Com. v. O'Neill, S.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: June 30, 2026
• Docket: 1048 MDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Bender

Opinion

J-A11045-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : STEPHEN MICHAEL O'NEILL : : Appellant : No. 1048 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 25, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Wyoming County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-66-CR-0000040-2024

BEFORE: BECK, J., NEUMAN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 30, 2026

Stephen Michael O’Neill (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of

sentence imposed following his plea of nolo contendere. He challenges the

discretionary aspects of his sentence. After careful review, we find no abuse

of discretion and affirm.

Appellant was charged with multiple sexual offenses involving his minor

daughter. On February 5, 2024, Appellant was charged with five counts:

aggravated indecent assault without consent, aggravated indecent assault –

complainant less than 13, indecent assault without consent, indecent assault

– complainant less than 13, and endangering the welfare of children.1 On

March 6, 2025, Appellant tendered a plea of nolo contendere to count four of

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3125(a)(1), 3125(a)(7), 3126(a)(1), 3126(a)(7), and 4304,

respectively. J-A11045-26

the information, indecent assault, a felony of the third degree.2 The trial court

accepted Appellant’s plea and, following Appellant’s evaluation by the Sexual

Offender Assessment Board, sentenced Appellant to a term of 18 to 60 months

of incarceration, followed by three years of probation, on June 24, 2025.3

Appellant was not deemed to be a sexually violent predator, but was ordered

to register for life under the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act

(SORNA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.15(a)(3) (providing that an offender convicted

of indecent assault, a Tier III offense, must register for his or her lifetime).

On June 25, 2025, the trial court filed an amended sentencing order, granting

Appellant time credit of 534 days on his sentence.4

On July 2, 2025, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion to reconsider

his sentence, claiming that his sentence was excessive and asking for a

standard range sentence to be imposed. The motion was denied on July 9,

2025. On July 29, 2025, counsel filed a motion for leave to withdraw his

appearance on Appellant’s behalf. On July 31, 2025, Appellant filed a pro se

2 The court granted the Commonwealth’s petition to nolle pros the remaining

counts on July 18, 2025.

3 The consecutive three-year period of probation was mandatory due to Appellant’s conviction for indecent assault. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.5.

4 Appellant’s pro se appeal asserted that it was taken from the denial of his

motion to reconsider his sentence. However, when a court amends the judgment of sentence that was imposed during the period it retains jurisdiction, as occurred here, the direct appeal properly lies from the amended judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Garzone, 993 A/2d 1245, 1254 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2010). We have corrected the caption accordingly.

-2- J-A11045-26

motion for reconsideration in the trial court along with a pro se notice of

appeal. On August 4, 2025, the trial court granted counsel’s request to

withdraw and appointed new counsel for this appeal. Both Appellant and the

trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises the following issue on appeal:

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by imposing a manifestly excessive sentence, disproportionate to the circumstances, which was placed at the highest level of the aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines, by failing to consider the mitigating circumstances present and to analyze or consider the rehabilitative needs of [Appellant], the impact upon the community, and the actual need for protection of the public under 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 9721(b) of the Pennsylvania Sentencing Code, and, more particularly, by failing to consider [Appellant’s] characteristics, including his age, military service, gainful employment, mental health issues, and acceptance of responsibility, in contravention of 42 Pa.C.S.[] §§ 9721(b) and 9725, resulting in a sentence that was not individualized?

Appellant’s brief at 4.

Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Initially,

we note that there is no absolute right to appeal the discretionary aspects of

a sentence. Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 621 (Pa. 2002).

An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test: (1) whether [the] 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 [the] appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.

Commonwealth v. Morrobel, 311 A.3d 1153, 1156 (Pa. Super. 2024)

-3- J-A11045-26

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, Appellant has sufficiently complied with the requirements for

appellate review of his sentence. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and

preserved his sentencing claim in his timely post-sentence motion. Appellant’s

brief includes the required statement under Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). With respect

to whether Appellant has raised a substantial question for our review, we note

that “[a] substantial question 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. Grays, 167 A.3d 793, 816 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation

omitted). We determine on a case-by-case basis whether an appellant has

raised a substantial question regarding the discretionary aspects of his

sentence. Commonwealth v. Shroat, 272 A.3d 523, 527 (Pa. Super. 2022).

Appellant asserts that his sentence is manifestly excessive and

disproportionate to the circumstances of his case because the trial court

sentenced him in the aggravated range and because the trial court solely

focused upon the seriousness of the offense, ignoring both the factors

contained in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) and certain mitigating factors, including his

status as an honorably discharged veteran of the Marine Corps. We have held

that these claims raise substantial questions. Id. (citing Commonwealth v.

White, 193 A.3d 977, 983 (Pa. Super. 2018) (a substantial question exists

where the claim is that the court disregarded the defendant’s rehabilitative

-4- J-A11045-26

needs)); see also Commonwealth v. Booze, 953 A.2d 1263, 1278 (Pa.

