J-S18015-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : DANIEL ROBERT KNISELY : : Appellant : No. 1007 WDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 21, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Forest County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-27-CR-0000058-2022
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: AUGUST 5, 2024
Daniel Robert Knisely appeals from the judgment of sentence entered
on April 21, 2023, for his convictions of two counts of aggravated assault and
a single count of discharge of a firearm into an occupied structure.1 Knisely
challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. We affirm.
The trial court set forth the relevant procedural history:
On April 21, 2023, [Knisely] was sentenced at Count 1, Aggravated Assault – Attempt to Cause Serious Bodily Injury or Causes Serious Bodily Injury (Felony 1) to a term of seventy (70) months to one hundred forty (140) months[, and at] Count 2, Aggravated Assault – Attempt to Cause Serious Bodily Injury or Cause Serious Bodily Injury (Felony 1) to a term of seventy (70) months to one hundred forty (140) months. These offenses are to run consecutively. [At] Count 4, Discharge of Firearm Into Occupied Structure [no further sentence was imposed]. [Knisely] received an aggregate sentence of one hundred forty (140) months to two hundred eighty (280) months. … On or about ____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1), and 2707.1(a), respectively. J-S18015-24
August 4, 2023, the court denied [Knisely’s] motion of reconsideration of sentence. A timely appeal followed.[2]
Trial Court Opinion, 10/24/23, at 1-2 (footnotes omitted).
We have not been provided with a copy of Knisely’s guilty plea transcript
nor has Knisely or the trial court provided us with the factual basis for Knisely’s
plea. The Commonwealth noted that Knisely discharged multiple shotgun
rounds into an occupied residence while two people were inside the residence.
See Appellee’s Brief, at 2. Knisely did not file a reply brief challenging these
facts, therefore, we accept them as the basis for Knisely’s plea.
Knisely raises one claim:
Whether the sentencing court erred and/or abused its discretion when it imposed a sentence without giving due consideration to all the relevant factors under 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 9721(b); including but not limited to the rehabilitative needs of [Knisely]?
Appellant’s Brief, at 4.
Knisely challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. This is
therefore a petition for permission to appeal. See Commonwealth v.
Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912, 916 (Pa. Super. 2010).
An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four- part test: (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 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
____________________________________________
2 Knisely complied with the trial court’s order to file a Rule 1925(b) statement.
See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
-2- J-S18015-24
substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.
Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 337 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation
and brackets omitted).
Knisely filed a timely notice of appeal, preserved the issue in a motion
to modify his sentence, and he included a Rule 2119(f) statement in his brief.
As Knisely met the first three requirements, we determine if he raised a
substantial question that his sentence is not appropriate under the Sentencing
Code.
Knisely asserts that his sentence is “unreasonably harsh and manifestly
excessive” because the trial court did not consider his rehabilitative needs and
mitigating circumstances, including Knisely’s “advanced age.” Appellant’s
Brief, at 9. This raises a substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Raven,
97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“[T]his Court has held that an
excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court
failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.”) (citation
omitted). We turn to the merits of his appeal.
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.
-3- J-S18015-24
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 277 A.3d 577, 592-93 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation
omitted).
Here, Knisely was sentenced within the standard guideline ranges for
his offenses. See Appellant’s Brief, at 10 (conceding the sentences were within
the standard guideline ranges). As such, we are guided by the statutory
mandate of section 9781(c)(2):
(c) Determination on appeal.—The appellate court shall vacate the sentence and remand the case to the sentencing court with instructions if it finds:
***
(2) the sentencing court sentenced within the sentencing guidelines but the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable[.]
In all other cases the appellate court shall affirm the sentence imposed by the sentencing court.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c)(2). In determining whether the sentence is clearly
unreasonable:
we consider: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the opportunity of the sentencing court to observe the defendant, including any presentence investigation; (3) the findings upon which the sentence was based; and (4) the guidelines promulgated by the commission. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(d).
Commonwealth v. Morrobel, 311 A.3d 1153, 1158 (Pa. Super. 2024)
(brackets and quotation marks omitted). “In addition, our Supreme Court has
determined that where the trial court is informed by a pre-sentence report, it
-4- J-S18015-24
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 Harper, 273 A.3d 1089, 1097-
98 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citations omitted).
Knisely claims that the trial court imposed a manifestly excessive
sentence because “his advanced age calls for an individualized sentence that
includes the possibility for treatment rather than warehousing.” Appellant’s
Brief, at 12. Knisely was 67 years old at the time of sentencing. He further
asserts that the imposed period of incarceration is “essentially a life
sentence[.]” Id. On this basis, Knisely maintains the trial court abused its
discretion. We disagree.
The trial court reviewed the pre-sentence investigation report, and
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S18015-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : DANIEL ROBERT KNISELY : : Appellant : No. 1007 WDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 21, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Forest County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-27-CR-0000058-2022
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: AUGUST 5, 2024
Daniel Robert Knisely appeals from the judgment of sentence entered
on April 21, 2023, for his convictions of two counts of aggravated assault and
a single count of discharge of a firearm into an occupied structure.1 Knisely
challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. We affirm.
