J-S38020-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : KAREEM MAURICE WELTON : : Appellant : No. 1245 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 7, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0002262-2023
BEFORE: STABILE, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 21, 2024
Kareem Maurice Welton (“Welton”) appeals from the judgment of
sentence imposed by the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas (“trial
court”) following his open guilty plea to one count each of third-degree
murder, attempted murder, robbery of a motor vehicle, and three counts of
aggravated assault. Welton challenges the discretionary aspects of his
sentence. We affirm.
On July 27, 2021, Welton, high on PCP, stole his neighbor’s vehicle and
drove around South Philadelphia. While driving the vehicle, Welton
intentionally struck a motorcyclist and a pedestrian on a sidewalk, killing her.
Later, Welton left his neighbor’s vehicle and stole another vehicle, driving
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S38020-24
away while dragging the owner behind him. Welton hit a bicyclist and a jogger
with the vehicle. Welton then abandoned the vehicle and tried to flee the
scene, but police apprehended him. The Commonwealth charged Welton with
numerous crimes.
Welton entered an open guilty plea to the aforementioned crimes. The
trial court accepted the plea and ultimately sentenced Welton to an aggregate
prison term of forty-five and one-half to ninety-one years.1 Welton filed a
timely post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied. He failed to file an
appeal. Subsequently, Welton filed a petition pursuant to the Post Conviction
Relief Act (“PCRA”) seeking restoration of his appellate rights. The PCRA court
granted the petition and this nunc pro tunc appeal followed.
Welton presents the following issue for our review: “Whether [Welton’s]
sentence was unduly harsh, excessive, unreasonable, an abuse of discretion
and contrary to the fundamental norms of the sentencing guidelines and failed
to adequately consider [Welton’s] remorse, difficult childhood, history of
intellectual disabilities, mental health issues, trauma history and drug
addiction?” Welton’s Brief at 4.
1 The trial court sentenced Welton to twenty to forty years for third-degree
murder, and to consecutive sentences of twenty to forty years for the attempted murder, and five and one-half to eleven years for one of the aggravated assault convictions. The sentences on the remaining convictions were imposed concurrently with the aggravated assault sentence.
-2- J-S38020-24
Welton’s discretionary aspects of sentencing claim is based upon his
assertion that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence without
considering mitigating factors and his rehabilitative needs.2 “A challenge to
the discretionary aspects of a sentence must be considered a petition for
permission to appeal, as the right to pursue such a claim is not absolute.”
Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884, 886 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation
omitted). To invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, Welton must satisfy the following
four-part test:
(1) the appellant preserved the issue either by raising it at the time of sentencing or in a post-sentence motion; (2) the appellant filed a timely notice of appeal; (3) the appellant set forth a concise statement of reasons relied upon for the allowance of her appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) the appellant raises a substantial question for our review.
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 312 A.3d 366, 376-77 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation
and brackets omitted).
A substantial question is determined on a case-by-case basis and 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.” Commonwealth v. McCain, 176 A.3d 236, 240
(Pa. Super. 2017). A “substantial question determination does not require the
2 We note that when a defendant enters an open guilty plea, he may challenge
the discretionary aspects of the sentence imposed. See Commonwealth v. Brown, 240 A.3d 970, 972 (Pa. Super. 2020).
-3- J-S38020-24
court to decide the merits of whether the sentence is clearly unreasonable.”
Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013).
In this case, Welton preserved his claim in a post-sentence motion and
by filing a nunc pro tunc appeal with permission from the court below.
Welton’s brief also contains a Rule 2119(f) statement, and his claim raised
therein—that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence without proper
consideration of mitigating factors and rehabilitative needs—raises a
substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Bankes, 286 A.3d 1302, 1306
(Pa. Super. 2022) (stating that a “claim that a court imposed an excessive
sentence after not considering rehabilitative needs raises a substantial
question”) (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 339
(Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that “an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction
with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a
substantial question”) (citation omitted).
Turning to address Welton’s argument, our standard of review is well
settled:
Sentencing 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.
Bankes, 286 A.3d at 1307 (citation omitted).
-4- J-S38020-24
Welton asserts that the only way to make sense of his actions was “a
combination of his use of drugs and his numerous mental health issues caused
by his intellectual disabilities and childhood trauma.” Welton’s Brief at 18.
After his criminal spree, Welton contends that he accepted responsibility and
expressed remorse for what he had done. Id. Welton highlights that a
sentence of forty-five and one-half years to ninety-one years is effectively a
life sentence because he was forty-three years old at the time of sentencing.
Id.
The record reflects that when sentencing Welton, the trial court had “the
benefit of a presentence investigation report and a PPI evaluation report”
which diagnosed Welton with “schizoaffective disorder, post-traumatic stress
disorder,” and substance abuse problems. N.T., 3/07/2024 at 63-64. The
trial court also considered the testimony presented at the sentencing hearing,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S38020-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : KAREEM MAURICE WELTON : : Appellant : No. 1245 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 7, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0002262-2023
BEFORE: STABILE, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 21, 2024
Kareem Maurice Welton (“Welton”) appeals from the judgment of
sentence imposed by the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas (“trial
court”) following his open guilty plea to one count each of third-degree
murder, attempted murder, robbery of a motor vehicle, and three counts of
aggravated assault. Welton challenges the discretionary aspects of his
sentence. We affirm.
On July 27, 2021, Welton, high on PCP, stole his neighbor’s vehicle and
drove around South Philadelphia. While driving the vehicle, Welton
intentionally struck a motorcyclist and a pedestrian on a sidewalk, killing her.
