J-S28011-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
WILLIAM WAYNE DELVALLE :
:
Appellant : No. 1682 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 29, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-06-CR-0005432-2018
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED AUGUST 07, 2020
William Wayne Delvalle appeals from judgment of sentence of thirty to
one hundred and twenty months of incarceration imposed after a jury
convicted him of robbery and related charges. We affirm.
At 3:00 p.m. on November 8, 2018, loss prevention detectives Bryan
Bilous (hereinafter “Victim”) and Jessica Marques were watching the security
camera at Boscov’s department store in Berks County. See N.T. Jury Trial,
6/11/19, at 92-93, 95. They observed Appellant pick up a “tester”1 bottle of
cologne, conceal it in the sleeve of his jacket, and exit the store. Id. at 93-
95. As Appellant left the store, Victim and Ms. Marque decided to apprehend
him. Id. at 95-96. Upon confronting Appellant, Victim identified himself as a
____________________________________________
1 A “tester” is a bottle of cologne located on the cosmetics counter for
customers to sample before they decide to purchase cologne. N.T. Jury Trial,
6/11/19, at 94.
J-S28011-20
loss prevention officer and asked Appellant to reenter the store. Id. at 97.
As they were walking back toward the front of the store, Appellant first placed
his hands inside of his jacket, then withdrew them, and began running away.
Id. at 97-98. Victim grabbed onto Appellant, attempting to wrestle him to
the ground and handcuff him. Id. at 98. During the ensuing struggle,
Appellant bit Victim on the right forearm and right hand, drawing blood. Id.
at 99-100, 105. Once police arrived on scene, Appellant was taken into
custody and Victim was transported to the hospital for treatment of his
injuries. Id. at 102-05. After Appellant was placed in custody, a second bottle
of cologne was discovered on his person. Id. at 106.
The Commonwealth charged Appellant with robbery, theft of movable
property by unlawful taking, and simple assault. The case proceeded to trial,
and on June 11, 2019, the jury convicted Appellant of all three charges. On
July 29, 2019, the court sentenced Appellant to serve a standard range
sentence of thirty months to ten years of confinement at the robbery charge.
The remaining charges merged for sentencing.
On August 7, 2019, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion challenging
the weight and sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions and the
discretionary aspects of his sentence. On October 3, 2019, the court denied
Appellant’s motions. Thereafter, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Following a remand, Appellant filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal. In his concise statement,
Appellant challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence to support his
-2-
J-S28011-20
convictions, and asserted that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing
an excessive sentence. The trial court thereafter authored its Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a) opinion.
Appellant presents the following issues for our review:
1. Whether the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient
evidence to support a verdict of guilty for the count of
Robbery, specifically, where the Commonwealth did not
establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that [Appellant]
caused bodily injury to the loss prevention officer nor
threatened him with or intentionally put him in fear of
immediate bodily jury.
2. Whether the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient
evidence to support a verdict of guilty for the count of
Simple Assault, where the Commonwealth did not establish,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that [Appellant] attempted to
or caused bodily injury to the loss prevention officer.
3. Whether the Trial Court abused its discretion when it
permitted a guilty verdict that was against the weight of the
evidence, where the evidence supported the conclusion that
the [Appellant] acted in self-defense.
4. Whether the Trial Court erred by imposing a sentence of not
less than 30 months nor more than 10 years, which at the
top of the standard range was excessive when considering:
the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it
related to the impact on the life of the victim and the
community, and the rehabilitative needs of [Appellant].
Appellant’s brief at 6-7.
Appellant’s first two claims challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to
support his convictions. Our standard of review when considering a challenge
to the sufficiency of the evidence is:
-3-
J-S28011-20
[w]hether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light
most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence
to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond
a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh
the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In
addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by
the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of
innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be
resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and
inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be
drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth
may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial
evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record
must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be
considered. Finally, the finder of fact while passing upon the
credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced,
is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Gause, 164 A.3d 532, 540-41 (Pa.Super. 2017)
(citations and quotation marks omitted).
Upon review of the certified record, the parties’ briefs, and the relevant
law, the trial court’s well-reasoned opinion thoroughly describes how the
evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. Accordingly, we affirm
Appellant’s judgment of sentence as to the first two claims on the basis of the
opinion that the Honorable Patrick T. Barrett entered on February 7, 2020.
See Trial Court Opinion, 2/7/20, at 3-6 (discussing Appellant’s two challenges
to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his robbery and simple assault
convictions, detailing the elements the Commonwealth had to prove, and
specifying where in record the Commonwealth put forth sufficient evidence
that Appellant inflicted bodily injury upon the Victim).
