Com. v. Ifill, S.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 18, 2024
• Docket: 1433 MDA 2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A15016-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SAGE SKYLER IFILL : : Appellant : No. 1433 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 12, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0006633-2017

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SAGE IFILL : : Appellant : No. 1434 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 12, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0000242-2019

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED: JULY 18, 2024

Sage Skyler Ifill (“Ifill”) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed

by the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas (“trial court”) following a

resentencing hearing. On appeal, Ifill challenges the discretionary aspects of

his sentence. Finding the claim waived, we affirm.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A15016-24

This Court previously set forth an extensive recitation of the underlying

facts. Commonwealth v. Ifill, 1657 MDA 2021, 1658 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super.

filed Jun. 7, 2023) (non-precedential decision). Briefly, Ifill was arrested and

charged with three counts of rape of an unconscious victim and sexual

assault,1 arising out of incidents involving three different women.

On October 5, 2021, the trial court sentenced Ifill to three consecutive

prison terms of seven and one-half years to fifteen years for the rape

convictions, which were in the aggravated range, for an aggregate sentence

of twenty-two and one-half years to forty-five years of imprisonment. On

appeal, this Court affirmed Ifill’s convictions, but vacated the sentence, finding

that the trial court improperly relied on a statement of a fourth alleged victim

of crimes for which Ifill had not been convicted, and remanded for

resentencing. Id. Following a resentencing hearing held on September 12,

2023, the trial court imposed the same aggregate prison term of twenty-two

and one-half years to forty-five years. Ifill filed a timely appeal.

On appeal, Ifill presents one issue for our review: “Whether the trial

court’s aggregate sentence of 22.5 to 45 years of incarceration is manifestly

excessive and unreasonable and violates the specific goals of the sentencing

code, including protection of the public, [Ifill’s] age, gravity of the offense,

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3121(a)(3), 3124.1.

-2- J-A15016-24

and rehabilitative needs[?]” Ifill’s Brief at 5 (unnecessary capitalization

omitted).

Ifill challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. See

Commonwealth v. Riggs, 63 A.3d 780, 786 (Pa. Super. 2012) (noting that

a claim that a sentence is excessive and manifestly unreasonable because the

trial court failed to consider all relevant sentencing factors is a challenge to

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

aspects of a sentence must be considered a petition for permission to appeal,

as the right to pursue such a claim is not absolute.” Commonwealth v.

Baker, 311 A.3d 12,18 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation omitted). To invoke this

Court’s jurisdiction, an appellant must satisfy a four-part test:

(1) the appellant preserved the issue either by raising it at the time of sentencing or in a post-sentence motion; (2) the appellant filed a timely notice of appeal; (3) the appellant set forth a concise statement of reasons relied upon for the allowance of his appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) the appellant raises a substantial question for our review.

Commonwealth v. Rivera, 312 A.3d 366, 376-77 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation

and brackets omitted).

Here, Ifill did not properly preserve the issue at resentencing or in a new

post-sentence motion. See Commonwealth v. Levy, 83 A.3d 457, 467 (Pa.

Super. 2013) (concluding that appellant’s failure to file a post-sentence

motion after resentencing or raise the claim at the sentencing hearing

rendered his discretionary aspects of sentencing challenge waived). His claim

is therefore waived.

-3- J-A15016-24

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 7/18/2024

-4-