J-S27007-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SHAWN D. STRYKER : : Appellant : No. 173 MDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0000430-2021
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 11, 2023
Appellant, Shawn D. Stryker, appeals from the aggregate judgment of
sentence of 6 to 20 years’ incarceration, imposed after he pled guilty to six
counts of aggravated assault under 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702(a)(2), (a)(3), and
(a)(6), as well as single counts of recklessly endangering another person, 18
Pa.C.S. § 2705, and possessing an instrument of crime, 18 Pa.C.S. § 907(b).
On appeal, Appellant solely contends that the trial court abused its discretion
in fashioning his sentence. After careful review, we affirm.
The trial court set forth a detailed summary of the facts and procedural
history underlying Appellant’s case, which we need not reproduce in full
herein. See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 3/27/22, at 1-7. We only briefly note
that Appellant’s convictions stemmed from a standoff with police during which
Appellant fired shots at two of the officers, who were thankfully unharmed.
Appellant was initially deemed incompetent to stand trial and was committed J-S27007-23
to a state mental hospital for nearly one year before he was deemed to be
competent to proceed. Appellant pled guilty to the above-stated offenses on
September 16, 2022. After a pre-sentence investigation report was
completed, the court sentenced Appellant on December 29, 2022, to the
aggregate term set forth supra, which included two, consecutive terms of 3 to
10 years’ imprisonment for two of his aggravated assault convictions.
Appellant received concurrent terms of 2 to 10 years’ imprisonment for his
remaining aggravated assault offenses, and no further sentence of
incarceration for his other convictions.
Appellant filed a timely, post-sentence motion, which the court
ultimately denied. He then filed a timely notice of appeal, and he complied
with the trial court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal. The court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on
March 27, 2022. Herein, Appellant states one issue for our review:
I. Was the trial court’s aggregate sentence of 6 to 20 years of incarceration so manifestly excessive under the circumstances of the instant case, especially considering [Appellant’s] severe mental health issues at the time of the incident, and was the imposition of consecutive sentences an abuse of the court’s discretion?
Appellant’s Brief at 6.
Appellant’s issue implicates the discretionary aspects of his sentence.
Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to review as of right. Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 912 (Pa. Super. 2000). An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:
-2- J-S27007-23
We conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether [the] appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether [the] appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 9781(b).
Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, … 909 A.2d 303 ([Pa.] 2006). Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or in a motion to modify the sentence imposed. Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, … 831 A.2d 599 ([Pa.] 2003).
The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Commonwealth v. Paul, 925 A.2d 825, 828 (Pa. Super. 2007). A substantial question exists “only when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.” Sierra, supra at 912–13.
Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010)).
Instantly, Appellant preserved his sentencing claim in his post-sentence
motion, he filed a timely appeal, and he has included a Rule 2119(f) statement
in his appellate brief, thereby meeting the first three requirements for review
of a discretionary-aspects-of-sentencing claim. Regarding the fourth
requirement of stating a substantial question, Appellant contends that his
sentence is “clearly unreasonable” and “manifestly excessive” given the
imposition of consecutive terms of incarceration. Appellant’s Brief at 12. He
-3- J-S27007-23
insists that in imposing consecutive sentences, the court failed to consider his
“incompetency at the time of the offense and his drastic improvement while
receiving treatment and medication….” Id. at 13-14. We agree with Appellant
that his argument constitutes a substantial question for our review. See
Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 339 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“[A]n
excessive sentence claim – in conjunction with an assertion that the court
failed to consider mitigating factors – raises a substantial question.”) (citation
omitted); Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super.
2015) (finding that Caldwell’s “challenge to the imposition of his consecutive
sentences as unduly excessive, together with his claim that the court failed to
consider his rehabilitative needs upon fashioning its sentence, presents a
substantial question”).
In reviewing the merits of Appellant’s sentencing challenge, we are
mindful that,
[s]entencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this context, an abuse of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather, the appellant 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. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1275 (Pa. Super. 2006).
