Com. v. Craddock, D.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: May 18, 2023
• Docket: 1134 EDA 2022
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S04024-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : DEVIN CRADDOCK : : Appellant : No. 1134 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 11, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000370-2018, CP-51-CR-0000371-2018, CP-51-CR-0000372-2018, CP-51-CR-0000373-2018, CP-51-CR-0000374-2018, CP-51-CR-0000375-2018, CP-51-CR-0004039-2018

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : DEVIN CRADDOCK : : Appellant : No. 1135 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 11, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000370-2018, CP-51-CR-0000371-2018, CP-51-CR-0000372-2018, CP-51-CR-0000373-2018, CP-51-CR-0000374-2018, CP-51-CR-0000375-2018, CP-51-CR-0004039-2018

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : DEVIN CRADDOCK : : Appellant : No. 1136 EDA 2022 J-S04024-23

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 11, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000370-2018, CP-51-CR-0000371-2018, CP-51-CR-0000372-2018, CP-51-CR-0000373-2018, CP-51-CR-0000374-2018, CP-51-CR-0000375-2018, CP-51-CR-0004039-2018

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : DEVIN CRADDOCK : : Appellant : No. 1137 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 11, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000370-2018, CP-51-CR-0000371-2018, CP-51-CR-0000372-2018, CP-51-CR-0000373-2018, CP-51-CR-0000374-2018, CP-51-CR-0000375-2018, CP-51-CR-0004039-2018

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : DEVIN CRADDOCK : : Appellant : No. 1138 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 11, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000370-2018, CP-51-CR-0000371-2018, CP-51-CR-0000372-2018, CP-51-CR-0000373-2018, CP-51-CR-0000374-2018, CP-51-CR-0000375-2018, CP-51-CR-004039-2018

-2- J-S04024-23

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : : DEVIN CRADDOCK : : Appellant No. 1139 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 11, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000370-2018, CP-51-CR-0000371-2018, CP-51-CR-0000372-2018, CP-51-CR-0000373-2018, CP-51-CR-0000374-2018, CP-51-CR-0000375-2018, CP-51-CR-004039-2018

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : v. : : : DEVIN CRADDOCK : : Appellant : No. 1140 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 11, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000370-2018, CP-51-CR-0000371-2018, CP-51-CR-0000372-2018, CP-51-CR-0000373-2018, CP-51-CR-0000374-2018, CP-51-CR-0000375-2018, CP-51-CR-0004039-2018

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

-3- J-S04024-23

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED MAY 18, 2023

Appellant, Devin Craddock, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his open

guilty plea to seven (7) counts each of robbery and possessing instruments of

crime (“PIC”), and one (1) count each of involuntary deviate sexual

intercourse (“IDSI”), attempted IDSI, and attempted rape.1 We affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows.

In November 2017, Appellant went on a crime spree, committing several

armed robberies and a sexual assault over the course of a few days. Police

made an arrest after the victims identified Appellant from photo arrays, and

the Commonwealth charged Appellant with multiple offenses at seven (7)

different docket numbers. On October 8, 2021, Appellant entered open guilty

pleas to the aforementioned offenses. Following the entry of the pleas, the

court deferred sentencing and ordered a presentence investigation (“PSI”)

report and mental health evaluation.

On March 11, 2022, the court conducted Appellant’s sentencing hearing.

After receiving argument from counsel, the court imposed an aggregate

sentence of twenty-five (25) to fifty (50) years’ imprisonment, followed by

three (3) years of probation. Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion

on March 21, 2022. In it, Appellant argued that the court violated the

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701, 907, 3123, and 901, respectively.

-4- J-S04024-23

Sentencing Code “as the court seemed to exclusively focus on the gravity of

the offense and on [Appellant’s] disciplinary infractions while incarcerated

pretrial and while in juvenile placement[.]” (Post-Sentence Motion, filed

3/21/22, at 3). Appellant also claimed that the court “considered improper

sentencing factors in determining the sentence including unsubstantiated

accusations of prior criminal conduct in which formal charges were never

brought[.]” (Id. at 3-4). Despite Appellant’s protestations, the court denied

the post-sentence motion on March 22, 2022.

Appellant timely filed separate notices of appeal on April 20, 2022. On

April 21, 2022, the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

statement of errors complained of on appeal. Appellant timely filed his Rule

1925(b) statement on May 4, 2022. This Court subsequently consolidated the

appeals sua sponte.

