J-S13033-26
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOSE RAFAEL SANTIAGO : : Appellant : No. 1844 EDA 2025
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 16, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0002293-2024
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED MAY 06, 2026
Appellant, Jose Rafael Santiago, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, following his open guilty
plea to third-degree murder and conspiracy to commit robbery.1 We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this matter are as follows.
Appellant and his co-defendant, Latasha Ann Santiago, are husband and wife.
On October 17, 2020, Appellant approached Christian Lopez-Rodriguez and
Luis Galarza on the Hamilton Street Bridge in Allentown, Pennsylvania. There
was a brief interaction during which Appellant produced a semiautomatic
handgun and told both men to “run their pockets.” (N.T. Plea Hearing, 5/8/25,
at 8).
Mr. Galarza gave Appellant his wallet, which contained $121.00. At that
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c) and 903 (section 3701 related). J-S13033-26
time, Mr. Lopez-Rodriguez punched Appellant, who then shot him in the
abdomen/pelvis area. Mr. Galarza, who was also armed, attempted to protect
his friend by firing back at Appellant, who jumped over the side of the bridge
and ran. Later that day, Mr. Lopez-Rodriguez died at the hospital. The
shooting was witnessed by several motorists and passengers traveling on the
bridge at the time, one of whom witnessed Appellant walking toward an idling
gold-colored SUV after jumping from the bridge.
Shortly after the shooting, Appellant presented at a local hospital with
a gunshot wound to the thigh, accompanied by Ms. Santiago. Appellant turned
over a handgun to hospital security and admitted to police that he had been
on the Hamilton Street Bridge when he was shot, and that he ran under the
bridge, saw Ms. Santiago, and drove to the hospital in a gold SUV.
Ms. Santiago later confirmed that she had been driving the gold SUV
with Appellant as a passenger, and Appellant had requested that she turn the
vehicle around on the bridge, stop the car, and wait for him. Ms. Santiago
also admitted that she knew Appellant’s lifestyle of committing robberies and
feared he would end up dead or incarcerated. Ms. Santiago also accepted
money from Appellant which she knew had been procured during a robbery.
Both Appellant and Ms. Santiago were arrested and charged in connection with
Mr. Lopez-Rodriguez’s death.
On May 8, 2025, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to third-degree
murder and conspiracy to commit robbery. On June 16, 2025, the court
-2- J-S13033-26
sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 30 to 60 years’ incarceration.2
On July 15, 2025, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. On July 16, 2025,
the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors
complained of on appeal. On August 4, 2025, Appellant timely complied.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for review:
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in its sentence for [Appellant] when the sentencing factors here were not compellingly different to justify a statutory maximum sentence for robbery that was substantially outside of the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines?
(Appellant’s Brief at 4) (unpaginated).
Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it
imposed statutory maximum sentences consecutively for his murder and
robbery convictions. Appellant asserts that the trial court deviated from the
guideline sentence of 120 to 240 months solely because of the serious nature
of the robbery, which resulted in the death of the victim, which was excessive
in light of the mitigating factors Appellant presented at sentencing.
As presented, Appellant’s claim challenges the discretionary aspects of
sentencing. See Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa.Super.
2013), appeal denied, 621 Pa. 692, 77 A.3d 1258 (2013) (considering
challenge to imposition of consecutive sentences as claim involving
discretionary aspects of sentencing); Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d
949 (Pa.Super. 2002) (stating claim that sentence is manifestly excessive ____________________________________________
2 Appellant received the statutory maximum sentence for both charges, which
the court imposed consecutively.
-3- J-S13033-26
challenges discretionary aspects of sentencing); Commonwealth v. Cruz-
Centeno, 668 A.2d 536 (Pa.Super. 1995), appeal denied, 544 Pa. 653, 676
A.2d 1195 (1996) (explaining claim that court did not consider mitigating
factors challenges discretionary aspects of sentencing).
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an
appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d
103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264, 129 S.Ct. 2450, 174
L.Ed.2d 240 (2009). Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary aspects of
sentencing issue:
[W]e conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. [720]; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).
Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal
denied, 589 Pa. 727, 909 A.2d 303 (2006) (quoting Commonwealth v.
Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 586 Pa. 723,
890 A.2d 1057 (2005)). “To preserve issues concerning the discretionary
aspects of sentencing, a defendant must raise them during sentencing or in a
timely post-sentence motion.” Commonwealth v. Feucht, 955 A.2d 377,
383 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 600 Pa. 728, 963 A.2d 467 (2008).
Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if
-4- J-S13033-26
they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or raised in a motion to modify
the sentence imposed at that hearing. Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d
788 (Pa.Super. 2003), appeal denied, 574 Pa. 759, 831 A.2d 599 (2003).
Instantly, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and included in his
brief a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement of reasons for allowance of appeal.
However, he failed to file a post-sentence motion and did not preserve his
discretionary sentencing challenge at his sentencing hearing. Therefore,
Appellant failed to preserve his sentencing issue on appeal, and it is waived
for our review.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S13033-26
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOSE RAFAEL SANTIAGO : : Appellant : No. 1844 EDA 2025
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 16, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0002293-2024
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED MAY 06, 2026
Appellant, Jose Rafael Santiago, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, following his open guilty
plea to third-degree murder and conspiracy to commit robbery.1 We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this matter are as follows.
Appellant and his co-defendant, Latasha Ann Santiago, are husband and wife.
On October 17, 2020, Appellant approached Christian Lopez-Rodriguez and
Luis Galarza on the Hamilton Street Bridge in Allentown, Pennsylvania. There
was a brief interaction during which Appellant produced a semiautomatic
handgun and told both men to “run their pockets.” (N.T. Plea Hearing, 5/8/25,
at 8).
