Com. v. Porter, A.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: August 19, 2025
• Docket: 531 EDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S25036-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ANTHONY DEANGALO PORTER : : Appellant : No. 531 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 23, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0005410-2019

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 19, 2025

Appellant, Anthony Deangalo Porter, appeals from the judgment of

sentence of an aggregate term of 18 to 60 months’ incarceration, imposed

after he was convicted, following a non-jury trial, of receiving stolen property

(18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a)) and unauthorized use of automobiles and other

vehicles (18 Pa.C.S. § 3928(a)). Herein, Appellant challenges the weight of

the evidence to sustain the court’s verdict, as well as the discretionary aspects

of his sentence. We affirm.

The trial court set forth a detailed discussion of the facts and procedural

history of Appellant’s case, which we adopt herein. See Trial Court Opinion

(TCO), 4/9/25, at 1-3. We only note that Appellant was convicted of the

above-stated crimes following a non-jury trial on May 16, 2024. Appellant

was originally scheduled to be sentenced on August 5, 2024, but he failed to

appear for that proceeding. After a warrant was issued for his arrest, J-S25036-25

Appellant turned himself in, and he was sentenced to the aggregate term set

forth supra on September 23, 2024. Appellant filed a timely, post-sentence

motion, which was denied. He then filed a timely notice of appeal, and he

complied with the court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors

complained of on appeal. The court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on April 9,

2025.

Herein, Appellant presents two issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court’s guilty verdict as to count 1 – receiving stolen property (F-3) was against the weight of the evidence where the vehicle did not have any indicia of being stolen.

2. Whether the trial court’s sentence of 18 to 60 months[’] incarceration was manifestly excessive and where the trial court failed to adequately consider that this was a property damage claim, … Appellant’s family support, the age of his prior convictions[,] and his substance abuse issues.

Appellant’s Brief at 5 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

In assessing Appellant’s issues, we have reviewed the certified record,

the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law. Additionally, we have

examined the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Wendy G. Rothstein of

the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County. We conclude that Judge

Rothstein’s comprehensive opinion accurately disposes of the issues presented

by Appellant. See TCO at 3-11. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Rothstein’s

opinion as our own and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence for the

reasons set forth therein.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

-2- J-S25036-25

Date: 8/19/2025

-3- Opinion Opinion 08/05/2025 09.38 Circulated 08/0502025 09:38 AM

IN THE IN COURT OF THE COURT COMMON PLEAS OF COMMON PLEAS OF OF MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL CRIMINAL DIVISION DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMON WEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Common Pleas Common Pleas Court Court No.: No.: CP-46-CR-00054 10-201 9 CP-46-CR-0005410-2019 v.

Superior Court Superior Court No.: No.: ANTHONY DEANGALO PORTER ANTHONY DEANGALO PORTER EDA 2025 531 EDA

OPINION OPINION

ROTHSTEIN, ROTHSTEIN, J. J. April 9, April 9, 2025 2025

Appellant, Anthony Deangalo Appellant, Anthony Deangalo Porter, Porter, (“Defendant”) ("Defendant") appeals his judgment appeals his of sentence judgment of sentence imposed imposed on on

September September 23, 23, 2024, following aa bench 2024, following bench trial trial in in which which the court found the court found Defendant guilty of Defendant guilty of one one (I) (1) count count

each of each of receiving stolen property receiving stolen and unauthorized property'1and use of unauthorized use of automobiles automobiles and other vehicles. and other vehicles.2 For the reasons For the reasons

that follow, that the judgment follow, the of sentence judgment of sentence is is proper proper and and should should be be affirmed. affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY HISTORY

On August On 13, 2019, August 13, the owner 2019, the owner of of aa business business named named East East Falls Beverage on Falls Beverage on Ridge Ridge Avenue Avenue in in

Philadelphia Philadelphia parked of the parked one of company vans the company vans in in the the vicinity of the vicinity of business and the business and mistakenly mistakenly left left the keys the keys

inside inside the the vehicle. Sometime on vehicle. Sometime on August 13 or 14, August 13 14, 2019, 2019, the business owner the business owner discovered discovered the the van van was no no

longer longer located located where where he had previously he had previously parked parked the the vehicle vehicle and subsequently reported and subsequently the incident reported the incident to to the the

police. On police. On August August I5, 15, 2019, at approximately 2019, at approximately 1:30 1:30 a.m., Officer Matthew a.m., Officer Matthew Seydel of the Seydel of the Montgomery Montgomery

Township Township Police Police Department observed aa van Department observed driving westbound van driving on County westbound on County Line Line Road which was traveling Road which traveling

at an at an abnormally abnormally low low rate rate of of speed speed and which also and which also appeared appeared to to have have aa flat flat tire. tire. Officer Officer Seydel Seydel turned turned around around

and began and began to to follow the van, follow the van, which which he observed had aa sign he observed sign which which read read “East "East Falls Beverage.” The Falls Beverage." The officer officer

proceeded proceeded to perform an to perform an inquiry on the inquiry on the vehicle’s vehicle's registration registration which which indicated indicated that that the van had the van had been been reported reported

118Pa.C.S.A. $ '18Pa.CS.A. § 3925(a). 3925(a). MontcoPA Clerk of Courts 18 Pa.C. S.A, § 3928(a). 2 18Pa.CS.A. $ 3928(a) RPR9’25pm12:59 as stolen out as stolen out of Philadelphia, Pa of Philadelphia, on August Pa on 14, 2019. August 14, 2019. Officer Officer Seydel subsequently effectuated Seydel subsequently effectuated aa traffic traffic stop stop

of the of van at the van at aa Wawa Wawa located located at at the the intersection intersection of of County County Line Road and Line Road Butler Avenue and Butler Avenue.

