Com. v. Baker, R. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S71014-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. RONNIE ARNETTE BAKER Appellant No. 344 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 21, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-28-CR-0001860-2010 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MUNDY, J., and PLATT, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED JANUARY 08, 2014 Appellant, Ronnie Arnette Baker, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on November 21, 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County. We affirm. arity with the facts and procedural history of this appeal. In this appeal, Baker purports to challenge the discretionary aspects of substantial question as to the appropriateness of his sentence as he was sentenced to not less than 16 months and no more than 84 months SCI ____________________________________________ Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S71014-13 Brief, at 10. This does not raise a substantial question for our review. See Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 627 (Pa. 2002) (noting that in which the sentence violates either a specific provision of the sentencing scheme set forth in the Sentencing Code or a particular fundamental norm either provision. In any event, throughout his two-page brief, Baker argues that he was entitled to a standard range sentence. We have good news for Baker: he received a standard range sentence. The standard range was 12 to 18 months. Baker received a 16-month minimum sentence, which is well within the standard range of the guidelines. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Boyer, 856 A.2d he sentencing guidelines provide for minimum and not maximum sentences. 1 Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. ____________________________________________ 1 presumptive gu minimum Commonwealth v. Smith, 863 A.2d 1172, 1178 (Pa. Super. 2004) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). In other words, as the presumptive guidelines affect only the minimum sentence, the sentencing judge is free to exercise his or her discretion to impose a sentence up to the statutory maximum provided for the offense. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Saranchak -established that a sentencing court can impose a sentence that is the maximum period -2- J-S71014-13 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 1/8/2014 -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.
