J-S31024-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JAMEK PORTER : : Appellant : No. 2688 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 4, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005914-2022
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and NICHOLS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 6, 2025
Appellant, Jamek Porter, appeals from the September 4, 2024 judgment
of sentence entered by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas
following his jury conviction of Attempted Murder and related charges.
Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. After careful
review, we affirm.
The trial court summarized the facts of this case as follows:
On February 22, 2022, Appellant and/or one of his associates had a verbal encounter with the victim, Deshaun Carter, inside a small deli on the 5600 block of Elmwood Avenue in Southwest Philadelphia. After leaving the deli, Appellant and a cohort decided to lie in wait for Carter. When Carter exited the deli and began walking down the street, Appellant shot him multiple times from across the street. Carter was struck with multiple gunshots and collapsed to the ground. Appellant then ran across the street, stood over Carter and shot him again at point [blank] range. Fortunately, police responded quickly and rushed Carter to the hospital. Despite being shot 12 times, Carter survived but sustained serious and extensive injuries. J-S31024-25
Trial Ct. Op., 12/17/24, at 2. On April 25, 2024, the jury convicted Appellant
of Attempted Murder, Aggravated Assault, Criminal Conspiracy, Possession of
an Instrument of Crime (“PIC”), and Possession of a Firearm Prohibited.” 1 .
On September 4, 2024, after reviewing the pre-sentence investigation
(“PSI”) and mental health evaluation reports, the court imposed a sentence
of 17 to 34 years of incarceration for Attempted Murder, and concurrent
sentences of 10 to 20 years of imprisonment each for Aggravated Assault,
Conspiracy, and Possession of a Firearm, with no further penalty for PIC.
Notably, the minimum sentence of 17 years is below the mitigated range of
the sentencing guidelines for Attempted Murder. 2
The court thoroughly explained its reasoning for the sentence. First, the
court acknowledged mitigating factors including Appellant’s young age (30),
that he was a victim of gun violence, that he “suffers from significant mental
health issues and PTSD, ADHD, and schizophrenia” for which he has not
received treatment, and that he expressed remorse. N.T. Sent’g, 9/4/24, at
16. The court, however, noted its “great concern for [the] safety of the
public[,]” as Appellant had multiple prior violent offenses, the violent nature
of which had escalated over time. Id. at 17. Specifically, the court
enumerated two Aggravated Assaults in 2012, a Robbery in 2014, two ____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 901, 2702, 903, 907, and 6105 respectively.
2 As explained by the sentencing court, the recommended sentencing guideline range for Attempted Murder based on his prior record score was 222 months (18.5 years) plus or minus 12 months. Trial Ct. Op. at 5. Appellant agrees with this calculation. Appellant’s Br. at 11.
-2- J-S31024-25
Aggravated Assaults in 2015, a Burglary in 2018, and the instant Attempted
Murder in 2022. Id. Notably, however, the incidents in 2012, which occurred
when Appellant was a juvenile, resulted in deferred adjudications, rather than
delinquency adjudications. Id. at 8 (Commonwealth’s recitation of prior
criminal incidents). Despite this misstatement, the court additionally stated
that it was “shock[ed]” by the “callousness at which [Appellant] carried out”
this offense, where after an argument in a deli, he shot “an unarmed, drunk
associate” multiple times and then ran across the street to shoot him
additional times at “pointblank range[.]” Id. at 17-18.
Appellant filed post-sentence motions seeking, in relevant part,
reconsideration of his sentence, which he claimed was excessive. Notably,
Appellant did not specifically raise the court’s erroneous reliance on the 2012
Aggravated Assaults. On September 25, 2024, the court denied the motion.
After Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, Appellant and the trial
court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Again, Appellant presented a generic
claim asserting that the sentence was excessive without mention of the court’s
inaccurate reference to the 2012 Aggravated Assault charges. The court in
response reiterated its reasoning set forth at the sentencing hearing, again
incorrectly including “two aggravated assault adjudications as a juvenile
(2012)” in the court’s list of Appellant’s “extensive criminal record.” Trial Ct.
Op. at 5.
