J-S39022-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
WILLIAM JEROME CAMPBELL
No. 1525 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 16, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0003319-2015
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES AND STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED July 3, 2017
William Jerome Campbell appeals from the judgment of sentence of
eleven to twenty-two years incarceration, plus three years probation
imposed after he pled guilty to one count each of robbery, possession of an
instrument of crime, simple assault, theft by unlawful taking, and terroristic
threats. We affirm.
On September 23, 2015, Appellant exploited the kindness of a
stranger, Marshall Breedlove, the victim herein. At some point during the
day, Appellant asked Mr. Breedlove for money. Mr. Breedlove provided
Appellant with ten dollars and a coffee. Later that same day, after using
crack cocaine, Appellant gained entry to Mr. Breedlove’s home under the
false pretense that he needed to use the bathroom. After infiltrating the
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S39022-17
house, Appellant, wielding a knife, attacked Mr. Breedlove. Appellant forced
the victim onto a couch and demanded money. During the ensuing struggle,
Mr. Breedlove sustained knife wounds to his hand and neck.
On July 6, 2016, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to the
aforementioned offenses. The court withheld sentencing pending a pre-
sentence investigation report. After receiving that report, the court imposed
a sentence of ten to twenty years for robbery, and imposed consecutively a
sentence of one to two years for terroristic threats and three years probation
for possessing an instrument of crime. Hence, with the application of the
deadly weapons enhancement, Appellant received an aggregate standard
range sentence of eleven to twenty-two years incarceration followed by
three years probation.
Appellant filed a timely petition for reconsideration alleging that the
sentence was manifestly excessive and that the court failed to adequately
consider certain mitigating factors. The court denied the post-sentence
motion and Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant and the trial
court complied with the directives of Pa.R.A.P. 1925, and thus, this matter is
now ready for our review.
Appellant raises one question for our consideration: “Did the
Sentencing Court commit an abuse of discretion when it imposed a minimum
sentence for robbery and a consecutive sentence for terroristic threats that
-2- J-S39022-17
were manifestly excessive, clearly unreasonable and inconsistent with the
objectives of the Sentencing Code?” Appellant’s brief at 8.
The following principles are relevant to our review. At the outset, we
observe that “[s]entencing 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. Proctor, 156 A.3d 261,
273 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citation omitted). Further, “an abuse of discretion is
not shown merely by an error in judgment[, but 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.”
Id.
As it pertains to this matter, “there is no absolute right to appeal when
challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence.” Commonwealth v.
Smith, 151 A.3d 1100, 1103 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citation omitted). Rather,
such a challenge is considered a petition for allowance of appeal.
Commonwealth v. Hicks, 151 A.3d 216, 226 (Pa.Super. 2016). In order
to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, an appellant must satisfy a four-part test.
That test requires us to determine:
(1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal defect under Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a
-3- J-S39022-17
substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.
Here, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and a timely petition for
reconsideration of his sentence. Appellant also attached a Rule 2119(f)
concise statement of reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal to his brief.
Hence, we need only consider whether he has raised a substantial question
that his sentence was inappropriate under the sentencing code.
We determine whether an appellant has proposed a substantial
question on a case-by-case basis. Commonwealth v. Popielarcheck, 151
A.3d 1088, 1093 (Pa.Super. 2016). Moreover, a “substantial question exists
only when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing
judge’s actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the
Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie
the sentencing process.” Id. (citation omitted).
Appellant purports to present a two-front assault upon the
discretionary aspects of his sentence. First, he asserts that his sentence was
manifestly excessive and clearly unreasonable since the court did not
properly consider the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense, and
Appellant’s rehabilitative needs. Second, Appellant alleges that the court
failed to adequately consider certain mitigating circumstances, namely, his
-4- J-S39022-17
remorse, substance abuse history, prior non-violent convictions, cooperation
with police, and the non-life threatening injuries sustained by the victim.
Instantly, although Appellant argues that his sentence was excessive
because the court failed to appropriately consider 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 Appellant’s rehabilitative needs, which may
raise a substantial question, his argument does not proceed along these
lines. Rather, Appellant proffers this allegation merely as a disguise for his
true contention that the court failed to properly weigh certain mitigating
factors. Ultimately, his conclusion that that the sentence was excessive and
unreasonable is premised upon the court’s alleged failure to weigh certain
factors that inure to a lighter sentence in Appellant’s favor. For example,
Appellant suggests that his sentence is unreasonable because Appellant gave
a “genuine expression of remorse, accepted responsibility by pleading guilty,
and had a very dated criminal history.”1 Appellant’s brief at 15. We find this
does not raise a substantial question for our review.
____________________________________________
1 Further, the sentencing court had the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation report and expressly discussed the seriousness of Appellant’s offense and the impact it had on Mr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S39022-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
WILLIAM JEROME CAMPBELL
No. 1525 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 16, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0003319-2015
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES AND STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED July 3, 2017
William Jerome Campbell appeals from the judgment of sentence of
eleven to twenty-two years incarceration, plus three years probation
imposed after he pled guilty to one count each of robbery, possession of an
instrument of crime, simple assault, theft by unlawful taking, and terroristic
threats. We affirm.
On September 23, 2015, Appellant exploited the kindness of a
stranger, Marshall Breedlove, the victim herein. At some point during the
day, Appellant asked Mr. Breedlove for money. Mr. Breedlove provided
Appellant with ten dollars and a coffee. Later that same day, after using
crack cocaine, Appellant gained entry to Mr. Breedlove’s home under the
false pretense that he needed to use the bathroom. After infiltrating the
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S39022-17
house, Appellant, wielding a knife, attacked Mr. Breedlove. Appellant forced
the victim onto a couch and demanded money. During the ensuing struggle,
Mr. Breedlove sustained knife wounds to his hand and neck.