-4-
J-S28011-20
In his next claim, Appellant attacks the weight of the evidence to support
his convictions for robbery and simple assault, because he acted in self-
defense. See Appellant’s brief at 25-27. Such a claim is addressed in the
first instance to the discretion of the trial court. As we explained in
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 78 A.3d 644, 650 (Pa.Super. 2013):
A new trial should not be granted because of a mere conflict in the
testimony or because the judge on the same facts would have
arrived at a different conclusion. A trial judge must do more than
reassess the credibility of the witnesses and allege that he would
not have assented to the verdict if he were a juror. Trial judges,
in reviewing a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence, do not sit as the thirteenth juror. Rather, the role of
the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts,
certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them
or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.
Id. In short, a verdict should not be overturned on this basis unless “it is so
contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.” Commonwealth
v. Cash, 137 A.3d 1262, 1270 (Pa. 2016).
Our standard of review when presented with a weight of the evidence
claim is distinct from the standard of review applied by the trial court:
Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of
discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict
is against the weight of the evidence. Because the trial judge has
had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, an
appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings
and reasons advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial
court’s determination that the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for granting or
denying a new trial is the lower court’s conviction that the verdict
was or was not against the weight of the evidence and that a new
trial should be granted in the interest of justice.
-5-
J-S28011-20
Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (internal citations
omitted) (emphasis in original).
In its opinion, the trial court noted that a new trial should only be
awarded when the jury’s verdict was so contrary to the evidence that it
shocked the court’s sense of justice, before finding that it had no reason to
disturb the jury’s credibility determinations. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/7/20,
at 7-8. In the trial court’s view, the only evidence that supported Appellant’s
contention that he acted in self-defense was Appellant’s own self-serving
testimony. Furthermore, since Appellant did not specify why his own
testimony deserved greater weight than that introduced by the
Commonwealth, his claim amounted to a “bare assertion” that did not merit
relief. Id. at 7. Our review has uncovered no abuse of discretion.
Appellant maintains that, because he testified that he acted in self-
defense, he should not have been convicted of robbery or simple assault. See
Appellant’s brief at 27-28. However, Appellant is merely rehashing the
arguments he made at trial, which the jury rejected, as was its prerogative.
See Commonwealth v. Flor, 998 A.2d 606, 626 (Pa. 2010) (reaffirming that
the jury is entitled “to believe all, part, or none of the evidence, and credibility
determinations rest solely within the purview of the fact-finder”); see also
N.T. Jury Trial, 6/11/19, at 172-74 (Appellant testifying that he acted in self-
defense when he bit Victim); Id. at 216-23 (trial counsel arguing that
-6-
J-S28011-20
Appellant acted in self-defense). Accordingly, no relief is due on Appellant’s
third issue.
In his final claim, Appellant alleges that he received an excessive
sentence. See Appellant’s brief at 28-31. The law is well-settled that
sentencing is within the discretion of the trial court and should not be
disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v.
Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 760 (Pa.Super. 2014). Furthermore, challenges to
the discretionary aspects of sentence do not automatically entitle an appellant
to appellate review. See Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 272
(Pa.Super. 2018). Rather, an appellant must meet certain procedural
prerequisites before an appellate court can entertain such a challenge.
Specifically, we engage in a four-part analysis to determine whether (1) the
appeal is timely; (2) the issue has been preserved; (3) appellant’s brief
includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal
with respect to discretionary aspects of sentence pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
2119(f); and (4) the concise statement raises a substantial question that the
sentence is inappropriate under the sentencing code. See Commonwealth
v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 807-08 (Pa.Super. 2013). If each of these
requirements is met, we will proceed to a determination on the merits. Id.
Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion and concise statement
challenging the excessiveness of his sentence. Also, his brief contains a
statement of reasons relied upon for his challenge to the discretionary aspects
-7-
J-S28011-20
of his sentence as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). See Appellant's brief at 15.
Therein, Appellant claims that a substantial question is presented because “the
sentencing court failed to consider mitigating factors.” Id. We find that this
claim raises a substantial question, as it challenges Appellant’s alleged
excessive sentence in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to
consider mitigating factors. See Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244,
1253 (Pa.Super. 2014).
