Com. v. McField, W.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: May 24, 2024
• Docket: 818 EDA 2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A05014-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : WILLIAM MCFIELD : : Appellant : No. 818 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 26, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000449-2022

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KING, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MAY 24, 2024

Appellant William McField appeals from the Judgment of Sentence of five

to ten years’ incarceration entered following his open guilty plea to one count

of aggravated assault.1 He challenges the discretionary aspect of his

sentence. After careful review, we affirm.

A.

We glean the underlying facts from the certified record. During the

morning rush hour on January 10, 2022, in a stairwell of the 30th Street

Market/Frankford El SEPTA train line in Philadelphia, Appellant grabbed the

purse strap of Ms. Kristin Galli, a 68-year-old woman then on her way to work,

and pulled her backwards, causing her to fall and hit her head on the ground.

Appellant then punched and kicked her as she screamed for help. Ms. Galli

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1). J-A05014-24

suffered a concussion and other injuries that caused long-term physical and

emotional injuries.

The Commonwealth charged Appellant with aggravated assault,

robbery, criminal attempt, and simple assault. On June 23, 2022, Appellant

entered an open guilty plea to aggravated assault; in exchange, the

Commonwealth discontinued prosecution on the remaining charges. The court

ordered a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”) and mental health evaluation.

On September 26, 2022, the court opened Appellant’s sentencing

hearing by noting that it had reviewed the PSI and mental health evaluation

reports. Appellant’s counsel then argued vigorously for a sentence that took

into consideration Appellant’s age, his significant mental health issues,

including dementia and rapidly declining cognitive abilities, his diabetes, and

asthma. The Commonwealth noted Appellant’s prior record score of RFEL,2

an offense gravity score of 10, and the standard range minimum sentence of

72 to 84 months’ incarceration, plus or minus 12, before it reviewed

Appellant’s history of violent criminal activity dating back to the 1970’s, his

history of crack cocaine abuse, his sixth-grade education, his significant

medical needs, and his then-68 years of age. The Commonwealth then

requested a sentence of 4 to 12 years’ incarceration in SCI Laurel Highlands

2 “RFEL” is the category into which the Sentencing Guidelines classify “[o]ffenders who have previous convictions or adjudications for Felony 1 and/or Felony 2 offenses which total 6 or more points in the prior record, and who do not fall within the Repeat Violent Offender Category[.]” 204 Pa. Code § 303.4(a)(2).

-2- J-A05014-24

where his diabetes and geriatric needs could be addressed during his

confinement.

After Ms. Galli read a victim impact statement to the court, and

Appellant acknowledged that he was sorry that he attempted to steal Ms.

Galli’s purse, the court sentenced Appellant to a term of five to ten years’

incarceration in SCI Laurel Highland as “best suited for [Appellant’s] care,

treatment, and needs.” N.T. Sent’g, 9/26/22, at 31. The court acknowledged

that it considered the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it

relates to the impact on Ms. Galli, and the rehabilitative needs of Appellant

and concluded that “[g]iven [Appellant’s] age, . . . incarceration to state

sentence is best for him and the protection of the community.” Id. The court

further ordered that Appellant receive treatment for his current medical

issues, which included “dementia, diabetes, glaucoma, asthma, and

hypertension.” Id. at 32.

Appellant filed a post-sentence motion seeking reconsideration of the

sentence on October 1, 2022, which the court denied without a hearing three

days later.

Following a PCRA proceeding, the court reinstated Appellant’s appellate

rights and he timely appealed. Appellant and the trial court complied with

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

B.

Appellant provides the following issue for our review:

-3- J-A05014-24

Did not the lower court err and abuse its discretion by sentencing Mr. William McField to an unreasonable sentence by failing to give proper consideration to Mr. McField’s deteriorating mental and physical health and mitigating factors, and as a result was not the sentence contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process, manifestly unreasonable, and excessive?

Appellant’s Br. at 5.

C.

Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentence are not appealable

as of right. Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73, 83 (Pa. Super.

2015). 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.” Id. (citation

omitted).

Appellant preserved the issue in a post-sentence motion, timely

appealed, and included a Rule 2119(f) Statement in his brief. We, thus,

proceed to consider whether Appellant has raised a substantial question for

our review.

