J-S75037-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ANTHONY C. CAMPBELL, : : Appellant : No. 3627 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 2, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009388-2016, CP-51-CR-0009390-2016, CP-51-CR-0009397-2016, CP-51-CR-0009405-2016, CP-51-CR-0009407-2016, CP-51-CR-0009409-2016, CP-51-CR-0009415-2016, CP-51-CR-0009777-2016, CP-51-CR-0010115-2016
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., NICHOLS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JANUARY 24, 2019
Anthony C. Campbell (“Campbell”) appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered following his non-negotiated guilty plea to multiple counts
of robbery (threat of serious bodily injury), burglary, criminal conspiracy,
carrying a firearms without a license, possession of an instrument of crime,
false imprisonment, aggravated assault, theft and attempted burglary.1 We
affirm in part and vacate in part.
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701(a)(1)(ii), 3502(a)(1), 903, 6106(a)(1), 907(a), 2903, 2702, 3925, 901. J-S75037-18
In its Opinion, the trial court summarized the facts underlying
Campbell’s guilty pleas, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See
Trial Court Opinion, 1/11/18, at 4-6.
Campbell entered non-negotiated guilty pleas to the above charges, in
relation to a series of home invasions that took place in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. As a result of his guilty pleas, the trial court sentenced
Campbell to an aggregate prison term of 30-60 years. Campbell filed a post-
sentence Motion, which the trial court denied. Thereafter, Campbell filed the
instant timely appeal, followed by a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise
Statement of matters complained of on appeal.
In this appeal, Campbell challenges the discretionary aspects of his
sentence. Brief for Appellant at 10. Specifically, Campbell claims that,
although he was sentenced within the statutory limits, the trial court “erred in
double-counting [his] prior record score and offense gravity score.” Id.
“A challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing is not
automatically reviewable as a matter of right.” Commonwealth v. Grays,
167 A.3d 793, 815 (Pa. Super. 2017). Prior to reaching the merits of a
discretionary 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).
-2- J-S75037-18
Grays, 167 A.3d at 815-16 (citation omitted).
Here, Campbell timely filed his Notice of Appeal, preserved his claim in
a post-sentence Motion, included in his brief a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) Statement of
the reasons he relies upon for allowance of appeal, and has raised a
substantial question that his sentence is inappropriate under the Sentencing
Code. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721,
732 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en banc) (stating that a claim that the court double-
counted factors included in the sentencing guidelines raises a substantial
question). Accordingly, we will address Campbell’s sentencing challenge.
Campbell argues that the trial court improperly double-counted
Campbell’s prior record, when imposing his sentence. Brief for Appellant at
12. Campbell argues that, because the trial court is required to consider the
sentencing guidelines, it may not double-count his prior record score or
offense gravity score. Id. According to Campbell, “beyond the fact that
previous convictions have had the effect of increasing a defendant’s prior
record score, the defendant’s prior record does not provide a basis for
imposing an aggravated[-]range sentence because those factors have already
been taken into account by the guidelines range itself.” Id. Campbell directs
our attention to the trial court’s statement, at sentencing, wherein the court
took into account Campbell’s age at the time he perpetrated the offenses, the
predatory nature of the crimes, and his prior record score. Id. at 14.
Campbell points out the trial court’s recitation of Campbell’s prior arrests,
-3- J-S75037-18
probation and parole violations in deciding to sentence Campbell within the
aggravated range of the guidelines. Id.
It is undisputed that 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. Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892
A.2d 843, 847 (Pa. Super. 2006).
When imposing a sentence, the sentencing court must consider “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.A. § 9721(b). As we have stated, “a court is
required to consider the particular circumstances of the offense and the
character of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 10 (Pa.
Super. 2002). “In particular, the court should refer to the defendant’s prior
criminal record, his age, personal characteristics and his potential for
rehabilitation.” Id.
Upon our review, we do not agree that the trial court improperly
“double-counted” certain factors at sentencing. Rather, as the trial court
explained in its Opinion, upon review of Campbell’s pre-sentence investigation
report, the court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing Campbell, and
imposing consecutive sentences for some of the offenses. See Trial Court
Opinion, 1/11/18, at 7-10. We agree with the sound reasoning of the trial
-4- J-S75037-18
court, and affirm on the basis of the trial court’s Opinion with regard to
Campbell’s claim. See id.