The trial court set forth the relevant procedural history:
On April 21, 2023, [Knisely] was sentenced at Count 1, Aggravated Assault – Attempt to Cause Serious Bodily Injury or Causes Serious Bodily Injury (Felony 1) to a term of seventy (70) months to one hundred forty (140) months[, and at] Count 2, Aggravated Assault – Attempt to Cause Serious Bodily Injury or Cause Serious Bodily Injury (Felony 1) to a term of seventy (70) months to one hundred forty (140) months. These offenses are to run consecutively. [At] Count 4, Discharge of Firearm Into Occupied Structure [no further sentence was imposed]. [Knisely] received an aggregate sentence of one hundred forty (140) months to two hundred eighty (280) months. … On or about ____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1), and 2707.1(a), respectively. J-S18015-24
August 4, 2023, the court denied [Knisely’s] motion of reconsideration of sentence. A timely appeal followed.[2]
Trial Court Opinion, 10/24/23, at 1-2 (footnotes omitted).
We have not been provided with a copy of Knisely’s guilty plea transcript
nor has Knisely or the trial court provided us with the factual basis for Knisely’s
plea. The Commonwealth noted that Knisely discharged multiple shotgun
rounds into an occupied residence while two people were inside the residence.
See Appellee’s Brief, at 2. Knisely did not file a reply brief challenging these
facts, therefore, we accept them as the basis for Knisely’s plea.
Knisely raises one claim:
Whether the sentencing court erred and/or abused its discretion when it imposed a sentence without giving due consideration to all the relevant factors under 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 9721(b); including but not limited to the rehabilitative needs of [Knisely]?
Appellant’s Brief, at 4.
Knisely challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. This is
therefore a petition for permission to appeal. See Commonwealth v.
Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912, 916 (Pa. Super. 2010).
An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four- part test: (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 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
____________________________________________
2 Knisely complied with the trial court’s order to file a Rule 1925(b) statement.
See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
-2- J-S18015-24
substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.
Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 337 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation
and brackets omitted).
Knisely filed a timely notice of appeal, preserved the issue in a motion
to modify his sentence, and he included a Rule 2119(f) statement in his brief.
As Knisely met the first three requirements, we determine if he raised a
substantial question that his sentence is not appropriate under the Sentencing
Code.
Knisely asserts that his sentence is “unreasonably harsh and manifestly
excessive” because the trial court did not consider his rehabilitative needs and
mitigating circumstances, including Knisely’s “advanced age.” Appellant’s
Brief, at 9. This raises a substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Raven,
97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“[T]his Court has held that an
excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court
failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.”) (citation
omitted). We turn to the merits of his appeal.
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.
-3- J-S18015-24
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 277 A.3d 577, 592-93 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation
omitted).
Here, Knisely was sentenced within the standard guideline ranges for
his offenses. See Appellant’s Brief, at 10 (conceding the sentences were within
the standard guideline ranges). As such, we are guided by the statutory
mandate of section 9781(c)(2):
(c) Determination on appeal.—The appellate court shall vacate the sentence and remand the case to the sentencing court with instructions if it finds:
***
(2) the sentencing court sentenced within the sentencing guidelines but the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable[.]
In all other cases the appellate court shall affirm the sentence imposed by the sentencing court.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c)(2). In determining whether the sentence is clearly
unreasonable:
we consider: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the opportunity of the sentencing court to observe the defendant, including any presentence investigation; (3) the findings upon which the sentence was based; and (4) the guidelines promulgated by the commission. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(d).
Commonwealth v. Morrobel, 311 A.3d 1153, 1158 (Pa. Super. 2024)
(brackets and quotation marks omitted). “In addition, our Supreme Court has
determined that where the trial court is informed by a pre-sentence report, it
-4- J-S18015-24
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 Harper, 273 A.3d 1089, 1097-
98 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citations omitted).
Knisely claims that the trial court imposed a manifestly excessive
sentence because “his advanced age calls for an individualized sentence that
includes the possibility for treatment rather than warehousing.” Appellant’s
Brief, at 12. Knisely was 67 years old at the time of sentencing. He further
asserts that the imposed period of incarceration is “essentially a life
sentence[.]” Id. On this basis, Knisely maintains the trial court abused its
discretion. We disagree.
The trial court reviewed the pre-sentence investigation report, and
“considered [Knisely’s] comments, [and] the comments made on [Knisely’s]
behalf by [his] son and [] attorney.” N.T. Sentencing, 4/21/23, at 14. The trial
court considered Knisely’s “age and amenability to treatment.” Trial Court
Opinion, 10/24/23, at 3.
Knisely believes that the trial court erred in imposing, what may be, a
life sentence. See Appellant’s Brief, at 11-12. Knisely asserts
Commonwealth v. Dodge, 957 A.2d 1198 (Pa. Super. 2008), supports his
claim. However, Dodge involved non-violent offenses. Knisely’s case is clearly
distinguishable, as he pled to violent crimes, aggravated assault, for firing a
shotgun into an occupied home. Furthermore, unlike the trial court in Dodge,
-5- J-S18015-24
the trial court here did acknowledge that this may be a life sentence for
Knisely, but duly noted that “[u]nfortunately, the actions are very serious
actions when one uses a shotgun to shoot at two separate victims.” N.T.
Argument Hearing, 8/4/23, at 7. Further, Knisely will be eligible for parole
before his 80th birthday. While it is true that he will not max out his sentence
until after his 91st birthday, we do not find this is an abuse of the trial court’s
discretion based upon the facts of this case.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the aggregate
sentence of 140 months to 280 months. Knisely’s claim has no merit.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
DATE: 8/5/2024
-6-