Instantly, in assessing Appellant’s claim that his aggregate term of
incarceration is excessive and unreasonable, we have reviewed the arguments
set forth in his brief, the Commonwealth’s response, the certified record, and
-4- J-S27007-23
the applicable law. We have also examined the thorough opinion of the
Honorable Jeffery D. Wright of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster
County. We conclude that Judge Wright’s analysis demonstrates that he
carefully considered the Sentencing Guidelines, the information set forth in
Appellant’s presentence report, the mitigating circumstances and
characteristics of Appellant, his rehabilitative needs, the seriousness of the
offenses, and the protection of the public. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b); 42
Pa.C.S. § 9781(d). We discern no abuse of discretion in Judge Wright’s
decision to impose consecutive sentences, or in the aggregate term of
incarceration he fashioned in this case. Thus, we adopt Judge Wright’s opinion
as our own and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence for the reasons set
forth therein.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Date: 10/11/2023
-5- 01:31 PM Circulated 09/13/2023 01.31
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v. 0430-2021 0430-2021
SHAWN D. D. STRYKER
PA. R.A .P. 1925 PA.RA.P. 192$ OPINION OPINION 1•- BY; WRIGHT, J BY: J. March 1" _, % 2• 2022
Shawn D. Stryker Stryker (" Appellant") has filed a ("Appellant") a direct appeal appeal to the Superior Superior
Court of Pennsylvania Court of Pennsylvania from from the Judgment of the Judgment of Sentence imposed on Sentence imposed on December December
29, 2022, as finalized by my January 23, 2023, Order denying denying his Post Sentence Sentence
Motion. This This Opinion is written pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania Rule 1925(a) Pennsylvania
Rules of Appellate Procedure. For below, the appeal For the reasons set forth below, is appeal is without merit and should be denied.
BACKGROUND On January 3, 2021, West Hempfield Township Police Officers were
dispatched to 501 Goldfinch Drive, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to investigate a investigate a
incident. ((Criminal domestic incident. Criminal Complaint, Affidavit of Probable Cause, Jan. G, Cause, Jan, 6,
2021, at ¶ 1). 1), The 911 caller, Rebecca Valentine, Valentine, told the dispatcher dispatcher that that
was ""unstable Appellant, her paramour, was unstable and ard armed with a rifle .... and a a rifle a
1 1 he was threatening "to handgun" and that he "to harm harm himself and also pointed pointed one of
guns ... the guns .., at (Id.) When Officers arrived at at her." (Id.) at the home, Ms. Valentine the home, Valentine
was leaving the residence but Appellant remained inside. inside. (ld., (d.., at ,i3). The I 3),
responding Officers contacted Appellant by phone and spoke with him for
approximately seven minutes, asking him to put down any weapons he had and
to come outside to speak with them. them. (id..J (d.) Appellant refused and the Officers
began evacuating the residents of neighboring properties for their safety. safety. (Id., (Id,
at ,i,i i,i 4-5).
The Sheriff's Emergency Response Team Team ((SERT) SERT) eventually responded responded to
the area and SERT Negotiators again made contact with Appellant by by phone.
(ld.,at (d. at ,,i, i, 7-10). by the SERT Negotiators, Appellant 7-10), After repeated demands by Appellant
eventually emerged from the residence. However, when he exited, he pointed aa
rifle toward the SERT members. members. (kl.. (d. at, 11). A L at, A SERT member fired toward
Appellant and Appellant Appellant retreated retreated into the residence. Appellant proceeded to Appellant proceeded to
fire shots on the SERT members from inside the home. Approximately Approximately one hour
later, Appellant again exited the home and was taken into custody. (Td.) (Id.)
Appellant was charged the following offenses: two counts of Aggravated
Assault- Attempts to Cause or Causes Serious Assault-Attempts Serious Bodily Injury to Bodily Injury Designated to Designated
Individuals, Felonies in the First Degree; two counts of Aggravated Aggravated Assault-
Attempts to Cause or Causes Bodily Injury to Designated Designated Individuals, Felonies in
the Second Degree; two counts of Aggravated Assault- Causes Fear of Assault-Causes
2 2 Imminent Serious Bodily Injury to Designated Ind1v1duals, Individuals, Felonies of the
Second Degree; one count of Recklessly Endangering Endangering Another Person, Person, a a
Misdemeanor of the Second Degree; and one count of Possession of a Firearm, a Firearm,
aa Misdemeanor of the First Degree.1 Degree.1
On April 5, 2021, counsel for Appellant, Samuel C. On C Stretton, Esquire, filed
aa Motion requesting aacompetency evaluation, alleging, alleging, inter alia, that
Appellant's ""mental Appellant's mental status [had] very fragile," [had] become very fragile," that that Appellant Appellant
"believe[d] he was appointed by by God God as a Six- Star General to do a Six-Star do battle with the
Evil World," and that Appellant was was ""obsessed obsessed with auditory and visual
hallucinations." ((Motion hallucinations." Motion of the Defendant, Shawn Stryker, For a aCompetency Competency
Examination, Apr. 5, 2021, at ,,l,i i,i 1-2). I I granted the Motion on April April 15, 15, 2021.
