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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37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.
3
J-S25036-25
Date: 8/19/2025
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
22
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 twentytwenty
-
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).
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
44
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.
55
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
66
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
77
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)
88
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
9
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).
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 Crutunreasonable . 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