In its Opinion, the trial court additionally states that it imposed an illegal
sentence of five to ten years in prison for each of Campbell’s convictions for
firearms not to be carried without a license. Trial Court Opinion, 1/11/18, at
3 n.4. Our review of the record discloses that for his conviction of carrying a
firearm without a license, a third-degree felony, the trial court sentenced
Campbell to five to ten years in prison. However, our legislature has provided
that a felony of the third degree carries a term of imprisonment “which shall
be fixed by the court at not more than seven years.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1103(3).
Thus, the trial court’s sentences for each of Campbell’s convictions of firearms
not to be carried without a license are illegal. We therefore vacate those
sentences. Because our resolution does not disrupt the trial court’s sentencing
scheme, we need not remand for resentencing on those charges. 2 See
Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 57 (Pa. Super. 2014) (declining to
2 In its Opinion, the trial court explained that,
[t]he concurrent nature of each illegal charge does not alter the sentence scheme for any individual docketing number or [Campbell’s] total sentence. Had this [c]ourt retained jurisdiction, it would have sua sponte vacated its sentence on each charge. Consequently, this [c]ourt does not see a need for remand[,] and would instead have the illegal sentences vacated.
Trial Court Opinion, 1/11/18, at 3 n.4.
-5- J-S75037-18
remand for resentencing where the Superior Court’s amendment to the
sentence did not disrupt the trial court’s sentencing scheme).
Judgment of sentence affirmed in part, and vacated in part. Superior
Court jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 1/24/19
-6- Circulated 12/18/2018 04:07 PM
FILED IN THE COURT OF .COMMON PLEAS JAN 11 2018 FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION Office of Judicial Records AppealS/Post Trial COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CP-5 l-CR-0009388-2016 CP-5l-CR-0009390-2016 CP-5 J-CR-0009397-2016 ��� ( Cf'-51-CR,0009777-201� COmm. V, Caml)l)el• �-- CP-51-CR-0009405-2016 ' � CP-5l-CR-0009407-2016 CP-51-CR-0009409-2016 llllllllll 111111111111111 ___..;:;..8:=..5_�732801 ;:0 J CP-5l-CR-0009415-2016 CP-5 l-CR-0009777-20 l 6 j CP-51-CR-0010115-2016
ANTHONY CAMPBELL,
OPI1"10N McDermott, J. January 11, 2017
Procedural History
On August 17, 2016, the Defendant, Anthony Campbell, was arrested and charged, along
with his co-defendant Norman Bowen, with Robbery, Burglary, and related offenses arising from
a series of home invasions. 1 On July 7, 20 I 7, the Defendant entered into a non-negotiated guilty
plea in each of the above captioned matters. This Court deferred sentencing for completion of
the Defendant's pre-sentence and mental health reports.
On October 2, 2017, this Court sentenced the Defendant to an aggregate sentence of
thirty to sixty years of imprisonment, plus restitution in the amount of$ I 0,000, for the home
invasions.2 In CP-5l-CR-0009415-2016, this Court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent
I Norman Bowen was arrested on August 15, 2016. On July 12, 2017, Norman Bowen entered into a non-negotiated
guilty plea related to some of the same home invasion robberies. On October 2, 2017, this Court sentenced him to a total sentence of thirty-four to sixty-eight years of imprisonment. See CP-5l-CR-0009387-2016, CP-51-CR- 0009396-2016, CP-5l-CR-0009404-2016, CP-5I-CR-0009406-2016, CP-5 I -CR-0009408-20 l 6, CP-5 J-CR- 0009414-2016, and CP-5l-CR-0010116-2016. 2 The Defendant received no further penalty for his probation violation. See CP-51-CR-0501831-2003. sentences of five to ten years of imprisonment for Robbery, Burglary, Conspiracy, and Firearms
Not to be Carried Without a License, with concurrent sentences of one to two years for
Possession of an Instrument of Crime ("PlC':) and False Imprisonment, for a total sentence of
five to ten years of imprisonment.