On October 25, 2021, following a On a stipulation of counsel regarding regarding
Appellant's competency evaluation, IIentered an order accepting accepting the report report of
the evaluating physician and finding Appellant incompetent to proceed. My M October 25th Order committed Appellant for involuntary inpatient treatment and
required Appellant Appellant to to be be reevaluated no more than days later, than 90 days later, and every every 90 90
days thereafter until such time as Appellant regained competency competency to proceed. proceed.
conferring with On April 25, 2022, after conferring with Appellant's Counsel and the the Assistant Assistant
District Attorney assigned to the matter regarding Appellant's Appellant's refusal to take
1 In violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. I Pa.C.S.A. § 5 2702(a)(2); 18 Pa.CS.A.5 Pa.CS.A.§ 2702(a)(3); 2702(a)(3); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § Pa.C.S.A. Pa.CS.A.§ 2705; and 18 Pa.C.S.A. 5 2702(a)(6); 18 Pa.CS.A.5 Pa.C.S.A. §5 907(b). 907(b). 3 3 any medication, I I entered an Order allowing Appellant's Appellant's treating physicians to treating physicians
administer the appropriate medication to Appellant to to treat and overcome his psychosis.
After it was determined that he had regained competency W proceed, to proceed,
Appellant entered an open guilty plea to all charges on September 16, 2022. II
deferred sentencing and and ordered a a Pre-Sentence Investigation Investigation ((PSI), PSI). On
December 29, 2022, following receipt of Appellant's PSI, IIsentenced Appellant Appellant
to an aggregate aggregate term of 6 6to tD 20 years SCI as follows:
Count 1, aggravated assault, serious bodily injury, John Bardo, 3 attempted, Officer John 3to 10 years SCI, plus costs.
Count 2, ag assault, serious bodily bodily injury, attempted, Nelson injury, attempted, Moreno, 33 to 10 years, plus costs, consecutive to Count 1. 1
Counts Counts 33 through 6, attempted bodily injury attempted ag assault, bodily injury attempted, 22 to 10 years SCI each, concurrent with each other, concurrent W to Count 2, plus costs.
Count 7, REAP, costs. Count 8, possession possession of aa weapon, costs.
(Notes (Notes of Testimony, Sentencing Dec. 29, 2022. Sentencing Hearing, Dec. 12:18-13:3). 2022. at 12:18-13:3).
During the Sentencing Hearing, 1provided 1provided the reasoning reasoning behind the
sentence imposed, explaining:
Mr. Stryker, under thethe law, II must look at the sentencing sentencing options, which are consistent with the protection protection of the the public, the the gravity gravity of the underlying crimes as they relate to to our community community and, of course, I I look at your rehabilitative needs. neds. In doing so I've considered the nature andand circumstances of thethe underlying crimes, thethe information I I have about you from your statement to me,
4 4 your daughter's statement, your daughter's statement, the the arguments arguments ofof counsel counsel and, of and, of course, the presentence investigation as well as sentencing sentencing guidelines, which must be applied as must be as aa matter matter of law. law.
I've considered all of these factors and impose sentence for the following reasons: The The [Appellant] [Appellant] is 51 years of age,age, which which shows sufficient sufficient maturity to understand the the significance significance of The [Appellant] of his acts. The [Appellant] is intelligent enough is intelligent enough to understand the significance of his acts, since he obtained his GED, GED. The The [Appellant] [Appellant] has a a criminal history consisting of, of, by my count, six prior adult convictions. I've considered the presentence report in detail, the guidelines of the sentencing code. I've considered the penalties authorized by by the legislature. I've I've considered the character of the [Appellant], argument of your attorney as well as, again, your statement and the statement of your daughter. I've read and and considered the psychological psychological and and psychiatric psychiatric evaluations attached to the PSI.
Because of prior contacts with the Court, II believe society society needs to be protected and there needs to be a adeterrent and there's also the undue risk if given a a sentence of probation or partial confinement, he will commit another crime. is warranted because a Incarceration is a lesser sentence would depreciate the seriousness of the crimes.
You are in need of correctional treatment that would be most effectively provided by your commitment to an institution. institution,
Mr. Mr, Stryker, you are alive today for one reason and one reason only. On January 3, 2021, Officer John Bardo and Officer Nelson Moreno allowed you to live. After you took two shots at them, they would have been entirely Justified to return that fire to what was, according to the file, a a very clear and easy target. They didn't do it. They showed restraint. They showed the result of thorough training and, most of all, they showed mercy. For that I I am in n awe and for that, for every day you have been alive since January 3, 2021 and every day you live after, you should show gratitude.
