Com. v. Molina, A.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: June 27, 2025
• Docket: 72 EDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S19031-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ANGEL MOLINA : : Appellant : No. 72 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0004970-2022

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED JUNE 27, 2025

Angel Molina (“Molina”) appeals from the judgment of sentence entered

by the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas (“trial court”) following his entry

of a guilty plea to five counts of possession with intent to deliver, one count

each of possession of a controlled substance, possession of paraphernalia,

criminal conspiracy, and four counts of possession of a firearm prohibited. 1

On appeal, Molina challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. We

affirm.

On August 18, 2022, two detectives arranged for a controlled purchase

of narcotics from Molina. After delivering controlled substances to a

confidential informant, police arrested Molina. In the subsequent search,

____________________________________________

1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), (16), (32); 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 903, 6105(a)(1), J-S19031-25

police found Molina to be in possession of several vials containing heroin and

fentanyl. They simultaneously executed a search warrant on Molina’s

residence, and recovered two pistols, one rifle, and one privately

manufactured firearm. Additionally, police recovered 684.42 grams of

fentanyl, 255.39 grams of methamphetamine, 41.03 grams of cocaine, and

other indicia of packaging of controlled substances. Several of the items

recovered tested positive for fentanyl and other fentanyl analogs, heroin, and

tramadol.

On February 14, 2023, Molina entered an open guilty plea to the above

charges. On October 11, 2023, the trial court sentenced Molina to twenty to

forty years in prison, followed by ten years of probation. 2 Molina filed a motion

to modify and reconsider his sentence. On October 24, 2023, the docket

indicated “Filing Returned Without Action – Motion for Reconsideration of

Sentence.” On November 16, 2023, Molina filed a notice of appeal.

Subsequently, Molina discontinued the appeal. On October 7, 2024, Molina

filed a petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) seeking

reinstatement of his post-sentencing rights. On October 11, 2024, the PCRA

court granted the petition and reinstated Molina’s post sentence rights nunc

pro tunc and directed Molina to file the motion within ten days of the order.

2 The trial court imposed consecutive sentences on three of the convictions,

with the remaining sentences imposed concurrently.

-2- J-S19031-25

On October 21, 2024, Molina filed a “Motion for Reconsideration Of

Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc.” The trial court denied the motion. Molina filed the

instant timely appeal. He presents one issue for our review: “Did the trial

court err in imposing a sentence that was manifestly excessive because the

trial court failed to take into account [Molina’s] age, maturity, rehabilitative

needs, personal circumstances and other mitigating factors and focused

instead solely on the nature of the charges?” Molina’s Brief at 11 (unnecessary

capitalization omitted).

Molina 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). A substantial question is determined on a case-by-

-3- J-S19031-25

case basis and “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.” Commonwealth v. McCain, 176

A.3d 236, 240 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted).

Here, Molina preserved his claim in a post-sentence motion and filed a

timely appeal. Further, Molina’s brief contains a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) concise

statement wherein he asserts that the trial court imposed an excessive

sentence without properly considering mitigating factors. Molina raises a

substantial question for our review. See Commonwealth v. Swope, 123

A.3d 333, 339 (Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that “an excessive sentence claim—

in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating

factors—raises a substantial question”) (citation omitted); see also

Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 760 (Pa. Super. 2015) (holding

that a “challenge to the imposition of [appellant’s] 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”).

Our standard of review when a defendant raises a challenge to the

discretionary aspects of sentencing is well established:

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,

-4- J-S19031-25

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. Lekka, 210 A.3d 343, 350 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation

omitted).

Molina argues that the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences

and failure to consider mitigating factors resulted in an excessive and

unreasonable sentence. Molina’s Brief at 21, 26-27, 30. He contends that the

trial court focused solely on the nature and seriousness of the crime, rather

than accounting for his mitigating factors, including his character, history,

condition, and rehabilitative needs. Id. at 18, 24. Molina notes that he

dropped out of school in eighth grade, grew up without a father, and had

difficulty finding a job. Id. at 22-24. Molina highlights that the trial court

“repeatedly commented on the nature of fentanyl,” including the deaths that

happen on a daily basis due to fentanyl use. Id. at 21. According to Molina,

the trial court did not impose an individualized sentence, but instead fashioned

a “one-size-fits-all” sentence for drug dealers. Id.; see also id. at 26-27

(noting the trial court also stated that the use of firearms was a common

problem across the nation).

The record belies Molina’s claims. It reflects that the trial court

considered character letters, sentencing memoranda, and the sentencing

guidelines. N.T., 10/11/2023, at 3, 16, 19-20. The trial court heard testimony

from Molina’s mother as to Molina’s background and childhood, stating that

-5- J-S19031-25

he “didn’t really have anyone to look up to.” Id. at 29. The court heard from

Molina that he had grown up around violence and drugs, and had many friends

die because of the violence. Id. at 40; see also id. at 45 (wherein the court

stated, “[y]ou were contributing to the problem and you continued to

contribute to the problem after you got out of jail, knowing that your friends

were dying from gun violence and drugs”). The trial court also considered the

fact that Molina cooperated with the police. Id. at 27. Additionally, the trial

court acknowledged Molina’s age, stating, “[t]his is a young man. I don’t like

having to send you to state prison.” Id. at 25.

The trial court observed that Molina was not a bad person, but “made

some really stupid and bad choices” and was under supervision for prior

criminal charges when he committed the present crimes. Id. at 25, 30.

Indeed, as stated by the trial court, Molina was “literally out of jail for four

months and started almost immediately selling drugs again.” Id. at 21. The

trial court also considered Molina’s past criminal history, including that he was

adjudicated delinquent of possession with intent to distribute in 2012, simple

assault, intimidation of a witness, possession with intent to distribute,

receiving stolen property, and possession of an instrument of crime in 2017.

Id. at 3-4 It further noted the nature and seriousness of the crimes, and that

our General Assembly has deemed fentanyl distribution a “really serious

offense, because of all the deaths that happen in our country on a daily basis

as a result of fentanyl.” Id. at 20, 31. The trial court stated that it must

-6- J-S19031-25

sentence individuals to prison “to preserve our society and protect our

society.” Id. at 25-26.

We find no basis to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in

sentencing Molina. Here, the trial court considered the precise mitigating

factors that Molina identified on appeal, including his age, employment, and

family history, ultimately concluding that the sentence was necessary to

protect the public and to serve his rehabilitative needs. Trial Court Opinion,

1/17/2025, at 17 (finding that the “sentence was imperative to protect the

public and ensure [Molina] receives the rehabilitation he so desperately

needs”). Further, the trial court found that Molina’s actions “placed the

community in danger” and that “he continued to make poor choices and chose

to take the easy, illegal path.” Id. at 16.

The sentence imposed in this case properly reflected consideration of

the seriousness of Molina’s crimes, the impact on community, and balanced

that against his mitigating factors. See Baker, 311 A.3d at 19 (noting that

“the weight accorded to the mitigating factors or aggravating factors

presented to the sentencing court is within the court’s exclusive domain”).

Therefore, no relief is due.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

-7- J-S19031-25

Date: 6/27/2025

-8-