In CP-5 I-CR-0009397-2016, this Court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences
of five to ten years of imprisonment for Robbery (two counts), Burglary, Conspiracy, and
Firearm Not to be Carried Without a License, with concurrent sentences of one to two years for
PIC and False Imprisonment, for a total sentence of five to ten years of imprisonment.
In CP-51-CR-0009390-2016, this Court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences
of five to ten years of imprisonment for Robbery (two counts), Burglary, Conspiracy, Firearm
Not to be Carried Without a License, with a concurrent sentence of one to two years for PIC, for
a total sentence of five to ten years of imprisonment.
In CP-51-CR-0009407-2016, this Court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences
of five to ten years of imprisonment for Robbery (three counts), Burglary, Conspiracy,
Aggravated assaults (two counts), and Firearm Not to be Carried Without a License, with
concurrent sentences of one to two years for PIC and False Imprisonment (two counts), for a
total sentence of five to ten years of imprisonment.
In CP-5 l-CR-0009409-2016, this Court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences
of live to ten years of imprisonment for Robbery (three counts), Burglary, Conspiracy, Firearm
Not to be Carried Without a License, with a concurrent sentence of one to two years for PIC, for
a total sentence of five to ten years of imprisonment. In CP-5 I-CR-0009777-2016, this Court
sentenced the Defendant to a sentences of five to ten years of imprisonment for Robbery.
2 In CP-5l-CR-0010115-2016, this Court sentenced the Defendant lo concurrent sentences
of five to ten years of imprisonment for Burglary (three counts), Conspiracy, Firearm Kot to be
Carried Without a License, with a concurrent sentence of one lo two years for PlC, for a total
sentence of five to ten years of imprisonment.
On CP-51-CR-0009388-2016, this Court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent
sentences of five to ten years of imprisonment for Robbery, Burglary, and Conspiracy, Firearm
Not to be Carried Without a License, with concurrent sentences of one to two years for PIC and
False Imprisonment, for a total a total sentence of five to ten years of imprisonment.
ln CP-51-CR-0009405,-2016, this Court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences
of two to four years of imprisonment for Attempted Burglary and Conspiracy, with concurrent
sentences of one to two years for theft, for a current sentence of two to four years of
imprisonment.
The sentences in CP-5 l-CR-0009415-2016, CP-5 l-CR-0009397-2016, CP-51-CR-
0009390-2016, CP-51-CR-0009407-2016, and CP-51-CR-OOOIOI 1 S-2016 were each imposed to
run consecutively, for a total sentence of thirty to sixty years of imprisonment.'
On October 16, 2017, this Court denied the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration or Sentence. On November 12, 2107, the Defendant timely appealed. On December 4) 2017, the
Defendant filed a l 925(b) Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal."
3 The sentences for CP-5 I-CR-0009388-2016, CP-5 l-CR-0009405-2016, CP-5 J-CR-0009409-2016 were each imposed to be totally concurrent with the Defendant's remaining sentences. 4 This Court recognizes that it inadvertently imposed an illegal five to ten year term of imprisonment on each of the Defendant's Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License ( 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106) charges. No objections to the illegal nature of these particular sentences were lodged at the sentencing hearing, within the Defendant's post-sentence motion, or within his Rule 1925(b) Statement. The concurrent nature of each illegal charge does not alter the sentencing scheme for any individual docketing number or the Defendant's total sentence. Had this Court retained jurisdiction, it would have sua sponte vacated its sentence on each charge. Consequently, this Court does not see a need for remand and would instead have the illegal sentences vacated,
3 Facts
At his negotiated guilty plea hearing on July 7, 2017, the Defendant admitted guilt to the
following facts:
[D]etween June 6th and August 8th of 2016 ... the [D]efendant conspired with another or others to rob the homes and businesses of the complainants. In each incident the perpetrators wore masks and carried firearms and in each incident the victims were targets because they were business owners of Chinese national origin.
[W]ith regards to CP-51-CR-0009390-2016 and CP-51-CR- 0009777-2016 ... [o]n August Sth, 2016, the [D]efendant conspired with Koran Prophet to commit a home invasion robbery at 5143 Haverford A venue.