An individual, An individual, later later identified as Defendant, identified as exited the vehicle Defendant, exited from the vehicle from the front driver’s side front driver's door and side door and

informed the informed officer that the officer that he he had taken the had taken the van after discovering van after discovering the the keys keys were located inside. were located inside. The The officer officer

later transported later transported Defendant Defendant to to the police station the police station in in order order to to conduct conduct an interview following an interview the following the

administration of Miranda administration of warnings. Miranda'3 warnings. During this interview, During this interview, Defendant admitted he Defendant admitted he took took the van at the van at

approximately p.m. on approximately 3 p.m. August 14, on August 14, 2019 in order 2019 in order to to go go home. Defendant also home. Defendant stated that also stated that the the keys keys were

located inside the located inside the vehicle, he did vehicle, he did not not know know the the owner owner and and he he did not have did not have permission to take permission to take the van. the van.

On May On May 16, 16, 2024, the court 2024, the court held held aa bench bench trial trial and and found found Defendant guilty of Defendant guilty the charges of the charges referenced referenced

above. above. The court scheduled The court sentencing to scheduled sentencing to take place on take place on August August 5, 2024, 2024, but Defendant failed but Defendant failed to to appear appear on on

this date this date and and the court issued the court issued aa bench bench warrant. warrant. Defendant Defendant eventually eventually turned himself in turned himself in and on August and on August 26, 26,

2024, the 2024, the court court remanded remanded Defendant Defendant to to Montgomery County Correctional Montgomery County Correctional Facility and revoked Facility and revoked the bench the bench

warrant. On September warrant. On September 23, 2024, following 23, 2024, following the rescheduled sentencing the rescheduled sentencing hearing, the court hearing, the court imposed an imposed an

aggregate sentence aggregate of eighteen sentence of eighteen (18) (18) to sixty (60) t0 sixty (60) months months of of imprisonment imprisonment (one (one and and one-half one-half (1%) (l'A) to five to five

(5) years) (5) years).

On October I, On October 1, 2024, 2024, Defendant Defendant filed filed timely timely post-sentence post-sentence motions. On January motions. On January 22, 22, 2025, 2025, the court the court

denied Defendant’s denied post-sentence motions. Defendant's post-sentence motions. On On February February 20, 2025, Defendant 20, 2025, filed aa timely Defendant filed timely notice notice of of

appeal. appeal. On February 21, On February 21, 2025, 2025, the court issued the court issued an an Order Order directing directing Defendant Defendant to file aa concise to file concise statement statement of of

matters complained of matters complained on appeal of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 1925(b) (the “Concise Statement") (the "Concise Statement”) within within twenty- twenty-

one (21) one (21) days. days. On On March March 10, 2025, Defendant 10, 2025, filed aa timely Defendant filed timely Concise Statement. Within Concise Statement. Within his Concise his Concise

Statement, Defendant Statement, requested an Defendant requested an extension extension of of time time to to file an amended file an amended Concise Concise Statement Statement upon upon

completion of the completion of the trial transcript. On March trial transcript. 12, 2025, March 12, 2025, the the court granted Defendant’s court granted request and Defendant's request directed and directed

that the amended that the Concise Statement amended Concise Statement should should be be filed filed no later than no later than April 4, 2025. April 4, 2025. On On March March 31, 31, 2025, 2025,

3Miranda v. Arizona, 384 ' Miranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436, 86 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. S.Ct. 1602 1602 (U.S. 1966). (U.S. 1966). 22 Defendant Defendant filed filed aa timely timely amended amended Concise Statement (the Concise Statement (the “Amended Concise Statement"). " Amended Concise Statement”). In In his his Amended Amended

Concise Statement, Concise Statement, Defendant the following Defendant raises the following two (2) issues: two (2) issues:

[WHETHER] THE [WHETHER] THE VERDICT OF RECEIV[ING] VERDICT OF STOLEN PROPERTY RECEIV[ING] STOLEN PROPERTY WAS WAS AGAINST THE AGAINST THE WEIGHT WEIGHT OF OF THE THE EVIDENCE WHERE THE EVIDENCE WHERE THE TESTIMONY TESTIMONY AT AT TRIAL SHOWED THERE TRIAL SHOWED WAS NO THERE WAS NO DAMAGE DAMAGE TOTO THE THE STEERING STEERING COLUMN COLUMN OF THE OF THE VEHICLE VEHICLE AND AND THAT THAT KEYS KEYS WERE WERE USED USED TO TO OPERATE OPERATE THE THE VEHICLE[?] VEHICLE[?]

[WHETHER] THE [WHETHER] THE SENTENCE WAS UNDULY SENTENCE WAS UNDULY HARSH AND EXCESSIVE[?] HARSH AND EXCESSIVE[?]

(Defendant’s (Defendant's Amended Concise Statement) Amended Concise Statement).

DISCUSSION DISCUSSION

I. I. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY WEIGHT AND or THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE

In In his his first issue, Defendant first issue, Defendant alleges alleges the court’s verdict the court's verdict was against the was against the weight of the weight of evidence. As the evidence. As aa

preliminary preliminary matter, in order matter, in order to to preserve preserve aa weight weight of the evidence of the claim aa defendant evidence claim defendant must must raise the claim raise the claim in in

aa motion for aa new motion for new trial trial “(1) orally, on "() orally, on the the record, at any record, at any time time before sentencing; (2) before sentencing; (2) by by written written motion motion at at

any time before any time before sentencing; sentencing; or or (3) (3) in in aa post-sentence post-sentence motion.” motion." Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A). Failure Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A). Failure to to comply comply

with with Rule Rule 607 607 will wWill result result in in waiver, even if waiver, even if aa defendant defendant includes includes aa weight of the weight of evidence claim the evidence claim in in aa Rule Rule

1925(b) statement and 1925(b) statement and the the trial court addresses trial court addresses the the issue issue in its Rule in its Rule 1925(a) 1925(a) opinion. Commonwealth v, opinion. Commonwealth •

Sherwood, 603 Sherwood, Pa. 92, 603 Pa. 110, 982 92, 1H0, 982 A.2d 483, 494 A.2d 483, (Pa. 2009), 494 (Pa. certiorari denied, 2009), certiorari denied, 559 U.S. 1111, 559 U.S. 130 S.Ct 1111, 130 S.Ct.

