE SENTENCING
GUIDELINES OR THE REASONS FOR THE SENTENCES
IMPOSED AS REQUIRED?
(Appellant’s Brief at 4).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Michael J.
Barrasse, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions
presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed May 9, 2019, at 3-10) (finding: (1-
3) Appellant arguably does not present substantial question, where court
imposed sentences within guidelines, sentences otherwise conformed to
sentencing norms, and were appropriate under facts and circumstances of
case; moreover, Appellant’s standard range sentence is not unduly harsh or
excessive or result of bias on part of court; court had benefit of PSI report,
which contained Appellant’s relevant history and background, as well as
particular circumstances of underlying offenses; court also considered
Appellant’s mental health issue, which he had neglected to address until
charged with underlying offenses; in light of escalating violent nature of
Appellant's behavior and his reckless use of firearm, less restrictive
punishment would depreciate seriousness of Appellant’s actions; court
considered circumstances of offenses, impact on community, need to deter
-2-
J-S43006-19
Appellant and others from committing this type of offense, and protection of
community; also, sentencing court had discretion to order consecutive
sentences; in light of violent criminal conduct at issue, Appellant was not
entitled to “volume discount” for his offenses). The record supports the trial
court’s rationale. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/20/2019
-3-
Circulated 08/27/2019 11:32 AM