Later, Welton left his neighbor’s vehicle and stole another vehicle, driving
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S38020-24
away while dragging the owner behind him. Welton hit a bicyclist and a jogger
with the vehicle. Welton then abandoned the vehicle and tried to flee the
scene, but police apprehended him. The Commonwealth charged Welton with
numerous crimes.
Welton entered an open guilty plea to the aforementioned crimes. The
trial court accepted the plea and ultimately sentenced Welton to an aggregate
prison term of forty-five and one-half to ninety-one years.1 Welton filed a
timely post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied. He failed to file an
appeal. Subsequently, Welton filed a petition pursuant to the Post Conviction
Relief Act (“PCRA”) seeking restoration of his appellate rights. The PCRA court
granted the petition and this nunc pro tunc appeal followed.
Welton presents the following issue for our review: “Whether [Welton’s]
sentence was unduly harsh, excessive, unreasonable, an abuse of discretion
and contrary to the fundamental norms of the sentencing guidelines and failed
to adequately consider [Welton’s] remorse, difficult childhood, history of
intellectual disabilities, mental health issues, trauma history and drug
addiction?” Welton’s Brief at 4.
1 The trial court sentenced Welton to twenty to forty years for third-degree
murder, and to consecutive sentences of twenty to forty years for the attempted murder, and five and one-half to eleven years for one of the aggravated assault convictions. The sentences on the remaining convictions were imposed concurrently with the aggravated assault sentence.
-2- J-S38020-24
Welton’s discretionary aspects of sentencing claim is based upon his
assertion that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence without
considering mitigating factors and his rehabilitative needs.2 “A challenge to
the discretionary aspects of a sentence must be considered a petition for
permission to appeal, as the right to pursue such a claim is not absolute.”
Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884, 886 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation
omitted). To invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, Welton must satisfy the following
four-part test:
(1) the appellant preserved the issue either by raising it at the time of sentencing or in a post-sentence motion; (2) the appellant filed a timely notice of appeal; (3) the appellant set forth a concise statement of reasons relied upon for the allowance of her appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) the appellant raises a substantial question for our review.
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 312 A.3d 366, 376-77 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation
and brackets omitted).
A substantial question is determined on a case-by-case basis and 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.” Commonwealth v. McCain, 176 A.3d 236, 240
(Pa. Super. 2017). A “substantial question determination does not require the
2 We note that when a defendant enters an open guilty plea, he may challenge
the discretionary aspects of the sentence imposed. See Commonwealth v. Brown, 240 A.3d 970, 972 (Pa. Super. 2020).
-3- J-S38020-24
court to decide the merits of whether the sentence is clearly unreasonable.”
Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013).
In this case, Welton preserved his claim in a post-sentence motion and
by filing a nunc pro tunc appeal with permission from the court below.
Welton’s brief also contains a Rule 2119(f) statement, and his claim raised
therein—that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence without proper
consideration of mitigating factors and rehabilitative needs—raises a
substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Bankes, 286 A.3d 1302, 1306
(Pa. Super. 2022) (stating that a “claim that a court imposed an excessive
sentence after not considering rehabilitative needs raises a substantial
question”) (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 339
(Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that “an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction
with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a
substantial question”) (citation omitted).
Turning to address Welton’s argument, our standard of review is well
settled:
Sentencing 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.
Bankes, 286 A.3d at 1307 (citation omitted).
-4- J-S38020-24
Welton asserts that the only way to make sense of his actions was “a
combination of his use of drugs and his numerous mental health issues caused
by his intellectual disabilities and childhood trauma.” Welton’s Brief at 18.
After his criminal spree, Welton contends that he accepted responsibility and
expressed remorse for what he had done. Id. Welton highlights that a
sentence of forty-five and one-half years to ninety-one years is effectively a
life sentence because he was forty-three years old at the time of sentencing.
Id.
The record reflects that when sentencing Welton, the trial court had “the
benefit of a presentence investigation report and a PPI evaluation report”
which diagnosed Welton with “schizoaffective disorder, post-traumatic stress
disorder,” and substance abuse problems. N.T., 3/07/2024 at 63-64. The
trial court also considered the testimony presented at the sentencing hearing,
including that of a psychologist who testified in Welton’s defense, the
arguments of counsel, the sentencing guidelines and the sentencing code. Id.
at 63. The trial court stated on the record that it considered aggravating
factors, such as the gravity of the offense and Welton’s criminal history, and
mitigating factors such as Welton’s “severe childhood of abuse and neglect,”
learning disorder, and undiagnosed mental illnesses. Id. at 64. The trial court
found that Welton “intended to hurt and kill” for “no reason whatsoever,” that
he posed “a clear and present danger to innocent people,” and that Welton
posed “an undue risk of [] reoffending when not incarcerated.” Id. at 65. The
-5- J-S38020-24
court concluded that “society needs to be protected from [Welton].” Id. at
66.
We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
Welton. As noted, in addition to the evidence detailed above, the trial court
had the benefit of a presentence investigation report, which requires that we
presume “that the court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and
considerations, and that where the court has been so informed, its discretion
should not be disturbed.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 275 A.3d 530, 535 (Pa.
Super. 2022); see also Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912, 919 (Pa.
Super. 2010) (noting that where “the sentencing court had the benefit of a
pre[]sentence investigation report, we can assume the sentencing court was
aware of relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and
weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors”)
(citation and quotation marks omitted). We therefore conclude that Welton is
not entitled to relief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Date: 11/21/2024
-6-