Appellant now raises two issues for this Court’s review:

Did not the sentencing court violate the requirements of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) of the Sentencing Code, which states that the sentence imposed should call 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 on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of Appellant, as the court seemed to exclusively focus on the gravity of the offense and on Appellant’s purported disciplinary infractions while incarcerated pre-trial and during his immediately [preceding] juvenile placements when it imposed an aggregate sentence that was manifestly excessive, but did not focus on the rehabilitative needs of Appellant that were evident in the record from his severe mental health problems, his severe intellectual disabilities, his history of being abused and subject to violence as a child, his lack of maturity having just emerged from years

-5- J-S04024-23

of Juvenile Court custodial placements, and his serious medical history of multiple weekly or daily seizures, amongst his many shortcomings?

Did not the trial court improperly consider sentencing factors in its decision to construct a lengthy total sentence that included the consideration of contested and unsubstantiated accusations of prior misconduct for which formal charges were never brought or adjudicated?

(Appellant’s Brief at 3-4).

Appellant’s issues are related, and we address them together. Appellant

contends that the sentencing court violated the Sentencing Code when it

“focused almost exclusively on the gravity of the offense and on an allegation

of a sexual misconduct made while Appellant was in custody at a juvenile

placement.”2 (Appellant’s Brief at 19). Appellant asserts that the court placed

undue emphasis on the misconduct allegation without providing adequate

2 The PSI report described the incident of “sexual misconduct” as follows:

Juvenile Probation records noted that in 2015, a Special Report was received from YDC Loysville staff regarding an incident that occurred at the agency on April 29, 2015. The report stated that on this date, a roommate of [Appellant] made an allegation of inappropriate sexual conduct by [Appellant] in the Allegheny Cottage. It was reported that [Appellant] approached his roommate’s bed while masturbating and ejaculated on his bed linens as well as his head. An internal investigation ensued at which time [Appellant] denied the allegations. Pennsylvania State Police were contacted following a request to press charges from the alleged victim. … [H]owever, the District Attorney’s Office pursued no charges.

(PSI Report, dated 1/18/22, at 4).

-6- J-S04024-23

consideration of Appellant’s rehabilitative needs. Appellant insists that the

court did not give proper weight to his health issues, intellectual disabilities,

history of abuse, and lack of maturity following his juvenile placements.

Appellant maintains that the court’s failure to place proper weight on the

relevant sentencing factors resulted in “a lengthy aggregated sentence … that

was manifestly excessive despite the fact that the individual sentences were

at the low end of the Sentencing Guidelines without application of the deadly

weapon enhancement.” (Id. at 20).

Regarding the court’s consideration of the misconduct allegation from

Appellant’s juvenile placement, Appellant relies on Commonwealth v.

P.L.S., 894 A.2d 120, 131 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 588 Pa. 780, 906

A.2d 542 (2006), for the proposition that “uncharged criminal conduct may

not be used for sentencing purposes when the record is devoid of the

necessary evidentiary link between the defendant and the uncharged prior

conduct.” (Id. at 24). While Appellant acknowledges that the PSI report

references the incident of sexual misconduct from his juvenile placement,

Appellant maintains that the Commonwealth did not bring criminal charges

“despite both an internal and an external investigation.” (Id.) As such,

Appellant believes that the court improperly considered this incident at the

time of sentencing, and “the distasteful act of a juvenile … should not be the

basis for lengthening the sentence of an adult.” (Id. at 41). Appellant

concludes that the court abused its discretion in fashioning his sentence, and

-7- J-S04024-23

this Court must vacate the judgment of sentence and remand the matter for

a new sentencing hearing. We disagree.

As presented, Appellant’s claim challenges the discretionary aspects of

his sentence.3 See Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768

(Pa.Super. 2015) (en banc), appeal denied, 633 Pa. 774, 126 A.3d 1282

(2015) (stating challenge to imposition of consecutive sentences as unduly

excessive, together with claim that court failed to consider rehabilitative

needs, constitutes challenge to discretionary aspects of sentencing);

Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa.Super. 2006) (stating claim

that sentence was excessive based on impermissible factors constitutes

challenge to discretionary aspects of sentencing). “Challenges to the

discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as

of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008),

cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264, 129 S. Ct. 2450, 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009). Prior

to reaching the merits of a discretionary aspects of 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 ____________________________________________

3 “[W]hile a guilty plea which includes sentence negotiation ordinarily precludes a defendant from contesting the validity of his … sentence other than to argue that the sentence is illegal or that the sentencing court did not have jurisdiction, open plea agreements are an exception in which a defendant will not be precluded from appealing the discretionary aspects of the sentence.” Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 365 n.5 (Pa.Super. 2005) (emphasis in original). “An ‘open’ plea agreement is one in which there is no negotiated sentence.” Id. at 363 n.1. Here, Appellant’s guilty plea did not include a negotiated sentence.