55 (I.d.,_at (ld, at 10: 25-12: 17) ((emphasis emphasis supplied).
Appellant's trial counsel also spoke at the Sentencing Hearing, Hearing, noting: noting:
I've known Mr. Mr. Stryker for a a long time. I've represented him on some earlier matters.
When I I first met him, he he had a a nice business, had aa number of people working for for him and, you know, on the whole, whole, some DU!s, but DU!s, but aaresponsible responsible person. person. As you you can can see see ... met . . he met aa woman and got involved with her. She got him involved with crystal meth and he was off and running. As As you saw from the presentence report, he using almost every he is using day every day until he was arrested nin these matters,
Also, because of the use of crystal meth or in addition to it, it, he developed a a psychosis, which continued long long after he stopped using crystal stopped using meth. During crystal meth. During that that time time period, leading period, leading up to these events, IIwas talking to him regularly regularly and he he was telling me about God and he's God's general and he had iD to fight battles. you can talk totD him rationally at one level and at another level, he's out there.
#
He was evaluated and at some point they found him by incompetent. They did the best thing they could for him by getting him in in Norristown.
At some point when he didn't take the medication, Your Honor, 1 1 felt, very wisely, ordered him to take the medicine. And when he did, tit was like aa change. People People at Norristown were shocked how much he changed so quicky when the medicine did take effect.
I've I've talked to him aa number of times since then then and he he has certainly gained aa different perspective. He He said he just just wasn't thinking dearly. clearly. That's not an excuse, excuse. Im I'm not trying to make an excuse.
#%
6 6 It's aa serious case. You can't go around shooting shooting at police police officers. Lucky no one was injured, killed. Lucky he wasn't Lucky he killed in killed in this particular matter. Not acceptable, acceptable,
On the other hand, driven by mental illness to a a large large extent.
As As you know, originally, the doctor told me to do an insanity insanity defense.
I I said no, I I don't think he is insane. IIthink he needs to accept responsibility, which he has done. That's' a a good thing.
(4,-A 6: 16-9: 13) (g,at 13) (emphasis (emphasis supplied). supplied).
On January 6, 2023, Appellant filed a a Post Sentence Motion to Modify Modify and
Reconsider the Sentence, I denied Appellant's I denied Appellant's Motion on January 23, 2023. January 23,
Appellant thereafter filed aa Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court from the
December 29, 2022, Judgment of Sentence. On February 2, 2023, 2023, I I entered an
Order directing Appellant to to file aa statement statement of errors complained complained of on appeal appeal
pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) 1925(b) and requiring requiring the
Commonwealth to to file aa response. Appellant Appellant filed filed his Statement of Errors on
February 10, 2023, and the Commonwealth responded on February February 21, 21, 2023.
DISCUSSION In In his Statement of Errors, Appellant argues that the the ""basis basis for the appeal appeal
sis an abuse of discretion, even though though [the [the sentence imposed] was below the
guidelines." ((1925(b) guidelines." 1925(b) Statement of the Defendant, Shawn Stryker, 10, Stryker, Feb. 10,
2023, at ,i i 3). Appellant claims that IIerred because I "did not not factor in, in, at the
77 time of sentencing, the severe mental illness that [he] [he] had suffered from at the
time of his misconduct." 9L gt
"Sentencing is a a matter vested i in the sound discretion of the
sentencing judge, and aasentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a a
manifest abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v. y, Griffin, 932, Griffin, 65 A.3d 932,
937 937 ( Super. 2013). Pa. Super. (Pa. 2013). Pn An ""abuse abuse of of discretion discretion is shown merely is not shown merely by by
an error in Judgment." gL. Instead, "the "the appellant must establish, by by
reference to reference to the record, that the record, that the sentencing court the sentencing court ignored ignored or or misapplied misapplied
the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias
or ' 11I Nill, or arrived at aamanifestly unreasonable 11will, 9L unreasonable decision." gL
In discussing discussing the the rationale behind granting rationale behind granting such deference to the such deference the
sentencing court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated: Pennsylvania Supreme
[Tlhe sentencing court isis in the best position to [T]he determine the proper penalty the proper penalty for aa particular offense particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances before itit .... ..,. Simply stated, the sentencing court sentences flesh-and-blood sentencing flesh-and- blood defendants and the and the nuances nuances of sentencing decisions decisions are are difficult difficult to gauge from from the cold cold transcript transcript used used upon appellate appellate review. Moreover, the sentencing court enjoys enjoys an institutional advantage to appellate review, bringing bringing to its decisions an expertise, experience, experience, and judgment that that should should not lightly disturbed. not be lightly disturbed. Even with with the advent of advent of the the sentencing guidelines, the power power of of sentencing °1s sentencing ls aa function to be be performed by by the sentencing court.
