Commonwealth v. Bable, 060220 PASUP, 1669 WDA 2019

Docket Nº:1669 WDA 2019
Opinion Judge:COLINS, J.
Party Name:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KARL ANTHONY BABLE Appellant
Judge Panel:BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.
Case Date:June 02, 2020
Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania
 
FREE EXCERPT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

KARL ANTHONY BABLE Appellant

No. 1669 WDA 2019

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

June 2, 2020

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 4, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-43-CR-0002268-2018

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J. [*]

MEMORANDUM

COLINS, J.

Appellant, Karl Anthony Bable, appeals from the judgment of sentence of nine months to two years less one day of confinement followed by three years of probation, which was imposed after he pleaded guilty to indecent assault - complainant is less than 13 years of age.1 The trial court also ordered Appellant to register and to report as a sexual offender for ten years. We vacate this registration and reporting requirement but affirm Appellant's judgment of sentence in all other respects.

In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. See Trial Court Opinion, dated December 30, 2019, at 2-3. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Following the denial of his post-sentence motions, Appellant filed this timely direct appeal on November 8, 2019.[2]

Appellant presents the following issues for our review:

Is it a clearly unreasonable application of the Sentencing Guidelines under the circumstances and an abuse of the trial court's sentencing discretion to sentence an adult male to a nine (9) month minimum term of imprisonment at the upper limit of the applicable sentencing guidelines of RS to 9 months for a conviction of Indecent Assault when the adult's conviction was for an offense committed when the adult male was a juvenile?

Is it unconstitutional under the federal and state due process of law guarantees and the federal and state constitutional prohibitions of ex post facto laws to require an adult to register as a sexual offende[r] when the adult was convicted of a sexual offense which was committed when the adult was a juvenile?

Appellant's Brief at 5 (trial court's answers omitted). Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right. Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue[, w]e conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP