Com. v. Thompson, W. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S36010-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. WINFIELD THOMPSON Appellant No. 1033 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 18, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0010168-2011 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JULY 16, 2014 Appellant, Winfield Thompson,1 appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his nolo contendere plea to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion, unlawful contact with a minor, burglary, possessing an compulsion.2 We affirm. ____________________________________________ 1 The certified record indicates alternative names for Appellant, including 2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§, 3123(a)(1), 6318(a)(1), 3502(a), 907(a), and 3121(a)(1), respectively. Prior to sentencing, the Commonwealth withdrew the PIC charge as beyond the relevant statute of limitations. _____________________________ *Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S36010-14 In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Appellant raises the following issue for our review: MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE CIRCUMSTANCES? SENTENCE UNDER THE Appellant argues his aggregate sentence of fifty (50) to one hundred sentencing court based its sentence on only the seriousness of his crimes, remorse for his crimes. Appellant also contends the court failed to consider his rehabilitative needs, and to place adequate reasons on the record for imposing sentences in the aggravated range. Appellant concludes the sentencing court abused its discretion, and this Court should vacate and remand for resentencing. Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. See Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215 (Pa.Super. 2011) (stating claim that sentencing court failed to offer adequate reasons to support sentence challenges discretionary aspects of sentencing); Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d 949 (Pa.Super. 2002) (stating claim that sentence is manifestly excessive challenges discretionary aspects of sentencing); Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centeno, 668 A.2d 536 (Pa.Super. -2- J-S36010-14 1995) (explaining claim that court did not consider mitigating factors challenges discretionary aspects of sentencing). 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 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 (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) (internal citations omitted). When appealing the discretionary aspects of a sentence, an appellant 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. relation to the sentencing guidelines and what particular provision of the code it violates Commonwealth v. Kiesel, 854 A.2d 530, 532 (Pa.Super. 2004) (quoting Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721, 727 (Pa.Super. 2000), appeal denied, 563 Pa. 672, 759 A.2d 920 (2000)). requirement that an appellant separately set forth the reasons relied upon -3- J-S36010-14 multitude of factors impinging on the sentencing decision to exceptional Commonwealth v. Williams, 562 A.2d 1385, 1387 (Pa.Super. 1989) (en banc). sufficiently articulates the manner in which the sentence violates either a specific provision of the sentencing scheme set forth in the Sentencing Code or a particular fundamental norm underlying the sentencing process, will such a statement be deemed adequate to raise a substantial question so as to permit a grant of allowance of appeal of the discretionary aspects of the sentence. See [Commonwealth v. Koehler, 558 Pa. 334, 370, 737 A.2d 225, 244 (1999)] (party must articulate why sentence raises doubts that sentence was improper under the Sentencing Code). Mouzon, supra at 435, 812 A.2d at 627. A claim that a sentence is manifestly excessive might raise a articulates the manner in which the sentence imposed violates a specific provision of the Sentencing Code or the norms underlying the sentencing process. Mouzon, supra allegation that a sentencing court failed to consider or did not adequately consider certain factors does not raise a substantial question that the Cruz-Centeno, supra at 545 (internal Dunphy, supra at 1222 (quoting Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d -4- J-S36010-14 720, 734 (Pa.Super. 2003)). Preliminarily, we note Appellant failed to raise at sentencing or in his post- adequate r arguments are waived. See Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788 (Pa.Super. 2003) (stating issues that challenge discretionary aspects of sentencing are generally waived if they are not raised during sentencing proceedings or in post-sentence motion). -sentence motion and Rule 2119(f) statement preserved his claim alleging a manifestly excessive sentence. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable James opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed December 27, 2013, at 6-9) (finding: all sentences court imposed were within statutory maximum; court fully set forth factors it had considered prior to imposing sentence, including pre-sentence investigative report, facts of case, Appellan nolo contendere plea, mental health, drug use, family history, extensive criminal record, prior record score, sentencing guidelines, and that Appellant was sexually violent predator; Appellant committed especially heinous crime, for which he failed -5- J-S36010-14 to take full responsibility because he pled nolo contendere and blamed his actions on peer pressure and drug use; Appellant posed significant danger to community; court did not abuse its discretion). The record supports the trial we see no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we Judgment of sentence affirmed. *JUSTICE FITZGERALD CONCURS IN THE RESULT. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/16/2014 -6- Circulated 06/23/2014 12:40 PM Circulated 06/23/2014 12:40 PM Circulated 06/23/2014 12:40 PM Circulated 06/23/2014 12:40 PM Circulated 06/23/2014 12:40 PM Circulated 06/23/2014 12:40 PM Circulated 06/23/2014 12:40 PM

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.