2415, 176 L.Ed.2d 2415,176 L.Ed.2d 932 (2010). Instantly, 932 (2010). Instantly, Defendant Defendant did did not not raise any weight raise any of the weight of evidence claims the evidence claims either either

prior prior to or during to or during the the sentencing sentencing hearing. hearing. Further, Further, Defendant’s post-sentence motion Defendant's post-sentence does not motion does not raise raise any any

weight claims, weight claims. The The first first time time Defendant Defendant presented presented this claim was this claim was in his Amended in his Concise Statement. Amended Concise Statement.

Therefore, Therefore, Defendant’s challenge to Defendant's challenge to the weight of the weight of the evidence is the evidence is waived and Defendant’s waived and inclusion of Defendant's inclusion of the the

claim claim in his Amended in his Amended Concise Concise Statement Statement has not preserved has not preserved this issue. See this issue. See id. id.

Moreover, Moreover, Defendant appears to Defendant appears have conflated to have conflated related, related, albeit distinct claims, albeit distinct claims, the the sufficiency sufficiency of of the the

evidence and evidence and the the weight of the weight of the evidence. Specifically, Defendant evidence. Specifically, Defendant purports purports to challenge the to challenge the weight of the weight of the

evidence, but evidence, but then focuses on then focuses on the the absence of certain absence of certain factors such as factors such as an an undamaged undamaged steering steering column column and and

Defendant’s Defendant's use of keys use of keys to operate the to operate the vehicle. This claim vehicle. This claim appears appears to challenge the to challenge the sufficiency sufficiency rather rather than than

3l the the weight of the weight of evidence. In the evidence. In an an abundance abundance of caution, the of caution, court will the court address both will address both the sufficiency of the sufficiency the of the

evidence and evidence and the the weight of the weight of evidence within the evidence within its analysis of its analysis of Defendant’s Defendant's first issue. 4 first issue."

“The standard The standard of of review review for for aa challenge challenge to to sufficiency of the sufficiency of the evidence evidence is is to determine whether, to determine whether, when when

viewed in viewed in aa hight light most most favorable favorable to the verdict to the verdict winner, winner, the the evidence evidence at trial and at trial and all all reasonable reasonable inferences inferences

therefrom is therefrom sufficient for is sufficient the trier for the trier of of fact fact to to find that each find that element of each element of the the crimes crimes charged charged is established is established

beyond aa reasonable beyond doubt.” Commonwealth reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. , Vogelsang, Vogelsong, 90 90 A. 3d 717, A.3d 718 (Pa.Super. 717, 718 (Pa.Super. 2014) 2014) appeal appeal

denied, 628 denied, 628 Pa. Pa. 622, 622, 102 A.3d 985 102 A.3d 985 (2014). (2014). "The “The Commonwealth Commonwealth may may sustain sustain its burden of its burden proving every of proving every

element of the element of crime beyond the crime beyond aa reasonable doubt by reasonable doubt by means means of of wholly circumstantial evidence. wholly circumstantial . .. [T]he trier evidence, ...[TJhe trier

of fact of fact while passing upon while passing upon the credibility of the credibility of witnesses and weight witnesses and of the weight of the evidence evidence produced, is free produced, is to believe free to believe

all, all, part or none part or none of of the the evidence." evidence.” Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Hansley, Hansley, 24 24 A.3d A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super. 410, 416 (Pa.Super. 2011) 2011) appeal appeal

denied, 61 3 Pa. denied, 613 Pa. 642, 642, 32 32 A. 3d 1275 A,3d 1275 (2011) (2011) (internal (internal quotation quotation marks omitted). Reasonable marks omitted). Reasonable doubt doubt necessarily necessarily

entails that entails that aa conviction conviction "must “must be based based on on more more than than mere suspicion or mere suspicion or conjecture”, however, "the conjecture", however, “the

Commonwealth need Commonwealth need not establish guilt not establish guilt to to aa mathematical mathematical certainty." certainty.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, Commonwealth v, Stokes, 78 A. 3d 78 A.3d

644, 649 644, 649 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2013) 2013) appeal appeal denied, denied, 625 625 Pa. 636, 89 Pa. 636, 89 A.3d 661 (2014) A.3d 661 (2014) (internal (internal quotation quotation marks marks

omitted). Further, omitted). Further, "when “when reviewing reviewing the the sufficiency of the sufficiency of the evidence, evidence, [the Superior Court] [the Superior Court] may may not substitute not substitute

its its judgment judgment for that of the that of fact-finder; if the fact-finder; the record if the record contains support for contains support for the the convictions, convictions, they may not they may not be be

disturbed.” disturbed." Id. 1d

Receiving stolen property Receiving stolen property is established by is established by proving that the proving that accused "intentionally the accused “intentionally receives, receives, retains, retains,

or disposes or disposes of of movable property of movable property of another another knowing knowing that that it has been it has stolen or been stolen or believing believing that that it it has has probably probably

been stolen, been stolen, unless unless the the property property is is received, received, retained, retained, or or disposed disposed of of with intent to with intent to restore restore it it to the owner. to the owner/’

18 Pa.C.S.A. I8 Pa.C.S.A. $§ 3925(a) 3925(a).

The weight of the weight of the evidence evidence is exclusively exclusively for for the the finder of of fact, who is fact, who is free to to believe believe all, part, or part, or

none of the none of evidence and the evidence and to determine the to determine credibility of the credibility of the the witnesses. witnesses. Commonwealth Commonwealth v. McCloskey, 835 , McCloskey, 85