Appellant raises the following question on appeal:
-3- J-S31024-25
Whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law by relying on an impermissible consideration that [A]ppellant had two juvenile adjudications for aggravated assault, when in fact he did not, such that the sentence imposed of 17 to 34 years[’] incarceration although within the guidelines, presents a substantial question that it was excessive?
Appellant’s Br. at 6.
Appellant claims that his sentence is excessive, despite it being a
mitigated sentence, because the court relied upon an erroneous fact: the 2012
aggravated assault adjudications. Appellant’s Br. at 11-13. We conclude that
Appellant waived this issue by failing to include it in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
Statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(vii). Additionally, he waived his challenge
by failing to raise it in his post-sentence motion, as is required for appellate
review of a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence. See
Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73, 83 (Pa. Super. 2015).3
Even if we were to address the merits of his claim, we would conclude
that it is meritless. It is well-established that “sentencing is a matter vested
in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be
____________________________________________
3 To invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, an appellant challenging the sentencing
court’s discretion must (1) file a timely notice of appeal; (2) preserve the issue at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider the sentence; (3) comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), which requires “a separate section of the brief [setting forth] a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of a sentence[;]” and (4) present a substantial question pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b). Leatherby, 116 A.3d at 83. We observe that Appellant satisfied the other requirements for our review, including presenting a substantial question. See Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270, 274 (Pa. Super. 2004) (observing that a “claim that the trial court relied upon incorrect factual assertions when imposing sentence asserts a ‘substantial question’”).
-4- J-S31024-25
disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth
v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254, 1263 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted). To
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S31024-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JAMEK PORTER : : Appellant : No. 2688 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 4, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005914-2022
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and NICHOLS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 6, 2025
Appellant, Jamek Porter, appeals from the September 4, 2024 judgment
of sentence entered by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas
following his jury conviction of Attempted Murder and related charges.
Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. After careful
review, we affirm.
The trial court summarized the facts of this case as follows:
On February 22, 2022, Appellant and/or one of his associates had a verbal encounter with the victim, Deshaun Carter, inside a small deli on the 5600 block of Elmwood Avenue in Southwest Philadelphia. After leaving the deli, Appellant and a cohort decided to lie in wait for Carter. When Carter exited the deli and began walking down the street, Appellant shot him multiple times from across the street. Carter was struck with multiple gunshots and collapsed to the ground. Appellant then ran across the street, stood over Carter and shot him again at point [blank] range. Fortunately, police responded quickly and rushed Carter to the hospital. Despite being shot 12 times, Carter survived but sustained serious and extensive injuries. J-S31024-25
Trial Ct. Op., 12/17/24, at 2. On April 25, 2024, the jury convicted Appellant
of Attempted Murder, Aggravated Assault, Criminal Conspiracy, Possession of
an Instrument of Crime (“PIC”), and Possession of a Firearm Prohibited.” 1 .
On September 4, 2024, after reviewing the pre-sentence investigation
(“PSI”) and mental health evaluation reports, the court imposed a sentence
of 17 to 34 years of incarceration for Attempted Murder, and concurrent
sentences of 10 to 20 years of imprisonment each for Aggravated Assault,
Conspiracy, and Possession of a Firearm, with no further penalty for PIC.
Notably, the minimum sentence of 17 years is below the mitigated range of
the sentencing guidelines for Attempted Murder. 2
The court thoroughly explained its reasoning for the sentence. First, the
court acknowledged mitigating factors including Appellant’s young age (30),
that he was a victim of gun violence, that he “suffers from significant mental
health issues and PTSD, ADHD, and schizophrenia” for which he has not
received treatment, and that he expressed remorse. N.T. Sent’g, 9/4/24, at
16. The court, however, noted its “great concern for [the] safety of the
public[,]” as Appellant had multiple prior violent offenses, the violent nature
of which had escalated over time. Id. at 17. Specifically, the court
enumerated two Aggravated Assaults in 2012, a Robbery in 2014, two ____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 901, 2702, 903, 907, and 6105 respectively.
