Com. v. Castaphney, A.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: November 25, 2024
• Docket: 187 WDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S39033-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ALBERT CASTAPHNEY : : Appellant : No. 187 WDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 26, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0005560-2019

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: NOVEMBER 25, 2024

Appellant Albert Castaphney appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed following his convictions for aggravated assault, strangulation,

unlawful restraint, and possessing an instrument of crime (PIC).1 Appellant

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the discretionary aspects of his

sentence. After review, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.

We adopt the trial court’s summary of the underlying facts and

procedural history of this matter. See Trial Ct. Op., 3/15/24, at 1-10. Briefly,

Appellant and Torie Miesko (the victim) were in a relationship and had a child

together in 2018. Between April 23, 2019 and May 6, 2019, while Appellant,

the victim, and their six-month old child were living together in Appellant’s

grandmother’s house, Appellant used threats and recurring physical abuse to

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702(a)(1), 2718(a)(1), 2902(a)(1), and 907(a), respectively. J-S39033-24

prevent the victim from leaving the house despite the victim’s attempts to

escape. During this two-week period, Appellant struck the victim with his

hands, a broomstick, a sledgehammer, and cans of vegetables, and Appellant

abused the victim while she was holding their six-month-old child. Appellant

also prevented the victim from eating and sleeping. When the victim was

finally able to escape, she ran to a neighbor’s house with the baby. The victim

was transported to the hospital where she had to undergo oral maxillofacial

surgery due to the severe injuries to her head and face. The victim also

suffered numerous injuries to her eyes, neck, back, legs, and hands.

Appellant was ultimately arrested, charged, and convicted of the

aforementioned crimes. See id. at 4-10.2

After the trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion, Appellant

filed a timely appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The

trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing Appellant’s claims.

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues:

1. Was the evidence at trial insufficient to support [Appellant’s] conviction for aggravated assault where the Commonwealth failed to elicit testimony that [Appellant’s] actions were

2 On September 26, 2023, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate

sentence of 180 to 360 months of incarceration followed by 10 years of probation. Specifically, the trial court sentenced Appellant to consecutive terms of 102 to 204 months of incarceration followed by 3 years of probation for aggravated assault, 60 to 120 months of incarceration for strangulation, 18 to 36 months of incarceration followed by 2 years of probation for unlawful restraint, and 5 years of probation for PIC. See Sentencing Order, 9/26/23, at 1-2. The trial court further ordered that Appellant was to have no contact with the victim or their child. See id. at 1-2.

-2- J-S39033-24

accompanied by the [Appellant’s] malice - i.e., a knowing disregard of a virtually certain risk of serious bodily injury?

2. Was the evidence at trial insufficient to support [Appellant’s] conviction for unlawful restraint where the Commonwealth failed to elicit sufficient testimony that the victim was actually restrained from leaving the residence?

3. Was the evidence at trial insufficient to support [Appellant’s] conviction for [PIC] where the Commonwealth failed to elicit sufficient evidence that [Appellant] intended to employ the instrument (a broomstick) criminally?

4. Was [the trial court’s] imposition of an order that [Appellant] have no contact with his minor child invalid because it was not tailored to the offense and consistent with his rehabilitative needs?

Appellant’s Brief at 5 (formatting altered).

Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and relevant legal

authority, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. See Trial Ct. Op.,

at 1-21. The trial court thoroughly addressed Appellant’s claims of error and

correctly concluded that he was not entitled to relief.3 See id. Accordingly,

we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.

3 In Appellant’s fourth issue, he presents a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence, and we add that:

Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to review as of right. An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:

We 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 (Footnote Continued Next Page)

-3- J-S39033-24

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.4

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.[ ] § 9781(b).

Commonwealth v. Proctor, 156 A.3d 261, 273 (Pa. Super. 2017) (formatting altered and citation omitted). “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). Here, the record reflects that Appellant preserved his issue by raising it in his post-sentence motion, filing a timely appeal and Rule 1925(b) statement, and including a Rule 2119(f) statement in his brief. See id. Further, we conclude that Appellant’s claim raises a substantial question. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Glawinski, 310 A.3d 321, 325 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2024) (providing that a claim that a no contact order was too severe under the circumstances, was not individualized, and restricted the defendant’s liberty raised a substantial question) (citing Commonwealth v. Koren, 646 A.2d 1205, 1208 (Pa. Super. 1994)). As such, Appellant has properly presented his issue. However, the trial court explained its rationale for the no-contact order, and for the reasons stated in the trial court’s opinion, Appellant is not entitled to relief. See Trial Ct. Op. at 19-21. Moreover, we emphasize that the trial court had the benefit of a presentence investigation (PSI) report. See N.T., 9/26/23, at 35. “[W]here the trial court is informed by a PSI [report], it is presumed that the court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and that where the court has been so informed, its discretion should not be disturbed.” Commonwealth v. Edwards, 194 A.3d 625, 638 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted and formatting altered).

4 The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court’s opinion in the

event of further proceedings.

-4- J-S39033-24

DATE: 11/25/2024

-5- Circulated 10/28/2024 02:21 PM