Commonwealth v. Tavarez, 1859 MDA 2016
Decision Date | 31 October 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 1859 MDA 2016,1859 MDA 2016 |
Citation | 174 A.3d 7 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Cheyene TAVAREZ, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Michael J. Nuccio, Reading, for appellant.
Matthew A. Thren, Assistant District Attorney, Reading, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Cheyene Tavarez appeals from the October 7, 2016 judgment of sentence entered in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas following his entry of a guilty plea to one count each of aggravated assault, burglary, robbery, impersonating a public servant, and conspiracy.1 We vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.
At his guilty plea proceeding on October 7, 2016, Tavarez admitted to the following facts:
The trial court summarized the ensuing procedural history of this matter as follows:
1925(a) Opinion, 1/30/17, at 1 (unpaginated) ("1925(a) Op.").
On appeal, Tavarez raises three issues:
Tavarez's Br. at 11 ( ).
We will address Tavarez's second issue first because it is dispositive of this appeal. Tavarez asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in applying the deadly weapon "used" enhancement to his burglary conviction. This claim raises a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing.
An appeal from the discretionary aspects of sentencing is not guaranteed as a matter of right. Commonwealth v. Mastromarino , 2 A.3d 581, 585 (Pa.Super. 2010). Before addressing such a challenge, we must first determine:
(1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether [the] [a]ppellant preserved his [or her] issue; (3) whether [the] [a]ppellant's brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is appropriate under the [S]entencing [C]ode.
Commonwealth v. Austin , 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa.Super. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Malovich , 903 A.2d 1247, 1250 (Pa.Super. 2006) ); see Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f).
Here, Tavarez filed a timely notice of appeal, preserved his claim in a timely post-sentence motion, and included in his brief a concise statement of reasons for allowance of appeal under Rule 2119(f). We must now determine whether he has raised a substantial question that his sentence is inappropriate under the Sentencing Code.
In his Rule 2119(f) statement, Tavarez asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in applying the deadly weapon "used" enhancement to the burglary conviction. It is well settled that "[a] substantial question is raised where an appellant alleges his sentence is excessive due to the sentencing court's error in applying the deadly weapon enhancement." Commonwealth v. Phillips , 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008) ; see also Commonwealth v. Kneller , 999 A.2d 608, 613 (Pa.Super. 2010) (en banc ) (). Therefore, we will review the merits of Tavarez's claim.
Tavarez asserts that that trial court abused its discretion in applying the deadly weapon "used" enhancement rather than the deadly weapon "possessed" enhancement to his burglary conviction. For burglary as a first-degree misdemeanor, Tavarez's prior record score was 2 and the offense gravity score was 9. See N.T., 10/7/16, at 8. Had the trial court applied the deadly weapon "possessed" (rather than "used") enhancement, the standard guideline range for this conviction would have been 33 to 45 months rather than 42 to 54 months.2 Tavarez does not challenge the trial court's application of the deadly weapon "used" enhancement to his remaining convictions.
At the plea proceeding, Tavarez admitted that he possessed a firearm during the entire criminal episode and that he used a firearm to threaten the victims in the course of the robbery. Tavarez contends, however, that the record does not support the trial court's conclusion that Tavarez used a deadly weapon in the commission of the burglary because the victims were upstairs at the time of his unlawful entry into the residence. We agree.
The deadly weapon enhancement provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines provide that an enhancement "shall apply to each conviction offense for which a deadly weapon is possessed or used." 204 Pa. Code § 303.10(a)(4). The trial court may not disregard an applicable enhancement when determining the appropriate sentencing ranges. Commonwealth v. Cornish , 403 Pa.Super. 492, 589 A.2d 718, 720 (1991). Further, "[i]t is imperative that the sentencing court determine the correct starting point in the [G]uidelines before imposing sentence." Id. ; see Commonwealth v. Diamond , 945 A.2d 252, 259 (Pa.Super. 2008) () Thus, if "the trial court erroneously calculates the starting point under the [G]uidelines," we will vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing. Commonwealth v. Scullin , 414 Pa.Super. 442, 607 A.2d 750, 754 (1992).
Here, the trial court applied the enhancement for "use" of a deadly weapon to the burglary conviction. The "used" enhancement provides:
204 Pa. Code § 303.10(a)(2) (emphasis added). Thus, to establish use of a deadly weapon under this provision, the record must show that the defendant used the weapon to threaten or injure the victim while committing the particular offense. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Shull , 148 A.3d 820, 832 (Pa.Super. 2016) ( ); Commonwealth v. Chapman , 365 Pa.Super. 10, 528 A.2d 990, 991–92 (1987) ( ).
Tavarez contends that the trial court should have applied the deadly weapon "possessed" enhancement, rather than the "used" enhancement,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Delacruz-Santos
...This issue challenges the discretionary aspect of sentence,3 which is a request for permission to appeal. See Commonwealth v. Tavarez , 174 A.3d 7, 9-10 (Pa. Super. 2017).Before we address the merits of this claim, we must first ascertain:(1) Whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether the ap......
-
Commonwealth v. Ralston
... ... this Court's May 3, 2016 opinion and our independent ... review of the record ... I ... appeal. See Commonwealth v. Tavarez, 174 A.3d 7, ... 9-10 (Pa. Super. 2017). Before we can reach the merits of a ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Auen
... ... weapon used enhancement. See Commonwealth v ... Tavarez, 174 A.3d 7, 11 (Pa. Super. 2017) (holding that ... defendant completed ... a burglary ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Morgan
...of its presence in the vehicle. Id.Appellant's claim is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Commonwealth v. Tavarez , 174 A.3d 7, 10 (Pa. Super. 2017) ; see also Commonwealth v. Kneller , 999 A.2d 608, 613 (Pa. Super. 2010) (en banc ) (stating that "a challenge to the ......