The following principles apply to our substantive review of Appellant’s
claim. “When reviewing sentencing matters, this Court must accord the
sentencing court great weight as it is in the best position to view the
defendant’s character, displays of remorse, defiance or indifference, and the
overall effect and nature of the crime.” Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975
A.2d 1128, 1134 (Pa.Super. 2009). “We cannot re-weigh the sentencing
factors and impose our judgment in the place of the sentencing court.”
Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 778 (Pa.Super. 2009). Instead,
we review the trial court’s determination for an 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.
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 760 (Pa.Super. 2014).
A trial court’s sentence “should call for confinement that is consistent
with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the
-8-
J-S28011-20
impact on the life of the victim and on the community, and the rehabilitative
needs of the defendant.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b). “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.” Antidormi, supra at 761 (citations and
quotation marks omitted). Finally, when the trial court has been informed by
a pre-sentence investigation, as here, it is presumed that the trial court is
aware of and has been informed by all appropriate sentencing factors and
considerations. Commonwealth v. Bullock, 170 A.3d 1109, 1126
(Pa.Super. 2017).
Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c), we can vacate and remand only if we
find (1) that the court intended to sentence within the guidelines, but “applied
the guidelines erroneously;” (2) a sentence was imposed within the guidelines,
“but the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines
would be clearly unreasonable;” or (3) “the sentencing court sentenced
outside the sentencing guidelines and the sentence is unreasonable.” 42
Pa.C.S. § 9781(c). Appellant concedes that his sentence fell within the
guidelines. See Appellant’s brief at 30. Therefore, it must be affirmed unless
it is clearly unreasonable. While reasonableness is not defined in the statute,
it “commonly connotes a decision that is ‘irrational’ or ‘not guided by sound
judgment.’” Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957, 963 (Pa. 2007).
-9-
J-S28011-20
Appellant argues that his sentence was unreasonable because the court
did not “give appropriate weight” to his long-standing addiction issues, the
relapse he suffered immediately prior to the incident, the treatment that he
needs for his mental health diagnoses, and his strong family support system.
Appellant’s brief at 30. Appellant’s claim is belied by the record.
The certified record demonstrates that the trial court properly relied on
several factors in electing to impose a standard range sentence, all of which
demonstrated that the court followed the general principles outlined in §
9721(b), i.e., that the sentence be consistent with the protection of the public,
gravity of the offense as it relates to the victim and community, and the
rehabilitative needs of the offender. In fashioning the judgment of sentence,
the trial court noted the sentencing guidelines, that it had reviewed the PSI
several times, and accepted an amendment to the PSI from the defense
indicating that Appellant was suffering from addiction issues at the time of the
offense. See N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 10/22/19, at 3-6. Additionally, the
court heard from the defense attorney, who detailed Appellant’s heroin
addiction struggles, mental health diagnoses for depression and anxiety, and
the composition of his family support system. Id. at 6-8. Finally, Appellant
spoke, apologizing for his actions and indicating his intention to overcome his
addiction and mental health issues. Id. at 8. Having taken all this into
consideration, the court then issued the aforementioned sentence.
- 10 -
J-S28011-20
Appellant has failed to persuade us that he received an unreasonable
sentence. Our review confirms that the trial court was aware of, considered,
and weighed Appellant’s mitigating factors, along with other relevant
sentencing factors. The court found compelling the fact that while Appellant
indicated an eagerness to engage in treatment and get back to his family, the
PSI detailed three pages of prior convictions, which included two prior retail
thefts in the same county where his support system was located. Id. at 8-9.
Also, Appellant escalated the situation from a theft to a robbery when he bit
the victim. Id. at 9. Viewing the addiction-induced circumstances of the
crime, in light of Appellant’s prior record, the court determined that Appellant
needed a lengthy period of supervision. Id. at 9-11. We have no license to
reweigh the mitigating circumstances against the aforementioned factors.
Macias, supra at 778. Accordingly, we find that the trial court acted well
within its discretion when it issued a sentence within the standard range of
the sentencing guidelines. We affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 08/07/2020
- 11 -
Circulated 07/28/2020 02:01 PM
COURT OF.COMMON PLE�S OF BERKS COUNTY- CRIMINAL
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: No. CP-06-CR-0005432-2018
-v- 1682 MDA 2019
. .
WILLIAM WAYNE DELVALLE Patrick T. Barrett, J.
Pa.R.A.P. 192S(a)(l) OPINION
I. Background
On June 11, 2019, Defendant/Appellant, William Delvalle was convicted
following a jury trial of robbery, theft of movable property by unlawful taking, and
simple assault. Defendant was sentenced on July 29, 2019 to an aggregateperiod
of thirty months to ten years' confinement. On August 7, 2019 Defendant filed
timely post-sentence motions, which the court denied on October 3, 2019.