[The] property houses a Chinese restaurant on the first floor and a residence on the second. The [Defendant and Prophet], each armed with a firearm, forcibly entered the property where the complainants, Dinng Lu Xu, Lin Li Ting, and their daughter, Simin Xu, were sleeping. The [Defendant and Prophet] entered the bedroom Mr. Xu and Ms. Ting shared, woke them up and pointed guns at them, demanding money. The [Defendant and Prophet] took nearly $4,000, cell phones, iPads, and pocketbooks from these complainants. [The] Defendant, Koran Prophet, then entered the room where Simin Xu slept. Prophet pointed the gun at her head, held her head down, holding her in place, and then placed his hand under her pants, touching her vagina. As she continued to struggle and scream, Prophet then placed her in a closet and took her cell phone, money, and computer. The [D[cfcndant is not licensed to carry a firearm.
With regards to CP-51-CR-0009397-2016 ... [o]n August l st, 2016, the [Djefendant conspired with codefendant, Norman Dowen, to commit a home invasion robbery al 724 South 5th Street. The property houses a Chinese restaurant on the first floor and a residence on the second. The [Defendant and Rowen), each armed with a firearm, bound Xiu Zhen Wang and her 13-year-old son, Vinny Zhang, while threatening them at gunpoint. The [Defendant and Bowen 1 then took jewelry, an Xbox, cigarettes, cash, and a jar of coins.
With regards lo CP-51-CR-0009405-2016 ... on June 6th, the [Djefendant conspired with Norman Bowen to commit a home invasion robbery at 6200 Vine Street. The property houses a Chinese
4 restaurant on the first floor and a residence on the second. The {Defendant and Dowen] forcibly entered the restaurant, taking money, cigarettes, cigars, and cash from the store. And the [Defendant and Bowen] attempted to make entry into the residence but were unable to force the door open ... and were unable to successfully get through the door.
With regards to CP-51-CR-0009407-2016 ... [ojn July 28th, 2016, the [D]efendant and codcfcndant, Norman Bowen, conspired to commit a home invasion robbery at 6000 Master Street. This property houses a Chinese restaurant on the first floor and a residence on the second. The two forcibly entered through the rear security door, causing damage to the premises while wearing masks and gloves. Once inside, they forcibly entered the residence where the victims, Shui Fang Huang, Neng Lin, and their nine-year-old daughter, Lina Lin, were sleeping. The [Defendant and Bowen], both armed with firearms, woke the two and demanded money. Shui Fang Huang and Neng Lin were both pistol-whipped about the head. The [Defendant and Bowen] demanded money and bound and gagged Shui Fang Huang, tying her about the hands and feet and placing a pair of pants in her mouth. The two initially brought Neng Lin downstairs with them in order to direct them where to find money, but then ultimately returned him upstairs and tied him by the hands and feet. The [Defendant and Bowen] ransacked the entire home, including the business and bedrooms of Ms. Huang and Mr. Lin and the bedroom of nine-year-old, Lina. The [Defendant and Bowen] took $3,000 in cash, numerous pieces of jewelry from Ms. Huang's person and her bedroom, as well as the video security system that had been installed in the restaurant. Both Mr. Lin and Ms. Huang suffered injury to their heads as a result of being struck with the firearms by the [Defendant and Dowen]:
Ms. Huang, who had been hit for three times, had headaches for a period of about a month.
[Wjith regards to CP-51-CR-0009409-2016 ... [o]n July 31st, 2016, [Djefendant and codefendant, Norman Bowen, along with Shareef Mobley, conspired to commit a home invasion robbery at 6047 Market Street. This property houses a laundromat on the first floor and residence on the second. The [Djefendant, along with Norman Bowen, forcibly entered the business and ultimately the second floor residence where Meiyu Chen and her children, Xia! Lin and Rung Lin were asleep. The complainant'> were awoken with guns pointed to their heads and bound by their hands and feet while the [Defendant and Dowen] took jewelry, $2,000, two computers, a box of tokens, and a large amount of change. During this incident.
5 .. Norman Bowen, pulled down Xial Lin's pants and touched her buttocks.