4 Although the court Although the has already court has already determined determined Defendant’s Defendant's weight of the weight of evidence claim the evidence claim was not properly was not properly preserved, it will preserved, it will perform an analysis perform an analysis as as to to why why he he would would not not be be entitled to relief entitled to relief if if the claim had the claim had not not been been waived. waived. 44 A. 2d 801, A.2d 801, 809 (Pa.Super. 2003), 809 (Pa.Super. 2003), appeal appeal denied, 577 Pa. denied, 577 Pa. 713, 713, 847 847 A.2d A.2d 1281 1281 (2004). (2004). “A motion for "A motion for aa new new

trial on trial on grounds grounds that that the the verdict verdict is contrary to is contrary to the weight of the weight the evidence of the evidence concedes concedes that that there there is sufficient is sufficient

evidence to evidence support the to support the verdict, verdict, but but contends contends nevertheless, nevertheless, that the verdict that the verdict is is against against the the weight of the weight of the

evidence.” Commonwealth evidence." Commonwealth v. • Davis, 799 A.2d Davis, 799 A.2d 860, 860, 865 865 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super, 2002). 2002). Whether Whether aa new new trial should be trial should be

granted on granted on grounds grounds that that it is against it is against the the weight of the weight of the evidence evidence is is addressed to the addressed to sound discretion the sound discretion of of the the

trial court trial court and will not and will not be reversed absent be reversed absent an an abuse abuse of of discretion. Id. "A discretion. Id. “A new trial should new trial should not not be be granted granted

because because of of aa mere conflict in mere conflict in the the testimony or because testimony or the judge because the judge on on the the same facts would same facts would have arrived at have arrived at aa

different conclusion.” different Commonwealth v. conclusion." Commonwealth v. Clay, 619 Pa. Clay, 619 Pa. 423, 423, 432, 64 A.34 432, 64 A. 3d 1049, 1049, 1055 1055 (2013). (2013). Instead, Instead, aa

new new trial should be trial should be granted granted only only in in truly extraordinary circumstances. truly extraordinary circumstances. Commonwealth Commonwealth v. • Edwards, 588 Edwards, 588

Pa. 151, Pa. 151, 168, 903 A.2d, 168, 903 A. 2d. 1 139, 1148 1139, (2006), certiorari 1148 (2006), certiorari denied, denied, 549 549 U.S. 1344, 127 U.S. 1344, S.Ct. 2030, 127 S.Ct. 2030, 167 L.Ed.2d 167 L.Ed.2d

772 (2007). "In 772 (2007). “In order order for for aa defendant defendant to to prevail prevail on on aa challenge challenge to to the the weight of the weight of evidence, the the evidence, evidence the evidence

must so tenuous, must be so vague and tenuous, vague and uncertain uncertain that that the the verdict shocks the verdict shocks the conscience of the conscience of court.” the court."

Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. Talbert, Talbert, 129 129 A.3d A.3d 536, 546 (Pa.Super 536, 546 (Pa.Super. 2015), 2015), appeal denied, 635 appeal denied, 635 Pa. Pa. 773, 773, 138 A. 3d 44 138 A.3d

(2016) (internal (2016) (internal citation citation and quotation marks and quotation marks omitted). omitted).

In determining In determining whether the verdict whether the is against verdict is against the the weight of the weight of evidence, the the evidence, role of the role of the the trial trial court court is is

to to determine determine whether whether “notwithstanding all the "notwithstanding all the facts, facts, certain certain facts are so facts are so clearly of greater clearly of greater weight weight to to ignore ignore

them or them or to to give give them them equal equal weight weight with all the with all facts is the facts is to deny justice.” to deny Commonwealth v, justice." Commonwealth v. Widmer, Widmer, 560 560

Pa. 308, 320, Pa. 308, 320, 744 A.2d 745, 744 A.2d 745, 752 (2000) (internal 752 (2000) (internal citations citations omitted), omitted). Stated Stated more concisely, the more concisely, the verdict verdict

should not should not be be disturbed unless it disturbed unless is so it is so contrary contrary to to the evidence as the evidence to shock as to shock one's one’s sense sense of of justice. justice

Commonwealth , Commonwealth v. Miller, Miller, 555 Pa. 354, 555 Pa. 367, 724 354, 367, A.2d 895, 724 A.2d 895, 901 (1999) certiorari 901 (1999) certiorari denied, denied, 528 528 U.S. U.S. 903, 903,

120 S.Ct. 242, 120 S.CL. 242, 145 145 L.Ed.2d L.Ed.2d 204 (1999). A 204 (1999). A verdict verdict is is said said to to be be contrary to the contrary to the evidence evidence such such that it shocks that it shocks

one’s sense one's sense of ofjustice justice when when “the figure of the figure of Justice Justice totters totters on her pedestal,” on her or when pedestal," or “the jury's when "the jury’s verdict, at the verdict, at the

time of time of its its rendition, rendition, causes causes the the trial trial judge to lose judge to [her] breath, lose [her] breath, temporarily, and causes temporarily, and causes [her] [her] to almost fall to almost fall

from the bench, from the then it bench, then it is is truly shocking to truly shocking to the the judicial conscience.” Commonwealth judicial conscience." Commonwealth • v. Davidson, 860 Davidson, 860

A.2d 575, 581 A.2d 575, 581 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2004) 2004) (internal (internal citations citations omitted). omitted). “The "The trial court’s denial trial court's denial of of aa motion motion for for aa new new

55 trial based trial based on on aa weight of the weight of evidence claim the evidence claim is is the the least assailable of least assailable of its rulings.” Commonwealth » its rulings." v.