Defendant filed a timely Notice of Appeal tothe Superior Court on October 9,
2019. On October 25\;-��l�.'r-mlf:?f:-f.�1irected Defendant to file and serve upon it
a concise statement oz�ttw:J cem1J�m�� of on appeal within thirty days.
sisnoo Jo >1�rr1:;
Page lof 9
Defendant did not file a timely statement. On January 15, 2020, the Superior
Court remanded the matter for the filing of a statement and an opinion.
Defendant's Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal (hereinafter,
"Statement") asserts, verbatim:
1. The evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdict of Robbery (F2),
where the Commonwealth did not establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
Defendant caused bodily injury to the loss prevention officer.
2. The evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdict of Simple Assault
(M2) where the Commonwealth did not establish, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that Defendant attempted to or cause bodily injury to the loss prevention
officer.
3. The guilty verdicts for Robbery and Simple Assault were in error and against
the weight of the evidence presented at trial where the evidence supported the
conclusion that the Defendant acted in self-defense in causing injury to the
loss prevention officer during flight from theft.
4. The trial court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence of not less than
thirty (30) months to no more than ten (10) years incarceration, which was at
the top of the standard range as was excessive when considering the protection
of the public, the gravity of the offense as it related to the impact on the life
of the victim and the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the
Defendant. ,.,' .
.. . '. � . ' ....· .�,- ......
Statement (01/22/20).
Page 2 of9
11. Discussion
The crimes for which Defendant was convicted are codified as follows:
§ 3701. Robbery
(a) Offense defined.-
Cl) A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he:
(iv) inflicts bodily injury upon another or threatens another with or
intentionally puts him in fear of immediate bodily injury.
18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(iv).
§ 3921. Theft by unlawful taking or disposition
(a) Movable property.--A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or
exercises unlawful control over, movable property of another with intent
to deprive him thereof.
18 Pa.C.S. § 3921(a).
§ 2701. Simple Assault
(a) Offense defined.--Except as provided under section 2702 (relating to
aggravated assault), a person is guilty of assault ifhe:
(1) attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another
18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(l).
Statements of Error# l'�i.Z.r.:r1C:J
. . �·
�:i_ . d . :;:.
ZS =2 �d L - �!'.:}-? 01n1
Defendant's first two clauns of-e?rOf'neal with sufficiency of the evidence to
SlH003 .=0 >'!�31J
support convictions for robbery and simple assault. Both claim that the
Page 3 of 9
Commonwealth did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant caused
bodily injury to another. In this case, Defendant was charged with inflicting bodily
injury upon a loss prevention officer while fleeing a Boscov's department store
after committing or trying to commit theft by unlawful taking of three bottles of
cologne.
The court instructed the jury regarding "bodily injury" for both robbery and
simple assault as follows:
"Bodily injury" means impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.
Bruises, scratches or experiencing pain or soreness as a result of being
physically struck by another is sufficient to constitute "bodily injury.'' A
person does not need to undergo subsequent medical treatment in order to
have suffered "bodily injury." Substantial pain may be inferred from the
circumstances surrounding the physical force used, even in the absence of
significant injury.
N.T. Jury Trial (06/10/19 - 06/11/19) at 246, 248-249.
Defendant does not claim in his Statement that the court erred or abused its
discretion when it denied his motions for judgement of acquittal based on
sufficiency of the evidence, which he raised before the trial court following the
Commonwealth's evidence at trial and in post-sentence motions. Of course, a
defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction on
appeal. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 606(A)(7). Because a challenge under this subsection
Page 4 of 9
does not involve a claim of error or an order entered by the trial court, there is no
needfor the trial court to address such claims in an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925 (i.e., there is no challenge to an order, ruling, or other error by the trial court).
See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(the judge who entered the order giving rise to the notice of
appeal shall file of record "at least a brief opinion of the reasons for the order, or
for the rulings or other errors complained of .. " (emphasis added)).
That said, when such a challenge is made this Court normally specifies the
place in the record where evidence supporting a particular element or elements
may be found. Instantly, the Commonwealth called the victim, loss prevention
officer Brian Bilous, as a witness. Mr. Bilous testified that Defendant "did latch
down onto my right forearm, starting to bite in that area." N.T. Jury Trial at 99.