Commonwealth Commonwealth v. , Walls Wal,, 926 A.2d 957, 961-62 A.2d 957, 961-62 (Pa. (Pa. 2007). 2007).
8 8 The sentencing court also has the discretion to impose impose its sentences
concurrent or consecutive to bo other sentences being imposed at the same
time. C=monwealth time. Commonwealth v. Johnson-Daniels, y, Johnson - Daniels, 167 167 A.3d A.3d 17, 17, 28 28 (Pa. Super. (Pa. Super.
2017). When the court relies on the defendant's prior criminal history history
and finds that the defendant ISa high risk to to re-offend and aadanger danger to
the public, consecutive sentences are not clearly unreasonable. See .Commonwealth v. Klueber, 904 A.2d 911,911 Commonwealth v, 911,911 (Pa. (Pa. 2006).
Finally, the ""Supreme Supreme Court has determined that where the trial
court is informed by aapre-sentence report, it is is presumed that the court
is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, s considerations, and that
were the court has been s so informed, its discretion should not be
disturbed." Commonwtlalth v Ventura, Commonwtlalth v. Ventura, 975 1128, 1133 (Pa. 975 A.2d 1128, (Pa. Super. Super.
Ct 2009) (citing 0 Co moonwealth (citing f.D mmonwealth , v. Dev erg, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. Dyers, 1988)). (Pa. 1988)).
Instantly, as noted noted above, Appellant concedes that the sentencing sentencing
guidelines for Counts 11and 22 provide aastandard sentencing range of 48
to 60 months incarceration. Appellant also acknowledges both acknowledges that on both
Counts 11and 2, IIimposed a aminimum sentence of 36 months-which months- which is
in n the mitigated range. Although IIalso imposed guideline-range guideline- range
sentences on Counts 3 3through 8, IImade all periods of incarceration
concurrent to those imposed on Counts 1 2. Further, 1 and 2 Further, because
Appellant fired shots at two Officers, Appellant undoubtedly poses poses a agrave grave
9 9 risk to the public and my decision to impose consecutive sentences on
Iand 2 Counts 1and 2 is not not clearly unreasonable.
Appellant claims that IIdid not factor in n the severe mental illness
that he allegedly suffered from at at the time of his misconduct. However, However,
the transcript of the Sentencing Hearing demonstrates that IIcarefully
considered Appellant's rehabilitative needs and the psychological and
psychiatric evaluations provided provided to me. In in addition tD being intimately addition to intimately
familiar with the facts of the case and with Appellant's Appellant's mental health from
my 'involvement my involvement with the matter prior to Appellant's decision to enter aa
guilty plea, I I relied on all of the information presented to me in the PSI
when fashioning Appellant's sentence.
Interestingly, Interestingly, although although Appellant claims daims on appeal that he was
clearly suffering from aasevere psychosis during the pertinent pertinent times, his
own trial trial counsel admitted at sentencing that he chose not to pursue pursue
an insanity defense because counsel did not think that Appellant Appellant was
"insane." Instead, trial counsel emphasized that Appellant needed to
"accept responsibility" for his actions.
For these reasons, Appellant simply has no basis to claim that II
manifestly abused the discretion afforded to me to fashion aasentence
that IIdeemed appropriate. I I correctly applied the sentencing guidelines
and relied on the psI PSI In in imposing aa mitigated- range sentence that mitigated-range
acknowledged the grave danger that Appellant created by firing at Police
10 Officers who risked their lives to try to help him and who showed mercy mercy
in n sparing his life.
CONCLUSION For these For each of the these reasons, each the errors that that Appellant complains of Appellant complains
are without merit and the the appeal should be be denied. Accordingly, Accordingly, IIenter
the the following:
11 THE COURT OF COMMON PLUS OP LANCASTIIR COUNTY, PIINNSYLVANIA IN THI! PLNNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA •• ••
V. 0430-2021 : SHAWN Q O STRYKER STRYKER
ORD!R AND NOW, this _ZL 7,1 day 'day of March, 2023, the Court hereby submits 1
this Opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania Pennsylvanla Rules of Appetliite Procedure.
ATTEST:
Copies to: Coples Diana C. Kelleher, Esquire, Public Defender's Office Andrew Gonzalez, Esquire, District Attorney's Office