Cousar, 593 Cousar, 593 Pa. Pa. 204, 223, 928 204, 223, 928 A.2d 1025, 1036 A.2d 1025, 1036 (2007), (2007), certiorari certiorari denied, denied, 553 553 U.S. U.S. 1035, 1035, 128 S.Ct. 2429, 128 S.Ct. 2429,

171 L.Ed.2d 171 L.Ed.2d 235 (2008). 235 (2008)

Instantly, on August Instantly, on August 13, 13, 2019, 2019, the owner of the owner of East East Falls Falls Beverage Beverage parked one of parked one of the the company company vans vans in in

the vicinity the vicinity of of the the business and mistakenly business and mistakenly left the keys left the keys inside inside the the vehicle. (N.T. Trial vehicle. (N,T. Trial by by Judge, Judge, 5/16/24, 5/16/24,

at 8-11). at 8- 11). Sometime on August Sometime on August 1 133 or or 14, 14, 2019, 2019, the the business business owner discovered the owner discovered the van van was was no longer located no longer located

where he where he had had previously parked the previously parked vehicle and the vehicle subsequently reported and subsequently the incident reported the to the incident to the police. (Id. at police. (Id. at 9- 9-

11). The 1). The business business owner owner testified testified that that he did not he did not know Defendant and know Defendant and did did not not provide him with provide him with permission permission

to use the to the van. (Id. at 11-12), van. (Id. 11-12).

On August On 15, 2019, August 15, 2019, at approximately 1:30 at approximately 1:30 a.m., a.m., Officer Officer Matthew Seydel of Matthew Seydel of the Montgomery the Montgomery

Township Police Township Police Department observed aa van Department observed van driving driving westbound westbound on on County County Line Line Road Road which which was was traveling traveling

at an at an abnormally abnormally low low rate of speed rate of speed and which also appeared which also to have appeared to have aa flat flat tire. (Id. at tire. (Id. at 20-21). 20-21), Officer Officer

Seydel turned Seydel turned around and began around and began to to follow the van, follow the van, which which he observed had he observed had aa sign sign which which read read "East “East Falls Falls

Beverage.” (/d. Beverage." (Id. at 21). The at 2). officer proceeded The officer to perform proceeded to an inquiry perform an on the inquiry on the vehicle's vehicle’s registration registration which which

indicated that indicated the van that the van had had been been reported as stolen reported as stolen out out of of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa Pa on August 14, on August 14, 2019. (Id. at 2019. (Id. at 21- 21-

22). Officer Seydel 22). Officer Seydel subsequently effectuated aa traffic subsequently effectuated traffic stop stop of of the the van at aa Wawa van at Wawa located located at at the the intersection intersection

of County Line of County Line Road and Butler Road and Butler Avenue. (Id. at Avenue. (Id, at 22) 22).

Defendant exited the Defendant exited the vehicle vehicle from the front from the driver’s side front driver's door and side door and informed informed the officer that the officer that he had he had

taken the van taken the after discovering van after discovering the keys were the keys were located located inside. (Id. at inside. (Id. at 23-24). 23-24). The The officer officer later later transported transported

Defendant to Defendant to the the police police station station in in order order to conduct an to conduct an interview interview following following the the administration of Miranda administration of Miranda

warnings. (Id. at warnings. (Id. at 24). 24). During During this this interview, interview, Defendant admitted he Defendant admitted he took the van took the at approximately van at approximately 33 p.m. p.m.

on August on 14, 2019 August 14, 2019 in order to in order to go go home. (Id. at home. (Id. at 28, 28, Commonwealth Commonwealth Exhibit C-3). Defendant Exhibit C-3). also stated Defendant also stated

that the that the keys keys were were located located inside inside the vehicle, he the vehicle, did not he did not know know the owner and the owner and he he did did not not have have permission to permission to

take take the van. (Id.). the van. (Id.). Officer Officer Seydel Seydel testified testified that that Defendant’s Defendant's statement statement indicating indicating he he took the van took the van in in order order

to go home to go home seemed seemed to be contradictory to be contradictory to to the fact that the fact that Defendant’s Defendant's westbound direction of westbound direction of travel travel on on County County

66 Line Road Line would take Road would take him in the him in opposite direction the opposite direction from from his his home home located on Loudon located on Street in Loudon Street in Philadelphia, Philadelphia,

Pa. (d. Pa. (Id. at at 36).° 36). 5 •

When viewed When in aa light viewed in light most favorable to most favorable to the Commonwealth as the Commonwealth as the the verdict verdict winner, winner, the evidence the evidence

was sufficient to was sufficient establish Defendant’s to establish actions satisfied Defendant's actions satisfied all all of of the elements of the elements of receiving stolen property. receiving stolen property. See

Vogelsang, supra. Defendant Vogelsong, supra. was stopped Defendant was stopped by the police by the while driving police while driving the the East Falls Falls Beverage Beverage van van and and

admitted that he admitted that did not he did not know the owner know the owner of of the the vehicle vehicle or or possess possess permission permission to use the to use van. Defendant the van. Defendant

had had utilized utilized keys mistakenly left keys mistakenly left inside the vehicle inside the vehicle in in order order to operate the to operate the van van and and the the totality the totality of the

circumstances demonstrated circumstances demonstrated he did not he did not intend intend to return the to return the van to its van to owner. When its owner Officer Seydel When Officer Seydel observed observed

Defendant driving the Defendant driving the van, van, approximately approximately ten ten and and one-half one-half hours (lO'A) hours hours (10) hours had elapsed from had elapsed from the the time time

Defendant Defendant had had taken taken the vehicle according the vehicle according to to the timeline provided the timeline by Defendant provided by Defendant himself. himself. Additionally, Additionally,

when Officer Seydel when Officer Seydel first encountered the first encountered the van, van, it was was traveling traveling in in the opposite direction the opposite direction from both from both

Defendant’s Defendant's home and the home and the East Falls Falls Beverage Beverage location. location. Therefore, the evidence Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to was sufficient to establish establish

that Defendant that Defendant retained retained the Falls Beverage the East Falls Beverage van, knowing it van, knowing it was was stolen, stolen, and he did and he did not intend to not intend to return return

the vehicle the to the vehicle to the business. business. See See 18 18 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.CS.A. $§ 3925(a). 3925(a).