-8- J-S04024-23

at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410 [now Rule 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).

Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal

denied, 589 Pa. 727, 909 A.2d 303 (2006) (quoting Commonwealth v.

Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2005)).

When appealing the discretionary aspects of a sentence, an appellant

must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by including in his brief a separate concise

statement demonstrating a substantial question as to the appropriateness of

the sentence under the Sentencing Code. Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 571

Pa. 419, 812 A.2d 617 (2002); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). “The requirement that an

appellant separately set forth the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal

furthers the purpose evident in the Sentencing Code as a whole of limiting any

challenges to the trial court’s evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging

on the sentencing decision to exceptional cases.” Phillips, supra at 112

(emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830

A.2d 1013, 1018 (Pa.Super. 2003). “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

-9- J-S04024-23

process.” Caldwell, supra at 768. An appellant’s “challenge to the

imposition of his consecutive sentences as unduly excessive, together with his

claim that the court failed to consider his rehabilitative needs upon fashioning

its sentence, presents a substantial question.” Id. at 770. Likewise, a

substantial question is raised when an appellant alleges that his sentence is

excessive because of the trial court’s reliance on impermissible factors. See

Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058, 1064-65 (Pa.Super. 2011).

Here, Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal, he preserved his issues

in the post-sentence motion, and his appellate brief includes a Rule 2119(f)

statement. Appellant’s claims also raise substantial questions as to the

appropriateness of the sentence imposed. See Caldwell, supra; Allen,

supra. Accordingly, we proceed to address the merits of Appellant’s claims.

This Court reviews discretionary sentencing challenges based on the

following standard:

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. 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. Bankes, 286 A.3d 1302, 1307 (Pa.Super. 2022) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Clemat, 218 A.3d 944, 959 (Pa.Super. 2019)).

When imposing [a] sentence, a court is required to consider the particular circumstances of the offense and the

- 10 - J-S04024-23

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.

Commonwealth v. Summers, 245 A.3d 686, (Pa.Super. 2021), appeal

denied, ___ Pa. ___, 276 A.3d 700 (2022) (quoting Commonwealth v.

DiClaudio, 210 A.3d 1070, 1075 (Pa.Super. 2019)).

“[L]ong standing precedent … recognizes that [the Sentencing Code]

affords the sentencing court discretion to impose its sentence concurrently or

consecutively to other sentences being imposed at the same time or to

sentences already imposed.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 249 A.3d 1206,

1212 (Pa.Super. 2021) (quoting Commonwealth v. Marts, 889 A.2d 608,

612 (Pa.Super. 2005)). “We will not disturb consecutive sentences unless the

aggregate sentence is ‘grossly disparate’ to the defendant’s conduct, or

‘viscerally appear[s] as patently unreasonable.’” Id. (quoting

Commonwealth v. Gonzalez-Dejusus, 994 A.2d 595, 599 (Pa.Super.

2010)). Defendants convicted of multiple offenses are not entitled to a

“volume discount” on their aggregate sentence. See Commonwealth v.

Clary, 226 A.3d 571, 581 (Pa.Super. 2020), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 281

A.3d 302 (2022).

Additionally, the PSI report “shall include information regarding the

circumstances of the offense and the character of the defendant sufficient to

assist the judge in determining sentence.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 702(A)(3). “[I]t is

well-settled that when the trial court has the benefit of a [PSI] report, it is

- 11 - J-S04024-23

presumed that the court was both aware of and appropriately weighed all

relevant information contained therein.” Brown, supra at 1212.

Instantly, the court sentenced Appellant, with the benefit of a PSI

report, on March 11, 2022. Prior to imposing the sentence, the court provided

an on-the-record statement of reasons to support the sentence. Contrary to

Appellant’s assertions, the court considered Appellant’s rehabilitative needs

and personal characteristics:

I have considered a lot of things in this case. It starts with the [PSI] report, mental health, guidelines, sentencing code, arguments of counsel, … the mitigation report, the doctor’s report, … as well as the facts and circumstances of these cases; and I don’t think anybody disputes that you had a hard life and a hard upbringing. And things have happened to you and certain limitations and everything else.

