Com. v. Dimitroff, B.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: June 3, 2026
• Docket: 1105 WDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Sullivan

Opinion

J-S06027-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : BRENNA JADE DIMITROFF : : Appellant : No. 1105 WDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 25, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-07-CR-0001390-2023

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., SULLIVAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED: June 3, 2026

Brenna Jade Dimitroff (“Dimitroff”) appeals from the judgment of

sentence imposed following the revocation of her probation for retail theft.1

Because her claim is waived, we affirm.

We summarize the relevant factual and procedural history from a limited

certified record. Dimitroff pleaded guilty to the above listed offense in July

2023. See Order, 8/21/23. The trial court sentenced her to two years of

probation. See id. at 1. In July 2025, Dimitroff pleaded guilty to hindering

apprehension or prosecution and retail theft.2 See N.T., 7/25/25, at 3, 7.

Dimitroff also stipulated to violating the conditions of her probationary ____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3929(a)(1).

2 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5105(a)(1), 3929(a)(1). J-S06027-26

sentence. See Dimitroff’s Brief at 3. The Violation of Probation (“VOP”) court

revoked her probation and resentenced Dimitroff to two to four years of

incarceration.3 Dimitroff filed a post-sentence motion for reconsideration

which the VOP court denied. Dimitroff timely appealed; the VOP court did not

order her to file a 1925(b) concise statement of matters complained of on

appeal and opted to rely on its sentencing order rather than file a 1925(a)

opinion. See Order, 9/3/25.

Dimitroff raises the following issue for our review:

Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it sentenced [Dimitroff] to a period of incarceration of [two to four years], an upward departure of nineteen . . . months above the aggravated range suggested by the 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines, without articulating appropriate reasoning on the record?

Dimitroff’s Brief at 2.4

Our review of appeals from a sentence imposed after the revocation of

probation is limited to assessing “the validity of the revocation proceedings,

the legality of the sentence imposed following revocation, and any challenge

to the discretionary aspects of the sentence imposed.” Commonwealth v.

Slaughter, 339 A.3d 456, 464 (Pa. Super. 2025) (citation omitted).

Dimitroff’s issue implicates the discretionary aspects of sentencing.

____________________________________________

3 Dimitroff committed her underlying offense in June 2023. The Resentencing Guidelines to the Seventh Edition Sentencing Guidelines, Amendment 1, apply to revocations of probation for “all offenses committed on or after January 1, 2021, but prior to January 1, 2024[.]” 204 Pa. Code § 307.2(b)(2).

4 While Dimitroff refers to the sentencing guidelines, we note the resentencing

guidelines applied, as this was a violation of probation and resentencing.

-2- J-S06027-26

Our standard of review for challenges to the discretionary aspects of

sentencing is well settled: “The imposition of sentence following the revocation

of probation is vested within the sound discretion of the trial court, which,

absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal.” Id. at

465 (quoting Commonwealth v. Stewart, 327 A.3d 301, 304 (Pa. Super.

2024) (citation omitted)). An abuse of discretion is more than an error in

judgment. See Commonwealth v. Lucky, 229 A.3d 657, 663 (Pa. Super.

2020). To demonstrate an abuse of discretion, an 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. The sentencing

court must consider the factors set forth in Subsection 9721(b) of the

Sentencing Code when imposing a sentence of total confinement after a

probation revocation.5 See Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987, 994

(Pa. Super. 2016); Commonwealth v. Martin, No. 1253 WDA 2024, 2025

WL 1704405 at *6 (Pa. Super. June 18, 2025) (non-precedential

memorandum).6

5 Subsection 9721(b) requires “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 the defendant.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b).

6 Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 126(b), we may rely on unpublished memoranda issued after May 1, 2019, for their persuasive value.

-3- J-S06027-26

Further, this Court has explained challenges to the discretionary aspects

of sentencing are not appealable as of right; rather,

an appellant challenging the sentencing court’s discretion must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by (1) filing a timely notice of appeal; (2) properly preserving the issue at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify the sentence; (3) complying with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), which requires a separate section of the brief setting forth “a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of a sentence[;]” and (4) presenting a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.

Commonwealth v. Padilla-Vargas, 204 A.3d 971, 975 (Pa. Super. 2019)

(citation omitted; brackets in original); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).

A substantial question exists where an appellant sets forth a plausible argument that the sentence violates a particular provision of the Sentencing Code or is contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process.

Commonwealth v. Brown, 249 A.3d 1206, 1211 (Pa. Super. 2021) (internal

citation omitted). “The determination of whether a particular issue raises a

substantial question is to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.”

Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270, 274 (Pa. Super. 2004).

An appellate court will not lightly disturb the trial court’s sentencing

judgment because the judge is in the best position to “review the defendant’s

character, defiance or indifference, and the overall nature of the crime.”

Commonwealth v. Conte, 198 A.3d 1169, 1177 (Pa. Super. 2018) (internal

citation and quotations omitted).

-4- J-S06027-26

Dimitroff argues her sentence was above the aggravated range and the

trial court failed to state the reasons for the upward departure on the record.

No copies of the resentencing guideline form utilized by the VOP court have

been provided.

Dimitroff waived her claim by not preserving it in her post-sentence

motion. See Commonwealth v. Kittrell, 19 A.3d 532, 538 (Pa. Super.

2011). Dimitroff’s motion for reconsideration does not assert the VOP court

abused its discretion by sentencing above the aggravated range without

appropriate reasoning. See Motion for Reconsideration, 8/1/25, at 1-2.

Indeed, her motion neither asserts she was sentenced in the aggravated range

nor references the sentencing guidelines. See id. Thus, her claim is waived.

Moreover, Dimitroff had an obligation to ensure the record forwarded to

this Court contained the documents necessary to allow for our complete and

judicious assessment of her issues raised on appeal. See Commonwealth

v. Shreffler, 249 A.3d 575, 584 (Pa. Super. 2021). Based on the information

provided, we are unable to determine the applicable resentencing

recommendations because no document of record indicates Dimitroff’s prior

record score or the standard range under the resentencing guidelines. See

id. (explaining we may only consider documents of record). Dimitroff asserts

the aggravated range for her sentence was “just five . . . months of

incarceration.” Dimitroff’s Brief at 10. We cannot, based on the limited

information provided, confirm this assertion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

-5- J-S06027-26

DATE: 06/03/2026

-6-