Super. 2008) (claim that the sentencing court abused its discretion in

imposing an aggravated range sentence based upon its consideration of

impermissible sentencing factors is a substantial question). We thus conclude

that Appellant has presented a substantial question.

In considering the discretionary aspects of a sentence on review, we

note that 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 that discretion. Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 313 A.3d

265, 285 (Pa. Super. 2024). In this context, an abuse of discretion requires

the sentencing court to have ignored or misapplied the law, otherwise acted

with manifest unreasonableness, or made its decision while exhibiting

partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will; a sentence will be affirmed unless the

sentencing court’s determination suffers from such a lack of support so as to

be clearly erroneous. Id.

As noted by Appellant, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) offers the following

guidance to the trial court’s sentencing determination: “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. The

balancing of these sentencing factors is solely the responsibility of the

sentencing court.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 275 A.3d 530, 535 (Pa. Super.

2022) (internal citations omitted).

-5- J-A11045-26

Appellate review of a sentence imposed is conducted under 42 Pa.C.S.

§ 9781. Where, as here, the sentence is within the guideline ranges, we must

affirm unless “the case involves circumstances where the application of the

guidelines would be clearly unreasonable[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c)(2).

Appellant asserts that his sentence is unreasonable because the

sentencing court did not give proper consideration to his evidence in support

of a mitigated range sentence. Specifically, Appellant asserts that he was 38

years old, had no prior record, had graduated high school and attended the

New York Institute of Technology, and served as a U.S. Marine before being

medically discharged. Appellant’s brief at 21. Appellant was a social drinker,

had no drug abuse history, and suffers from PTSD, fibromyalgia, and

neuropathy. Id. Appellant maintained a family business and worked in his

mother’s coffee shop. Id. Appellant asserts that, “the trial court failed to

consider this [mitigating] information when imposing a sentence at the highest

end of the aggravated range of the Sentencing Guidelines. The trial court

should have considered this information and balanced it against what it

asserted to be an aggravating factor justifying an aggravat[ed] sentence

before imposing a sentence at the highest end of the aggravated range.” Id.

at 23.

At the time sentence was imposed, the court explained its sentence as

follows:

The reason for my sentence, which is in the aggravated range, is that I think you violated the trust between a parent and child. This child is going to have this trauma for the rest of [her] life.

-6- J-A11045-26

Your actions were very serious. It was your daughter. And I think it’s appropriate under this, these circumstances.

N.T., Sentencing, 6/24/25, at 17. The court reiterated these same reasons

for the sentence imposed in the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion. Trial Court

Opinion, 9/30/25, at 5. The court further explained that it had reviewed a

“comprehensive Pre-Sentence Investigation” prior to sentencing. Id. Further,

Appellant’s sentence “was consistent with this [c]ourt’s past sentencing

practices for similar offenses,” and was within the applicable sentencing

guidelines. Id. Finally, the court noted that Appellant received time credit

for his pre-trial incarceration. Id.

Based upon our review of the record and relevant case law, we conclude

that the court here did not abuse its discretion in rendering its sentence.

Sentencing is vested in the sound discretion of the trial court, and this Court

may not substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court merely

because it might have weighed the relevant factors differently. See Miller,

supra.

Appellant’s principal contention is that the court failed to afford sufficient

weight to mitigating factors, including his lack of a prior record, military

service, educational background, employment history, and physical and

mental health issues. However, the record demonstrates that the sentencing

count reviewed a comprehensive presentence investigation report (PSI) prior

to imposing sentence. Where a sentencing court is informed by a PSI, “it 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

-7- J-A11045-26

should not be disturbed.” Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1135

(Pa. Super. 2009). Consequently, the court was not required to specifically

discuss each mitigating factor in depth at the time of sentencing.

Moreover, the sentencing court articulated a clear and permissible basis

for imposing a sentence in the aggravated range of the guidelines. The court

emphasized that Appellant’s conduct constituted a profound violation of the

trust inherent in the parent-child relationship and that the victim would suffer

the consequences of that trauma for the remainder of her life. N.T.,

Sentencing, 6/24/25 at 17. The court further noted that the offense was

particularly grave because the victim was Appellant’s own daughter. These

considerations directly relate to the gravity of the offense and the impact of

the crime upon the victim, factors which are a part of the sentencing calculus

that are required to be considered under Section 9721(b).

Ultimately, Appellant’s claim amounts of a request that this Court re-

weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors and reach a different sentencing

determination, which we may not do. The sentencing court was free to

conclude that the seriousness of Appellant’s conduct, the breach of parental

trust, and the lasting harm inflicted upon the victim outweighed the mitigating

evidence proffered by Appellant in support of a lesser sentence. Because the

record reflects that the court considered relevant sentencing factors,

possessed the benefit of a PSI, and imposed a guideline sentence supported

by the circumstances of the offense, Appellant has failed to establish that the

-8- J-A11045-26

sentence imposed was manifestly unreasonable or that the court abused its

discretion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 06/30/2026

-9-