On July 6, 2016, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to the
aforementioned offenses. The court withheld sentencing pending a pre-
sentence investigation report. After receiving that report, the court imposed
a sentence of ten to twenty years for robbery, and imposed consecutively a
sentence of one to two years for terroristic threats and three years probation
for possessing an instrument of crime. Hence, with the application of the
deadly weapons enhancement, Appellant received an aggregate standard
range sentence of eleven to twenty-two years incarceration followed by
three years probation.
Appellant filed a timely petition for reconsideration alleging that the
sentence was manifestly excessive and that the court failed to adequately
consider certain mitigating factors. The court denied the post-sentence
motion and Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant and the trial
court complied with the directives of Pa.R.A.P. 1925, and thus, this matter is
now ready for our review.
Appellant raises one question for our consideration: “Did the
Sentencing Court commit an abuse of discretion when it imposed a minimum
sentence for robbery and a consecutive sentence for terroristic threats that
-2- J-S39022-17
were manifestly excessive, clearly unreasonable and inconsistent with the
objectives of the Sentencing Code?” Appellant’s brief at 8.
The following principles are relevant to our review. At the outset, we
observe that “[s]entencing 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. Proctor, 156 A.3d 261,
273 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citation omitted). Further, “an abuse of discretion is
not shown merely by an error in judgment[, but 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.”
Id.
As it pertains to this matter, “there is no absolute right to appeal when
challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence.” Commonwealth v.
Smith, 151 A.3d 1100, 1103 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citation omitted). Rather,
such a challenge is considered a petition for allowance of appeal.
Commonwealth v. Hicks, 151 A.3d 216, 226 (Pa.Super. 2016). In order
to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, an appellant must satisfy a four-part test.
That test requires us to determine:
(1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal defect under Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a
-3- J-S39022-17
substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.
Here, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and a timely petition for
reconsideration of his sentence. Appellant also attached a Rule 2119(f)
concise statement of reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal to his brief.
Hence, we need only consider whether he has raised a substantial question
that his sentence was inappropriate under the sentencing code.
We determine whether an appellant has proposed a substantial
question on a case-by-case basis. Commonwealth v. Popielarcheck, 151
A.3d 1088, 1093 (Pa.Super. 2016). Moreover, a “substantial question exists
only when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing
judge’s actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the
Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie
the sentencing process.” Id. (citation omitted).
Appellant purports to present a two-front assault upon the
discretionary aspects of his sentence. First, he asserts that his sentence was
manifestly excessive and clearly unreasonable since the court did not
properly consider the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense, and
Appellant’s rehabilitative needs. Second, Appellant alleges that the court
failed to adequately consider certain mitigating circumstances, namely, his
-4- J-S39022-17
remorse, substance abuse history, prior non-violent convictions, cooperation
with police, and the non-life threatening injuries sustained by the victim.
Instantly, although Appellant argues that his sentence was excessive
because the court failed to appropriately consider 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 Appellant’s rehabilitative needs, which may
raise a substantial question, his argument does not proceed along these
lines. Rather, Appellant proffers this allegation merely as a disguise for his
true contention that the court failed to properly weigh certain mitigating
factors. Ultimately, his conclusion that that the sentence was excessive and
unreasonable is premised upon the court’s alleged failure to weigh certain
factors that inure to a lighter sentence in Appellant’s favor. For example,
Appellant suggests that his sentence is unreasonable because Appellant gave
a “genuine expression of remorse, accepted responsibility by pleading guilty,
and had a very dated criminal history.”1 Appellant’s brief at 15. We find this
does not raise a substantial question for our review.
____________________________________________
1 Further, the sentencing court had the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation report and expressly discussed the seriousness of Appellant’s offense and the impact it had on Mr. Breedlove. N.T. Sentencing, 8/16/16, at 13-14; Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028, 1038 (Pa.Super. 2016) (observing, “where the sentencing judge had the benefit of a presentence investigation report, it will be presumed that he or she was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.” (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-5- J-S39022-17
When determining whether a substantial question exists, we focus on
the substance of the argument presented and not on bald assertions that the
sentencing court failed in a particular fashion. Appellant’s masquerade has
not presented a colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were
inconsistent with a specific provision of the sentencing code or contrary to
the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.
Popielarcheck, supra. Indeed, we have long held that a claim that the
court did not give proper consideration to mitigating factors does not raise a
substantial question. Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 335-226
(Pa.Super. 2010) (noting, “[t]hat claim, that the court gave inadequate
consideration to certain mitigating factors, does not raise a substantial
question.”). Hence, we will not reach the merits of this appeal.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
_______________________ (Footnote Continued)
citing Commonwealth v. Clarke, 70 A.3d 1281, 1287 (Pa.Super. 2013)). Moreover, Appellant presented the mitigating factors at issue herein before the sentencing court, and the court discussed them in rendering his sentence. See N.T. Sentencing, 8/16/16, at 8-10, 13-14. Thus, the record reveals that the sentencing court did properly consider the relevant statutory factors, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b), and weighed those factors which mitigated in favor of a lighter sentence. Hence, even if Appellant raised a substantial question, he would not be entitled to relief.
-6- J-S39022-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 7/3/2017
-7-