With respect With to Defendant's respect to Defendant’s weight claim, the weight claim, the record demonstrates the record demonstrates evidence introduced the evidence by the introduced by the

Commonwealth fully supported Commonwealth fully supported the court’s verdict. the court's The court verdict, The court was free to was free to believe all, part believe all, part or or none of the none of the

evidence and evidence and made made aa determination determination that Defendant did that Defendant did not not intend intend to restore the to restore the van van to to its its owner owner despite despite

questioning and questioning and argument argument by defense counsel by defense counsel attempting attempting to to highlight highlight the the lack of information lack of information regarding regarding

Defendant’s future Defendant's future intentions intentions with with respect respect to to the the van. van. The The court court instead chose to instead chose to rely rely upon other evidence upon other evidence

which demonstrated Defendant which demonstrated Defendant had no intent had no intent to to return return the the van van to to East East Falls Falls Beverage. Therefore, the Beverage. Therefore, the verdict verdict

was was not so contrary not so contrary to to the weight of the weight of the the evidence such that evidence such that it shocks one’s it shocks sense of one's sense of justice. See Miller, justice. See Miller,

supra. Accordingly, supra. Accordingly, Defendant's Defendant’s first issue merits first issue merits no no relief. relief.

The court ' Te 5 court further further takes takes judicial judicial notice that Defendant’s notice that westbound direction Defendant's westbound direction of of travel travel on on County County Line Line Road in Road in Montgomery Montgomery Township Township would also take would also take him him inin the the opposite direction from opposite direction the East from the Falls Beverage East Falls Beverage location. "A location. “A court court may take notice may take notice of of an an indisputable indisputable adjudicative adjudicative fact.” fact." Interest of D.S., Interest of DS., 622 A. 2d 954, 622 A.2d 954, 957 (Pa.Super. 957 (Pa.Super. 1993). 1993). See See also also Pa.R.E, 201(b). Pa.R.E. 201(b) 77 IL II. DISCRETIONARY ASPECTS OF DISCRETIONARY ASPECTS OF SENTENCE SENTENCE

In his In his second second issue, issue, Defendant contends his Defendant contends his aggregate aggregate sentence sentence was was unfairly harsh and unfairly harsh excessive and excessive

and the and the court court improperly focused on improperly focused on the the gravity of the gravity of offenses and the offenses and protection of the protection of the public at the public at expense the expense

of mitigating of mitigating factors. factors.

The standard of The standard of review with respect review with respect to to sentencing sentencing is as follows: is as follows:

Sentencing is Sentencing is aa matter matter vested in the vested in sound discretion the sound discretion ofof the the sentencing sentencing judge, judge, and and aa sentence will sentence not be will not be disturbed disturbed onon appeal appeal absent absent aa manifest abuse of manifest abuse of discretion. discretion. InIn this context, an abuse of discretion is not shown merely this context, an abuse of discretion is not shown merely byby an error judgement. an error in judgement. Rather, the Rather, the appellant appellant must establish, by must establish, reference to by reference the record, to the record, that that the the sentencing sentencing court ignored or court ignored or misapplied misapplied thethe law, law, exercised exercised its its judgment judgment forfor reasons reasons ofof partiality, partiality, prejudice, prejudice, bias bias oror ill ill will, or arrived will, or at aa manifestly arrived at manifestly unreasonable unreasonable decision. decision

v. Rodda, 723 A.2d Commonwealth • 212, 214 A.2d 212, 214 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 1999) (en bane) I999) (en banc} (internal (internal quotation quotation marks marks and and

citations omitted). citations omitted). "When “When imposing imposing aa sentence, the sentencing sentence, the sentencing court court must consider the must consider the factors set out factors set out in in 42 42

Pa. C. S.A. $§ 9721(b), Pa.CS.A. 9721(b), that that is, the protection is, the of the protection of the public, public, gravity of the gravity of the offense offense in in relation to impact relation to impact on on

victim and victim and community, and rehabilitative community, and rehabilitative needs of the needs of the defendant....” defendant..." Commonwealth v. , Fullin, Faltin, 892 892 A. 2d A.2d

843 (Pa.Super. 843 (Pa.Super. 2006) 2006) (internal citations omitted), (internal citations omitted). "When “When reviewing sentencing matters, reviewing sentencing matters, [the [the Superior Superior

Court] must Court] accord the must accord the sentencing court great sentencing court great weight weight as as it it is is in in the the best best position to view position to view the defendant’s the defendant's

character, displays character, displays of of remorse, defiance or remorse, defiance or indifference, and the indifference, and overall effect the overall effect and and nature of the nature of the crime." crime.”

Commonwealth v.v. Ventura, 975 975 A.2d A.2d 1 128, 1134 1128, (Pa.Super. 2009), 1134 (Pa.Super. 2009), appeal appeal denied, 604 604 Pa. Pa. 706, 706, 975 A.2d A.2d

1128 (2009). 1128 (2009).

A claim that A claim that aa sentence sentence is is manifestly excessive challenges manifestly excessive challenges the the discretionary discretionary aspects aspects of of sentencing. sentencing.

Commonwealth v. Hoag, 665 A.2d Hoag, 665 1212 (Pa.Super A.2d 1212 (Pa.Super. 1995). “[T]here is 1995). "[T]here no absolute is no absolute right to appeal right to appeal when when

challenging the challenging discretionary aspect the discretionary aspect of of aa sentence." sentence.” Commonwealth Commonwealth • v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1030, 1042 1042

(Pa.Super. 2013) (Pa.Super. 2013) (en bane). banc}. To To properly preserve such properly preserve such aa claim claim for appellate review, for appellate review, the the defendant defendant must must

present the issue present in either issue in either aa post-sentence motion or post-sentence motion raise the or raise the claim during the claim during sentencing proceedings. the sentencing proceedings. Id. Id.