Mr. Bilous continued:
I tried to remove my arm from [Defendant's] mouth at that point in time, but
he would not let go. At that point I did attempt to strike the subject to have
him release his bite from my arm, but he did not. After -- I don't know the
exact time, possibly a few seconds, the subject did eventually release. As I
was trying to get my arm away from him, from the front of his body, he did
bite again onto my hand, right where my right thumb is. And that wasn't the
same amount of pressure as the bite on· my forearm, but it was just another
bite location that he did latch down on temporarily, my right thumb.
N.T. Jury Trial at 100. Mr. Bilous further testified that the bites caused him to
bleed (Id. at 105), that the bites hurt (Id. at 101 ), and that he sought and received
Page s·of9
medical treatment at the Reading Hospital for the injuries (Id. at 103). The
Commonwealth also introduced photographs of the bite marks. Id. at 104
(Commonwealth's Exhibits l and 2).
This evidence is sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that
Defendant inflicted bodily injury upon another (robbery) and/or caused bodily
injury to another (simple assault).
Statement of Error# 3
In his third claim, Defendant concedes that he caused injury to Mr. Bilous. He
states: "The guilty verdic�s for Robbery and Simple Assault were in error and
against the weight of the evidence presented at trial where the evidence supported
the conclusion that the Defendant acted in self-defense in causing injury to the loss
prevention officer during flight from theft." Statement, ,r 3.
Appellate review of a weight of the evidence claim is limited to a review of the
judge's exercise of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 (Pa.
1997), and Commonwealth v. Brown, 648 A.2d 1177, 1189-1192 (Pa. 1994).
Instantly, Defendant does not claim on appeal that this Court abused its discretion
in denying a post-sentence motion challenging the weight of the evidence.
Nevertheless, the court did consider and reject this claim. See Post-Sentence
Motions (08/07/19) at 16(a).
Page 6 of 9
A new trial should be awarded "when the jury's verdict is so contrary to the
evidence as to shock one's sense of justice and the award of a new trial is
imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail." Brown, 648
A.2d at 1189, Commonwealth v. Whitney, 512 A.2d 1152, 1155-1156 (Pa. 1986).
Because this case involves a jury verdict, in considering post-sentence motions,
"the role of the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts, certain
facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal
weight with all the facts is to deny justice." Widmer, 744 A.2d at 752 (citation
omitted).
Defendant's bare assertion in his post-sentence motion that, "the evidence
supported the conclusion that Defendant acted in self-defense in causing injury,"
without any reference to specific testimony from the trial to support his claim
violates the mandate under Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(l)(a) that all requests for relief
from the trial court shall be stated with specificity and particularity. In this case, to
award a new trial based on the weight of the evidence would require the court to
consider specific evidence, but Defendant did not direct the court to any facts to .
support his claim. While it follows that he relies on his own testimony from trial,
he nevertheless does not specify why such testimony deserves greater weight than
the evidence introduced by the Commonwealth.
Page 7 of 9
The jury obviously chose to disbelieve Defendant's testimony regarding self-
defense. "The jury, which passes upon the weight and credibility of each witness's
testimony, is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence." Commonwealth v.
Ramtahal, 33 A.3d 602, 607 (Pa. 2011). This court has no reason to disturb its
credibility determinations on post-sentence motions. Accordingly, Defendant's
post-sentence motion for a new trial was denied.
Statement of Error # 4
Defendant's final contention is that the court abused its discretion in imposing a
sentence of thirty to one hundred twenty months' imprisonment, with credit for
263 days served, for robbery. The remaining charges merged for sentencing.
In this case, the robbery was graded as a felony of the second degree. See 18
Pa.C.S. § 3701. Defendant had a prior record score of five and the offense gravity.
score for robbery is seven, making the standard range twenty-four to thirty months.
The court reviewed a pre-sentence investigation report and reviewed a letter
written by the victim, Mr. Bilous, prior to imposing its sentence.
The reasons for the sentence appear of record. See Sentencing Transcript
(07/29/19) at 8-10. Importantly, the pre-sentence report contains three pages of
prior crimes involving theft and drugs dating back to 1994, and Defendant
escalated the situation from a theft to robbery by biting Mr. Bilous. Id. The court
Page 8 of 9
t"
I •
imposed a standard range minimum sentence of thirty months but determined that
Defendant "needs to be supervised way beyond" the four years called for under the
guidelines given his criminal record. Accordingly, the court imposed a sentence of
thirty to one hundred twenty months.
a�/3
BY THE COURT�
Patrick T. Barrett, J.
Distribution
Superior Court
Defendant
Berks PD
Berks DA
C•
Judge Barrett
Page 9 of9