2 As explained by the sentencing court, the recommended sentencing guideline range for Attempted Murder based on his prior record score was 222 months (18.5 years) plus or minus 12 months. Trial Ct. Op. at 5. Appellant agrees with this calculation. Appellant’s Br. at 11.
-2- J-S31024-25
Aggravated Assaults in 2015, a Burglary in 2018, and the instant Attempted
Murder in 2022. Id. Notably, however, the incidents in 2012, which occurred
when Appellant was a juvenile, resulted in deferred adjudications, rather than
delinquency adjudications. Id. at 8 (Commonwealth’s recitation of prior
criminal incidents). Despite this misstatement, the court additionally stated
that it was “shock[ed]” by the “callousness at which [Appellant] carried out”
this offense, where after an argument in a deli, he shot “an unarmed, drunk
associate” multiple times and then ran across the street to shoot him
additional times at “pointblank range[.]” Id. at 17-18.
Appellant filed post-sentence motions seeking, in relevant part,
reconsideration of his sentence, which he claimed was excessive. Notably,
Appellant did not specifically raise the court’s erroneous reliance on the 2012
Aggravated Assaults. On September 25, 2024, the court denied the motion.
After Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, Appellant and the trial
court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Again, Appellant presented a generic
claim asserting that the sentence was excessive without mention of the court’s
inaccurate reference to the 2012 Aggravated Assault charges. The court in
response reiterated its reasoning set forth at the sentencing hearing, again
incorrectly including “two aggravated assault adjudications as a juvenile
(2012)” in the court’s list of Appellant’s “extensive criminal record.” Trial Ct.
Op. at 5.
Appellant raises the following question on appeal:
-3- J-S31024-25
Whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law by relying on an impermissible consideration that [A]ppellant had two juvenile adjudications for aggravated assault, when in fact he did not, such that the sentence imposed of 17 to 34 years[’] incarceration although within the guidelines, presents a substantial question that it was excessive?
Appellant’s Br. at 6.
Appellant claims that his sentence is excessive, despite it being a
mitigated sentence, because the court relied upon an erroneous fact: the 2012
aggravated assault adjudications. Appellant’s Br. at 11-13. We conclude that
Appellant waived this issue by failing to include it in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
Statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(vii). Additionally, he waived his challenge
by failing to raise it in his post-sentence motion, as is required for appellate
review of a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence. See
Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73, 83 (Pa. Super. 2015).3
Even if we were to address the merits of his claim, we would conclude
that it is meritless. It is well-established that “sentencing is a matter vested
in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be
____________________________________________
3 To invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, an appellant challenging the sentencing
court’s discretion must (1) file a timely notice of appeal; (2) preserve the issue at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider the sentence; (3) comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), which requires “a separate section of the brief [setting forth] a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of a sentence[;]” and (4) present a substantial question pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b). Leatherby, 116 A.3d at 83. We observe that Appellant satisfied the other requirements for our review, including presenting a substantial question. See Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270, 274 (Pa. Super. 2004) (observing that a “claim that the trial court relied upon incorrect factual assertions when imposing sentence asserts a ‘substantial question’”).
-4- J-S31024-25
disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth
v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254, 1263 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted). To
demonstrate an abuse of discretion, the defendant must “establish, by
reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the
law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias[,] or ill
will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.” Commonwealth v.
Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 760 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). “[W]here
a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law
views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.”
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation
omitted).
We conclude that the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing the mitigated-range sentence despite its incorrect reference to the
2012 Aggravated Assault charges. Rather, the court thoroughly explained its
reasons for imposing the sentence, acknowledging the mitigating factors
noted above and emphasizing its “grave concern for the safety of the general
public[,]” given Appellant’s “extensive” and “escalat[ing]” criminal record and
his lack of rehabilitation “[d]espite court intervention and jail time[.]” Trial
Ct. Op. at 5. The court additionally “considered the heinous nature of
Appellant’s crimes,” which included shooting the victim multiple times and
leaving “him for dead.” Id. We find the court’s reference to the 2012 incidents
to be de minimis and conclude that the court’s misstatement in no way
-5- J-S31024-25
undermined the court’s cogent rationale for imposing the mitigated-range
sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Date: 11/6/2025
-6-