We determine on a case-by-case basis whether an appellant has raised

a substantial question regarding discretionary sentencing. Commonwealth

v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010). “A substantial question

-4- J-A05014-24

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).

In his Rule 2119(f) Statement, Appellant asserts that the court violated

the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process by failing to

consider the sentencing factors provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) and imposing

a sentence with an “extraordinary length” that “under the circumstances was

manifestly unreasonable, excessive[,] and not individualized.” Appellant’s Br.

at 12. We conclude he has raised a substantial question. See

Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 627 (Pa. 2002) (providing that

an appellant raises a substantial question where his Rule 2119(f) statement

“sufficiently articulates the manner in which the sentence violates either a

specific provision of the sentencing scheme set forth in the Sentencing Code

or a particular fundamental norm underlying the sentencing process”).

D.

We consider the merits of Appellant’s claim mindful that sentencing is

vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing court, and we shall not disturb

a sentence absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v.

Summers, 245 A.3d 686, 692-93 (Pa. Super. 2021).

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

-5- J-A05014-24

partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.

Id. at 693 (citation omitted); see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c), (d) (providing

to appellate courts standards for reviewing sentences challenged as

unreasonable).

“Sentencing in Pennsylvania is individualized, and requires the trial court

to fashion a sentence ‘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[.]’”

Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652, 663 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quoting 42

Pa.C.S. § 9721(b)). Additionally, when sentencing to total confinement, the

court must consider “the history, character, and condition of the defendant[.]”

42 Pa.C.S. § 9725.

When a sentencing court has reviewed a presentence investigation

report, we “presume” that the court properly considered and weighed all

relevant factors, including mitigating factors. Commonwealth v. Devers,

546 A.2d 12, 18 (Pa. 1988).

In addressing Appellant’s issues raised in his Rule 1925(b) Statement,

the trial court noted that it “considered the sentencing recommendations of

both parties and carefully followed the sentencing guidelines” and, as detailed

in the sentencing transcript, “offered sufficient, valid reasons for imposing its

mitigated guideline sentence.” Trial Ct. Op., filed May 26, 2023, at 4. The

court also observed that, “[c]ontrary to Appellant’s claim, the sentencing

transcript demonstrates that the [c]ourt indicated an express consideration of

-6- J-A05014-24

the . . . standards [provided in 42 Pa. C.S. § 9721(d)] in fashioning Appellant’s

sentence[.]” Id. at 5-6, quoting N.T. Sent’g, at 29-31 (emphasis in original).

In his brief, Appellant argues that the “uncontradicted evidence of his

deteriorating health, serious mental and physical disabilities, advanced age,

and likely inability to reoffend, all . . . militated in favor of a sentence of strict

supervision in a nursing home, not a prison.” Appellant’s Br. at 16. He

emphasizes the recommendations of a social worker and psychiatrist, as

provided to the court in his mitigation memorandum and the mental health

evaluation report. Id. at 16-19. He contends that the court abused its

discretion by “disregard[ing]” those recommendations, as well as the

Commonwealth’s recommendation, and imposed a sentence which “appeared

to rely almost entirely upon the nature of the offense . . . and ignored

Appellant’s needs for rehabilitation in violation of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721.” We

disagree.

Our careful review of the record reveals that the court reviewed the PSI

and mental health evaluation reports before acknowledging not only the

impact of the crime on Ms. Galli’s physical and mental health, but also

Appellant’s significant health problems stemming from the circumstances of

his then-68 years of life. In imposing a sentence within the mitigated range

of the sentencing guidelines3 and recommending incarceration in SCI Laurel

3 See Pa.Code § 303.16(a) (providing, in relevant part, for a standard minimum sentence of 72 months and mitigated minimum of 60 months’ incarceration).

-7- J-A05014-24

Highland, a facility known to provide appropriate care and supervision to an

aging population suffering from the health challenges suffered by Appellant,

we conclude that the court properly considered the sentencing factors

provided in Section 9721, particularly Appellant’s rehabilitation needs.

Accordingly, pursuant to our standard of review, we conclude the court

properly exercised its discretion in sentencing Appellant to a mitigated term

of five to ten years’ incarceration. We, thus, affirm Appellant’s judgment of

sentence.

Judgment of Sentence affirmed.

Date: 5/24/2024

-8-