Commonwealth v. Craddock

• Decision Date: 18 May 2023
• Docket Number: 1134 EDA 2022,1135 EDA 2022,1136 EDA 2022,1137 EDA 2022,1138 EDA 2022,1139 EDA 2022,1140 EDA 2022,J-S04024-23
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVIN CRADDOCK Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVIN CRADDOCK Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVIN CRADDOCK Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVIN CRADDOCK Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVIN CRADDOCK Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVIN CRADDOCK Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVIN CRADDOCK Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVIN CRADDOCK Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVIN CRADDOCK Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVIN CRADDOCK Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVIN CRADDOCK Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVIN CRADDOCK Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVIN CRADDOCK Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVIN CRADDOCK Appellant

Nos. 1134 EDA 2022, 1135 EDA 2022, 1136 EDA 2022, 1137 EDA 2022, 1138 EDA 2022, 1139 EDA 2022, 1140 EDA 2022

No. J-S04024-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

May 18, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 11, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000370-2018 CP-51-CR-0000371-2018, CP-51-CR-0000372-2018 CP-51-CR-0000373-2018, CP-51-CR-0000374-2018 CP-51-CR-0000375-2018, CP-51-CR-0004039-2018

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

KING, J.

Appellant, Devin Craddock, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his open guilty plea to seven (7) counts each of robbery and possessing instruments of crime ("PIC"), and one (1) count each of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse ("IDSI"), attempted IDSI, and attempted rape.^[1] We affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows. In November 2017, Appellant went on a crime spree, committing several armed robberies and a sexual assault over the course of a few days. Police made an arrest after the victims identified Appellant from photo arrays, and the Commonwealth charged Appellant with multiple offenses at seven (7) different docket numbers. On October 8, 2021, Appellant entered open guilty pleas to the aforementioned offenses. Following the entry of the pleas, the court deferred sentencing and ordered a presentence investigation ("PSI") report and mental health evaluation.

On March 11, 2022, the court conducted Appellant's sentencing hearing. After receiving argument from counsel, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of twenty-five (25) to fifty (50) years' imprisonment, followed by three (3) years of probation. Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion on March 21, 2022. In it, Appellant argued that the court violated the Sentencing Code "as the court seemed to exclusively focus on the gravity of the offense and on [Appellant's] disciplinary infractions while incarcerated pretrial and while in juvenile placement[.]" (Post-Sentence Motion, filed 3/21/22, at 3). Appellant also claimed that the court "considered improper sentencing factors in determining the sentence including unsubstantiated accusations of prior criminal conduct in which formal charges were never brought[.]" (Id. at 3-4). Despite Appellant's protestations, the court denied the post-sentence motion on March 22, 2022.

Appellant timely filed separate notices of appeal on April 20, 2022. On April 21, 2022, the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. Appellant timely filed his Rule 1925(b) statement on May 4, 2022. This Court subsequently consolidated the appeals sua sponte.

Appellant now raises two issues for this Court's review:

Did not the sentencing court violate the requirements of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) of the Sentencing Code, which states that the sentence imposed should call for confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of Appellant, as the court seemed to exclusively focus on the gravity of the offense and on Appellant's purported disciplinary infractions while incarcerated pre-trial and during his immediately [preceding] juvenile placements when it imposed an aggregate sentence that was manifestly excessive, but did not focus on the rehabilitative needs of Appellant that were evident in the record from his severe mental health problems, his severe intellectual disabilities, his history of being abused and subject to violence as a child, his lack of maturity having just emerged from years of Juvenile Court custodial placements, and his serious medical history of multiple weekly or daily seizures, amongst his many shortcomings?

Did not the trial court improperly consider sentencing factors in its decision to construct a lengthy total sentence that included the consideration of contested and unsubstantiated accusations of prior misconduct for which formal charges were never brought or adjudicated?

(Appellant's Brief at 3-4).

Appellant's issues are related, and we address them together. Appellant contends that the sentencing court violated the Sentencing Code when it "focused almost exclusively on the gravity of the offense and on an allegation of a sexual misconduct made while Appellant was in custody at a juvenile placement."^[2] (Appellant's Brief at 19). Appellant asserts that the court placed undue emphasis on the misconduct allegation without providing adequate consideration of Appellant's rehabilitative needs. Appellant insists that the court did not give proper weight to his health issues, intellectual disabilities, history of abuse, and lack of maturity following his juvenile placements. Appellant maintains that the court's failure to place proper weight on the relevant sentencing factors resulted in "a lengthy aggregated sentence … that was manifestly excessive despite the fact that the individual sentences were at the low end of the Sentencing Guidelines without application of the deadly weapon enhancement." (Id. at 20).

Regarding the court's consideration of the misconduct allegation from Appellant's juvenile placement, Appellant relies on Commonwealth v. P.L.S., 894 A.2d 120, 131 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 588 Pa. 780, 906 A.2d 542 (2006), for the proposition that "uncharged criminal conduct may not be used for sentencing purposes when the record is devoid of the necessary evidentiary link between the defendant and the uncharged prior conduct." (Id. at 24). While Appellant acknowledges that the PSI report references the incident of sexual misconduct from his juvenile placement, Appellant maintains that the Commonwealth did not bring criminal charges "despite both an internal and an external investigation." (Id.) As such, Appellant believes that the court improperly considered this incident at the time of sentencing, and "the distasteful act of a juvenile … should not be the basis for lengthening the sentence of an adult." (Id. at 41). Appellant concludes that the court abused its discretion in fashioning his sentence, and this Court must vacate the judgment of sentence and remand the matter for a new sentencing hearing. We disagree.

As presented, Appellant's claim challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence.^[3] See Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768 (Pa.Super. 2015) (en banc), appeal denied, 633 Pa. 774, 126 A.3d 1282 (2015) (stating challenge to imposition of consecutive sentences as unduly excessive, together with claim that court failed to consider rehabilitative needs, constitutes challenge to discretionary aspects of sentencing); Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa.Super. 2006) (stating claim that sentence was excessive based on impermissible factors constitutes challenge to 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. 1410 [now Rule 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)).

When appealing the discretionary aspects of a sentence, an appellant must invoke this Court's jurisdiction by including in his brief a separate concise statement demonstrating a substantial question as to the appropriateness of the sentence under the Sentencing Code. Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 571 Pa. 419, 812 A.2d 617 (2002); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). "The requirement that an appellant separately set forth the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal furthers the purpose evident in the Sentencing Code as a whole of limiting any challenges to the trial court's evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging on the sentencing decision to exceptional cases." Phillips, supra at 112 (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

"The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830 A.2d 1013, 1018 (Pa.Super. 2003). "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." Caldwell, supra at 768. An appellant's "challenge to...