With regards to CP-51-CR-0009415-2016 ... [o}n July 20th, 2016, the [D]efendant and codefendant, Norman Bowen, along with Shareef Mobley, conspired to commit a home invasion robbery at 5150 North 5th Street. This houses a Chinese restaurant on the first floor and a residence on the second. The [D]efendant selected this property after discussions and preparations with Norman Bowen. On the date of the incident, the [D'[elendant, along with Shareef Mobley, forcibly entered the property. The complainant, Xin Wu, hid watching on camera as the [Djefendant and Mobley ransacked his home and business at point of gun. The (D]efendant took cigarettes, jewelry, and approximately 9,000 in cash from the complainant.
N.T. 7/7/2017 at 26-43.
Discussion
The Defendant raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether this Court double counted the
severity of the Defendant's crime by weighing factors already considered by the sentencing
guidelines within their Offense Gravity Scores when furnishing its sentence; and, (2) whether
this Court imposed an unreasonable and excessive sentence when it ordered the consecutive
sentences totaling thirty to sixty years of incarceration.
These issues are meritless, When imposing a sentence, a trial court "shall follow the
general principle that the sentence imposed should call for confinement that is consistent with the
protection of the public, the gravity of the offense[ ... ] and the rehabilitative needs of the
defendant." 42 Pa.C.S. § 972 l(b). lt is well-settled that sentencing is a matter vested in the
sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion.
Commonwealth v, Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 760 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citing Commonwealth v.
Robinson, 931 A.2d 15, 26 (Pa. Super. 2007)). An abuse of discretion is not merely an error in
judgment, but a defendant must establish that the sentencing court misapplied the law or
6 exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or arrived at a
manifestly urueasonable decision. Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830 A.2d IO 13, 1018 (Pa. Super.
2003).
A defendant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must establish, inter
alia, that there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under
the Sentencing Code. Commonwealth v. Serrano, 150 A.3d470, 473 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quoting
Commonwealth v, Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 337 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations omitted)). A
substantial question exists when an appellant raises "a colorable argument that the sentence
imposed is either inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code or is contrary to
the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process.': Commonwealth v, Conzalez, l 09
A.3d 711, 731 (Pa. Super. 201 S). The consecutive nature of a defendant's sentence does not
raise a substantial question. Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 134 (Pa. Super. 2014).
In imposing a sentence, a court shall follow the general principle that the sentence
imposed calls 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 the community, and the
rehabilitative needs of the defendant. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721 (b). Where the trial court is informed by
a pre-sentence report, it is presumed that the court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors
and considerations, and that its discretion should not be disturbed. Commonwealth v Bullock, ---
A.3d --- (Pa. Super. 2017) (citing Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1135 (Pa. Super.
2009)).
Before imposing sentence, this Court reviewed the Defendant's presentence and mental
health reports, and considered the Defendant's rehabilitative needs. This Court reviewed the
Defendant's upbringing, educational background, age at the time of the offenses, and criminal
7 history, the latter of which revealed that the Defendant had, as an adult, fourteen prior
convictions and eleven commitments. This Court also considered the Defendant's thirteen prior
probation violations, resulting in ten revocations of sentence and eight terms of imprisonment.
The Defendant faced a statutory maximum of ten to twenty years of imprisonment for
each Robbery count. The Defendant had a prior record score of five. For Robbery, the offense
gravity score ("OGS") was ten. In each of the home invasions, the Defendant used a firearm.
Using the Deadly Weapons (Used) Matrix, the guidelines called for 78-90 months of
imprisonment, +/- 12. For Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, the Defendant faced a statutory
maximum of ten to twenty years of imprisorunent. Under the sentencing guidelines, the OGS for
Conspiracy to Commit Robbery was nine; the standard range was 48-60 months, +/- 12.
For each Burglary count, the Defendant faced a maximum sentence of ten to twenty years
of imprisonment. The OGS for Burglary was nine. Using the Deadly Weapons (Used) Matrix,
the guidelines called for 66-78 months of imprisonment, +/- 12. For Conspiracy to Commit
Burglary, the Defendant faced a maximum of ten to twenty years of imprisonment. The OGS
was eight; the standard range was 27-33 months, +/-12.
for each count of Aggravated Assault, the Defendant faced a maximum sentence of ten
to twenty years of imprisonment. The OGS for Aggravated Assault was ten. With the Deadly
Weapons (Used) Matrix, the guidelines called for 78-90 months of imprisonment,+/. 12.