“Absent such efforts, Absent such efforts, an objection to an objection to aa discretionary discretionary aspect of sentence aspect of sentence is is waived.” Commonwealth v waived." Commonwealth v.

Watson, 835 A.2d 786, 835 A.2d 786, 791 791 (Pa.Super, (Pa.Super. 2003). 2003). This This failure failure cannot cannot be cured by be cured by submitting submitting the challenge in the challenge in

88 aa Rule 1925(b) statement. Rule 1925(b) statement. Id. Here, Defendant Id. Here, raised the Defendant raised discretionary aspects the discretionary aspects of of sentencing sentencing claim claim in in his his

post-sentence post-sentence motion, thus the motion, thus the issue issue is is preserved on appeal. preserved on appeal.

To obtain To obtain review on the review on merits of the merits of aa challenge challenge to to the the discretionary discretionary aspects of aa sentence, aspects of sentence, aa defendant defendant

must include aa Pa.R.A.P. must include Pa.R.A.P 2 119(f) statement 2119(f) in his statement in his brief brief and and he he must show that must show that there there is is aa substantial substantial question question

that that the sentence imposed the sentence is not imposed is not appropriate appropriate under the sentencing under the code (42 sentencing code (42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §$ 9781(b).) 9781().)

Commonwealth v. Commonwealth • Raven, 97 A.3d Raven, 97 1244, 1252 A.3d 1244, 1252 (Pa.Super (Pa.Super. 2014) appeal denied 2014) appeal denied 629 629 Pa. 636, 105 Pa. 636, 105 A.3d A.3d 736 736

(2014). "A (2014). “A substantial substantial question question requires requires aa showing showing that that the sentence violates the sentence either aa specific violates either specific provision provision of of

the sentencing the sentencing scheme set forth scheme set forth in in the Sentencing Code the Sentencing Code or or aa particular particular fundamental fundamental norm norm underlying the underlying the

sentencing process.” sentencing process." Id. (internal citations Id. (internal citations and and quotation quotation marks omitted). marks omitted).

A sentencing court A sentencing court has discretion to has discretion impose multiple to impose multiple sentences consecutively or sentences consecutively or concurrently concurrently and, and,

ordinarily, aa challenge ordinarily, challenge to to this this exercise exercise of discretion does of discretion does not not raise raise aa substantial substantial question. question. Commonwealth Commonwealth

v. • Pass, 914 914 A.2d A.2d 442, 442, 446-47 446-47 (Pa.Super (Pa.Super. 2006). Generally, an 2006). Generally, an allegation allegation that sentencing court that sentencing court failed failed to to

consider or consider or did did not not adequately adequately consider consider certain certain mitigating mitigating factors does not factors does raise aa substantial not raise substantial question question that that

the sentence the was inappropriate. sentence was Commonwealth v. inappropriate. Commonwealth Lewis, 911 v. Lewis, 91 1 A.2d A.2d 558, 558, 567 (Pa.Super. 2006). 567 (Pa.Super 2006). See also See also

Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Mobley, 581 • Mobley, 581 A.2d A.2d 949, 949, 952 952 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 1990) 1990) (holding claim that (holding claim sentencing court that sentencing court failed failed

to take to take into consideration defendant's into consideration defendant’s rehabilitative rehabilitative needs and issued needs and manifestly excessive issued manifestly excessive sentence sentence did did not not

raise substantial raise substantial question question where where sentence was within sentence was within statutory statutory limit Limit and sentencing guidelines). and sentencing guidelines)

“[W]here W]here aa sentence sentence is within the is within standard range the standard range of of the [sentencing] guidelines, the [sentencing] guidelines, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania law law

views the views the sentence sentence as as appropriate appropriate under under the the Sentencing Sentencing Code.” Code." Commonwealth v. Moury, Commonwealth v, 992 A.2d Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 162,

171 (Pa.Super. 17I (Pa.Super. 2010). 2010). "Where “Where the sentencing court the sentencing court had had the the benefit of aa presentence benefit of presentence investigation investigation report report

(“PSI”), we (PS]"), we can can assume the sentencing assume the court was sentencing court was aware aware of of relevant information regarding relevant information regarding the defendant’s the defendant's

character and character and weighed weighed those considerations along those considerations along with with mitigating statutory factors.” mitigating statutory factors." Id. (internal citation Id. (internal citation

omitted). A omitted). A combination of aa PSI combination of and aa standard PSI and standard range range sentence, sentence, absent absent more, cannot be more, cannot considered be considered

excessive and excessive and unreasonable. unreasonable. Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centeno, 668 • Cruz-Centeno, 668 A.2d A.2d 536 appeal denied 536 appeal denied 544 Pa. 653, 544 Pa. 653,

676 A.2d 676 1195 (1996) A.2d 1195 (1996) (emphasis (emphasis added). added).

9 9 As As aa preliminary preliminary matter, matter, Defendant's Defendant’s issue issue presented in his presented in his concise concise statement does not statement does not raise raise aa

substantial question substantial question warranting warranting review. See Pass, review. See supra; Lewis, Pass, supra; Lewis, supra; supra, Mobley, supra. Moreover, Mobley, supra. even if Moreover, even if

Defendant had Defendant raised aa substantial had raised question, he would substantial question, would still still not not be entitled to be entitled relief. Instantly, to relief. Instantly, Defendant’s Defendant's

aggregate aggregate sentence of one sentence of one and and one-half one-half (I) (I/2) to to five (5) years five (5) years of of imprisonment imprisonment consists of aa mitigated consists of mitigated range range

sentence with sentence respect to with respect to the the receiving stolen property receiving stolen charge. 6 Thus, property charge.° Thus, to to the extent Defendant the extent Defendant contends his contends his

aggregate sentence aggregate sentence is is excessive excessive and and unreasonable, unreasonable, this claim has this claim has no no merit. merit. See See Moury, supra. Moury, spra.