The issue here, also, is … public safety and the community. These robberies, I don’t think people fully understand sometimes how both scary and dangerous gunpoint robbery is without knowing whether somebody is going to shoot you anyway because that is what happens today. People get shot even when they give up their stuff. And the gunpoint robberies are very dangerous and concerning.

But then you have the two sexual assault cases, which take it into another realm of whatever the issues are that you have that would cause you to—these were males who were attacked at gunpoint.

I read through the [PSI] and I read through it a number of times. And what happened in juvenile custody is extremely concerning. Because from what I can see, … there seem to be other cases.

But in any case, you went to a number of places. You were at Wordsworth Academy and then you went to YDC Loysville for almost a year and a half and then Caring People’s Alliance, and the last commitment was to YDC Danville.

- 12 - J-S04024-23

Loysville and Danville are the most severe security juvenile placement facilities for those who need to really be in those facilities.

And from what I can see here from the report, at Loysville, which is very concerning to me, that there is a report that you approached your roommate’s bed while masturbating. You masturbated on his head, and I am referring to Page 4 on the report. And that you admitted to that. There were no charges pursued. This was not in Philadelphia. It was reported to the Loysville staff.

And then I also noticed that in custody—I am just looking here. There were a number of incidents in the county prison. And I … believe there were disciplinary actions and stuff like that. And you did all of these crimes basically a month after you got out of, what was supposed to be, treatment; extensive treatment, I think over three or four years, it seems like, at different facilities.

This is very concerning, because you had the potential and ability to deal with a lot of problems or people who wanted to help you deal with a lot of problems. And yet all of these things occurred.

The mental health exam in this case has you with PTSD, anxiety disorder, et cetera. But I don’t know what will help you, particularly. And I don’t know whether you can move forward. I hope you can, because you will be released at some point.

But I can say this, with all the juvenile treatment and all of everything else that has happened, you still went out and did these things.

(N.T. Sentencing, 3/11/22, at 19-21).

After announcing the sentences for each offense, the court reiterated its

hope that Appellant could achieve rehabilitation by utilizing the programs

available in the state prison system:

And I want to say something, I would have given you a lot

- 13 - J-S04024-23

more, frankly, but for the fact of your age and for the fact that you have served time during COVID; and the fact that I hope you will get the tools never to do this again.

What happened to these victims is not just appalling, it is disgraceful. It is people just walking down the street, gun pulled on them, their stuff taken, which is bad enough; and a couple of people sexually assaulted.

I can’t rewind the tape of what happened to you as a juvenile, but I hope you will get the necessary help, treatment, and avail yourself of that in whatever state prison you go to. And when you are classified, it is going to be very important that you tell them what exactly has happened to you, your mental health history, and everything so they can get you the right treatment and get you to the right place.

(Id. at 24). Finally, the court emphasized that Appellant’s sentences fell

“within a standard range,” and the court “gave [Appellant] credit for pleading

guilty.” (Id. at 26).

On this record, the court did not commit an abuse of discretion. See

Bankes, supra. The court’s reliance on the PSI report, combined with its on-

the-record statements in support of the sentences, demonstrates that it was

aware of the relevant sentencing considerations. See Summers, supra. We

conclude that the court appropriately weighed those considerations.

Moreover, the PSI report detailed the allegation of misconduct from

Appellant’s juvenile placement. We cannot say that such information

constituted an impermissible sentencing factor. Compare P.L.S., supra

(holding relevant case law did not prohibit sentencing court from considering

prior uncharged criminal conduct where evidence linking defendant to other

- 14 - J-S04024-23

crimes stood unrefuted).4 Therefore, Appellant is not entitled to relief on his

challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing. Accordingly, we affirm

the judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 5/18/2023

4 In his brief, Appellant does not exactly deny his involvement in the misconduct. Rather, Appellant notes that the “allegation was originally contested, and only later did Appellant make some type of admission to the State Police.” (Appellant’s Brief at 40). Appellant also suggests that “we do not know the nature of the interrogation that occurred between the police and” Appellant. (Id.) Under these circumstances, we disagree with Appellant’s conclusion that the record is devoid of the necessary evidentiary link between Appellant and the uncharged conduct. Moreover, when viewed in context, the court’s on-the-record statement in support of Appellant’s sentence makes clear that the uncharged conduct was just one of many facts impacting the sentencing decision.

- 15 -