Mr. Galarza gave Appellant his wallet, which contained $121.00. At that
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c) and 903 (section 3701 related). J-S13033-26
time, Mr. Lopez-Rodriguez punched Appellant, who then shot him in the
abdomen/pelvis area. Mr. Galarza, who was also armed, attempted to protect
his friend by firing back at Appellant, who jumped over the side of the bridge
and ran. Later that day, Mr. Lopez-Rodriguez died at the hospital. The
shooting was witnessed by several motorists and passengers traveling on the
bridge at the time, one of whom witnessed Appellant walking toward an idling
gold-colored SUV after jumping from the bridge.
Shortly after the shooting, Appellant presented at a local hospital with
a gunshot wound to the thigh, accompanied by Ms. Santiago. Appellant turned
over a handgun to hospital security and admitted to police that he had been
on the Hamilton Street Bridge when he was shot, and that he ran under the
bridge, saw Ms. Santiago, and drove to the hospital in a gold SUV.
Ms. Santiago later confirmed that she had been driving the gold SUV
with Appellant as a passenger, and Appellant had requested that she turn the
vehicle around on the bridge, stop the car, and wait for him. Ms. Santiago
also admitted that she knew Appellant’s lifestyle of committing robberies and
feared he would end up dead or incarcerated. Ms. Santiago also accepted
money from Appellant which she knew had been procured during a robbery.
Both Appellant and Ms. Santiago were arrested and charged in connection with
Mr. Lopez-Rodriguez’s death.
On May 8, 2025, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to third-degree
murder and conspiracy to commit robbery. On June 16, 2025, the court
-2- J-S13033-26
sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 30 to 60 years’ incarceration.2
On July 15, 2025, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. On July 16, 2025,
the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors
complained of on appeal. On August 4, 2025, Appellant timely complied.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for review:
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in its sentence for [Appellant] when the sentencing factors here were not compellingly different to justify a statutory maximum sentence for robbery that was substantially outside of the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines?
(Appellant’s Brief at 4) (unpaginated).
Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it
imposed statutory maximum sentences consecutively for his murder and
robbery convictions. Appellant asserts that the trial court deviated from the
guideline sentence of 120 to 240 months solely because of the serious nature
of the robbery, which resulted in the death of the victim, which was excessive
in light of the mitigating factors Appellant presented at sentencing.
As presented, Appellant’s claim challenges the discretionary aspects of
sentencing. See Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa.Super.
2013), appeal denied, 621 Pa. 692, 77 A.3d 1258 (2013) (considering
challenge to imposition of consecutive sentences as claim involving
discretionary aspects of sentencing); Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d
949 (Pa.Super. 2002) (stating claim that sentence is manifestly excessive ____________________________________________
2 Appellant received the statutory maximum sentence for both charges, which
the court imposed consecutively.
-3- J-S13033-26
challenges discretionary aspects of sentencing); Commonwealth v. Cruz-
Centeno, 668 A.2d 536 (Pa.Super. 1995), appeal denied, 544 Pa. 653, 676
A.2d 1195 (1996) (explaining claim that court did not consider mitigating
factors challenges discretionary aspects of sentencing).
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an
appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d
103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264, 129 S.Ct. 2450, 174
L.Ed.2d 240 (2009). Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary aspects of
sentencing issue:
[W]e conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. [720]; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).
Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal
denied, 589 Pa. 727, 909 A.2d 303 (2006) (quoting Commonwealth v.
Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 586 Pa. 723,
890 A.2d 1057 (2005)). “To preserve issues concerning the discretionary
aspects of sentencing, a defendant must raise them during sentencing or in a
timely post-sentence motion.” Commonwealth v. Feucht, 955 A.2d 377,
383 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 600 Pa. 728, 963 A.2d 467 (2008).
Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if
-4- J-S13033-26
they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or raised in a motion to modify
the sentence imposed at that hearing. Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d
788 (Pa.Super. 2003), appeal denied, 574 Pa. 759, 831 A.2d 599 (2003).
Instantly, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and included in his
brief a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement of reasons for allowance of appeal.
However, he failed to file a post-sentence motion and did not preserve his
discretionary sentencing challenge at his sentencing hearing. Therefore,
Appellant failed to preserve his sentencing issue on appeal, and it is waived
for our review. See id.3 Accordingly, we affirm.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
3 Even if we were to reach the merits of Appellant’s sentencing claim, he would
not be entitled to relief. Although Appellant’s claim that his sentence was excessive and the court failed to consider mitigating factors arguably raises a substantial question, it is within the court’s sound discretion to impose sentences consecutively. See Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768-69 (Pa.Super. 2015) (en banc). See also Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 621 Pa. 692, 77 A.3d 1258 (2013). As well, where the sentencing court had the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”) report, we can presume the court was aware of information regarding the appellant’s character and weighed such information along with any mitigating factors. See Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa.Super. 2010). See also Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 368 (Pa.Super. 2005). Here, the sentencing court had the benefit of a PSI report, and we may presume the court considered the relevant mitigating factors, particularly where Appellant argued them at sentencing. (See N.T. Sentencing, 6/16/25, at 22-24, 29-33); Moury, supra; Tirado, supra. On this record, we cannot say that the court’s imposition of maximum consecutive sentences was an abuse of discretion where the victim was shot to death over $121.00. See Caldwell, supra; Austin, supra. Accordingly, Appellant would not be entitled to sentencing relief, even if he had properly preserved his sentencing challenge.
-5- J-S13033-26
Date: 5/6/2026
-6-