The court The court also also had had the the benefit of aa PSI benefit of PSI report report and considered all and considered of the all of mitigating factors the mitigating factors related related to to

Defendant. (N.T. Sentencing, Defendant. (N.T. 9/23/24, at Sentencing, 9/23/24, at 4). 4). Additionally, the court Additionally, the court considered considered all all other other factors required factors required

under 42 under 42 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A. $§ 9721(b), 9721(b), such as the such as the sentencing sentencing guidelines. (Id.}. The guidelines. (Id.). The court also had court also the benefit had the of benefit of

sentencing sentencing memorandum memorandum prepared prepared by defense counsel by defense counsel and and letters letters written in support written in support of of Defendant Defendant by his by his

family members. family (Id.}. Therefore, members. (Id.). Therefore, the the record record indicates indicates the the court court was was aware aware of of relevant relevant information information

regarding Defendant’s character, regarding Defendant's character, including including mitigating mitigating factors, and weighed factors, and this information weighed this information when when itit

imposed sentence. The imposed sentence. The combination combination of of Defendant’s Defendant's mitigated mitigated range sentence and range sentence and the the court’s analysis of court's analysis of

the PSI, the PSI, therefore, resulted in therefore, resulted in aa sentence sentence which which cannot cannot be considered excessive be considered excessive or or unreasonable. See Crut- unreasonable. See Cruz-

supra. Centeno, supra

Defendant Defendant stole stole aa van van parked outside of parked outside of aa business business and and failed failed to appear for to appear the originally for the originally scheduled scheduled

sentencing hearing sentencing hearing in in addition addition to multiple pre-trial to multiple pre-trial proceedings scheduled throughout proceedings scheduled throughout the the history of this history of this

matter. 7 The matter.' court referenced The court referenced these these details details and and other other factors factors in its reasoning in its reasoning for the sentence for the sentence it it imposed: imposed:

THE COURT: THE COURT. We We all all must must abide by, by, we country of laws. we are a country laws One of One of those those laws laws isis you do not you do not steal steal what what is is not not yours. yours. People People need need toto feel safe that feel safe that their their property property will will not not be be stolen. stolen. People People need need to to respect respect other other people’s people's properties. properties, You chose to You chose steal aa van to steal van that that did not did not belong belong to to you. you. There There is is no no excuse excuse for for that. that

6The concurrent The one (I) concurrent one (1) to to two (2) month two (2) month sentence sentence with respect to with respect to the the unauthorized use of unauthorized use automobiles and of automobiles and other vehicles other charge was vehicles charge was aa standard standard range sentence. range sentence

Specifically, Defendant ' Specifically, 7 Defendant failed failed to appear for to appear for aa preliminary preliminary hearing hearing scheduled scheduled for for August 29, 2019, Agust 29, 2019, aa pre¬ pre- trial trial conference scheduled for conference scheduled December 16, for December 16, 2021 and aa pre-trial 2021 and conference scheduled pre-trial conference scheduled for for March March 7, 7, 2024. 2024. The court The court issued issued bench bench warrants following each warrants following each ofof Defendant's Defendant’s failures failures to appear. to appear 10 IO This sentence is This sentence is necessary necessary to deter both to deter you and both you and others. others.

Furthermore, Furthermore, youyou [were] [were] granted granted bail bail pending pending sentencing. You sentencing. showed aa lack You showed lack of of respect respect for our for our judicial process judicial through the process through the entire entire process, process, inin addition to addition to not appearing for not appearing for sentencing. sentencing. Based Based onon what what you you presented, presented, II typically typically dodo not not dodo mitigated, however, mitigated, however, I am doing mitigated am doing here. mitigated here However, aa time However, time served sentence is served sentence is well well below below mitigated and mitigated and II cannot cannot justify justify that. that.

(N.T. Sentencing, (N.T. 9/23/24, at 12-13) Sentencing, 9/23/24, 12-13) (emphasis added). The (emphasis added). The record demonstrates the record demonstrates the court court considered considered the the

magnitude of magnitude of Defendant’s Defendant's actions, addition to actions, in addition to the the support support offered by his offered by his family, family, and and determined determined that that aa

mitigated range mitigated range sentence sentence was was appropriate. appropriate. In In reaching reaching this decision, the court this decision, court took mitigating factors into mitigating factors into

account and account and determined that these determined that these factors justified aa decreased factors justified decreased sentence, but not sentence, but not aa sentence sentence below below the the

mitigated mitigated range. range

Accordingly, the Accordingly, the court court appropriately appropriately considered considered all all of of the the factors set forth factors set in 42 forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A. §$ 9721(b) 9721(b)

and did and did not abuse its not abuse its discretion discretion when when it it imposed imposed an aggregate sentence an aggregate of one sentence of one and and one-half (1 '/i) to one-half (4) to five (5) five (5)

years of imprisonment. years of imprisonment. See See Rodda, Rodda, supra. supra.

CONCLUSION CONCLUSION

For the For the reasons reasons set set forth above, the forth above, the judgment judgment of sentence is of sentence is proper and should proper and be affirmed should be affirmed.

BY THE COURT: BY THE COURT:

i WENDY G. ROTHSTEIN, WENDY G. ROTHSTEIN, J? J.

Copies of Copies of the the above above Opinion Opinion sent sent on on April April 9, 2025: 9, 2025: By E-Mail By To: E-Mail To: Robert Robert Falin, Falin, Esquire/Emily Phou/Brandon Rapp Esquire/Emily Phou/Brandon (District Attorney’s Rapp (District Office) Attorney's Office) Michael Huff, Esquire Michael Huff, Esquire (Public Defender’s Office) (Public Defender's Office) By By First Class Mait First Class Mail Te: To: Anthony Deangalo Porter Anthony Deangalo Porter (Defendant) (Defendant) (SCI (SCI Laurel Laurel Highlands &QQ7589) Highlands #QQ7589)

A.. 11 II