Com. v. Kennebrew, D. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A15025-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DAQUAN KENNEBREW Appellant No. 2109 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 13, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0002576-2010 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and JENKINS, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 08, 2014 Daquan Kennebrew appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, following the revocation of his probation. After careful review, we affirm. On robbery,1 aggravated assault,2 theft by unlawful taking3 and resisting arrest.4 Due to repeated violations of the conditions of his probation, the ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701. 2 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702. 3 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921. 4 18 Pa.C.S. § 5104. J-A15025-14 court scheduled a violation of probation hearing for June 13, 2013. Following the hearing, the court resentenced Kennebrew to three to six sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive.5 Challenges to discretionary aspects of sentencing are not appealable as of right. Commonwealth v. Grimes, 982 A.2d 559, 565 (Pa. Super. 2009). Such claims may only be raised if the appellant sets forth a concise statement of reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal in his brief. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). If the appellant fails to do so, and the appellee objects, the appellate court may not review the case on the merits. See Commonwealth v. Kiesel, 854 A.2d 530 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citing Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki, 522 A.2d 17 (Pa. 1987); Commonwealth v. Krum, 533 A.2d 134 (Pa. Super. 1987)). Here, Kennebrew failed to comply with Rule 2119(f), and the Commonwealth objected to the omission. See -15. As such, we are constrained to deny allowance of appeal. Kiesel, supra. Judgment of sentence affirmed. ____________________________________________ 5 Kennebrew also alleges that the trial court erred in finding that he waived his right to appeal based on his failure to provide transcripts of the proceedings to the trial court. However, this issue is waived because Kennebrew failed to include it in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. See Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (failure to raise issue in 1925(b) statement results in automatic waiver). -2- J-A15025-14 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/8/2014 -3-
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.