For each count of Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License, the Defendant faced a
maximum penalty of three and one-half to seven years of imprisonment. The OGS for Firearms
Not to be Carried Without a License was nine; the standard range was 48-60 months,+/- 12.
For False Jmprisorunent (F2), the maximum was five to ten years of imprisonment. The
OGS was eight. With the Deadly Weapons (Used) Matrix, the guidelines called for 39-45
8 months of imprisonment, +/- 12. For False Imprisonment (M2), the maximum was one to two
years. The OGS was two. With the Deadly Weapons (Used) Matrix, the guidelines called for 7-
15 months, +/-3.
For Theft, the maximum sentence was two and a half to five years of imprisonment. The
OGS for Theft was three; the standard range called for 6-16 months of imprisonment, +/-3.
Lastly, for PIC, the maximum sentence was two and a half to five years. The OGS for PIC was
four; the standard range called for 9-:-16 months, +/-3. The aggregate sentence for the statutory
maximum for all charges was 391 and one-half to 783 years of imprisonment.
This Court heard testimony from multiple victims and considered the profound impact
that the Defendant's crimes had on them and their families. In addition to the significant
financial loss of thousands of dollars in cash, electronics, and jewelry, the victims also suffered
physical and severe emotional trauma, The Defendant and his co-conspirator specifically
targeting and preyed on Chinese-American business owners, believing that Asians kept money at
home instead of a bank, and that Asians would be less likely to report crimes. The Defendant
and his co-conspirator consciously and deliberately chose not lo rob their businesses, but to
invade their homes at night when they knew children and family would be present. After waking
up the adults and children at gunpoint, the Defendant and his co-conspirator tied them up. In
some cases, the Defendant and his co-conspirator pistol-whipped the adults.
After hearing argument from both the Commonwealth and the Defendant, this Court
imposed a mitigated-range sentence of thirty lo sixty years of imprisonment. Because these
violent home invasions occurred on separate dates over three months, at different locations,
involving multiple victims, this Court, within its discretion, imposed the total sentence for some
9 of the home invasion to run consecutively. See Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526, 533 (Pa.
Super. 2011) (A defendant is not entitled to a "volume discount" for his multiple offenses).
The Defendant was thirty-three years old at the time he perpetrated these offenses.
Consideration of the Defendant's age, prior contacts with the justice system, and the predatory
nature of these crimes gave this Court pause before imposing sentence. Unlike younger
defendants with similar prior record scores, this Defendant has demonstrated a distinct lack of
maturity and clear inability to conform his behavior to that of a civil society. The instant matters
reflect a disturbing escalation of the Defendant's behavior into a pursuit of increasingly violent
and heinous crimes. Despite the Defendant's numerous contacts with the criminal justice system
as both a juvenile and as an adult, past leniency and the rehabilitative programs provided by the
court system have proven ineffective in stemming the Defendant's criminal tendencies. Though
the Defendant previously served county time for criminal trespass and weapons charges, the
efforts of the court system could not prevent him from re-entering the prison system as a parole
violator, or keep him from committing this most serious offense. Accordingly, this Court
deemed that a significant period of incarceration was necessary to protect the interests of society.
· Indeed these were cowardly, invasive, and violent crimes, which not only severely
impacted the victims, but had a profound effect on the entire Philadelphian community. These
home invasions were so terrifying that the Philadelphia City Council issued a resolution to
address their considerable impact on Philadelphia and its Asian-American community.' r
The Defendant fails to demonstrate how this Court imposed a manifestly excessive
sentence. This Court's aggregate sentence fell well below the statutory maximum of 391 and
5 See Council of the City of Philadelphia, Resolution 160829.
10 one-half to 783 years of imprisonment faced by the Defendant, and more than fifteen years
below the Commonwealth's recommendation of 45 to 90 years.
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's judgment of sentence should be affirmed.
BY THE COURT,
Barbara A. Mcfrerrnott, J.