Com. v. Tilden, Jr., S. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J -S07022-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. SCOTT WILBUR TILDEN, JR. Appellant No. 1494 MDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 11, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Perry County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-50-CR-0000475-2015 BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J. FILED APRIL 04, 2017 MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: Scott W. Tilden. Jr., appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed, following his conviction in the Court of Common Pleas of Perry County, of two counts of robbery.' Tilden argues the court abused its discretion by directing his sentence in this matter, to run consecutively to imposed following his conviction in Adams County of a a sentence third count of robbery. After review, we affirm. On January 4, 2016, Tilden pleaded count of robbery, graded as a guilty in Adams County to one (1) felony of the second degree. The court sentenced Tilden to three (3) to six (6) years' imprisonment. On August 11, ' 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(vi). J -S07022-17 2016, Tilden pleaded guilty to two additional counts of robbery in Perry County, each graded as a felony of the second degree. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court in Perry County examined Tilden's personal history and the details of the three robberies. Sentencing Hearing, 8/11/16, at 5. N.T. The first two robberies occurred at the First National Bank of Mifflintown in Perry County on September 16, 2015, and September 22, 2015. A different teller -employee was present at each of the two robberies, resulting in two different victims. occurred at a different banking institution one week later, The third robbery in Adams County, on September 29, 2015. On August 11, 2016, following review Investigation Report ("PSI"), Tilden received a of Tilden's Presentence sentence, on each count, of twenty-four (24) to sixty (60) months' imprisonment, each sentence to run consecutively. The trial court directed this sentence to run consecutively to the sentence imposed for robbery in Adams County. Tilden filed a timely appeal. On October 4, 2016, he filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of matters complained of on appeal. On appeal, Tilden raises the following issue: the trial court err in not running [Tilden's] sentence concurrently to that of Adam's County in that [Tilden] was alleging a crime spree being the result of his drug addiction? Did Appellant's Brief at 8. -2 J -S07022-17 The Commonwealth argues the sentencing court acted within discretion in imposing Tilden's sentences consecutively. that Tilden's Rule 2119(f) statement2 failed to raise a is its It further argues technically deficient, and thus he has substantial question that justifies review of the discretionary aspect of his sentence. We agree. A challenge to the discretionary aspects of an appellant to review as a matter of right. address such a a sentence does not entitle Rather, before this Court can discretionary challenge, an appellant must comply with the following requirements: appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke the Superior Court's jurisdiction on appeal by satisfying a four-part test: (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. 2119(f); (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. An Commonwealth v. Swop, 123 A.3d 333, 337 Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058, 1064 2 (Pa. Super. 2015), quoting (Pa. Super. 2011). An appellant who challenges the discretionary aspects of a sentence in a criminal matter shall set forth in a separate section of the brief a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of a sentence. The statement shall immediately precede the argument on the merits with respect to the discretionary aspects of the sentence. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119. -3 J -S07022-17 Presently, Tilden filed a timely notice of appeal, but did not preserve his issue in a post -sentence motion challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence. However, during Tilden's sentencing proceeding, he presented to the court the specific issue later raised in his Rule 1925(b) statement. N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 8/11/16, at 6-9; Appellant's Brief, at 8. Thus, Tilden effectively preserved his issue for appeal.3 A substantial question as to the inappropriateness of a sentence exists where the appellant "sets forth violated a plausible argument that the sentence a provision of the sentencing code or is contrary to the fundamental Commonwealth v. Naranjo, norms of the sentencing process." 66, 72 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations and quotations omitted). defendant must provide, in writing, a 53 A.3d On appeal, a statement specifying the following: (1) where their sentence falls in the sentencing guidelines, (2) what provision of the sentencing code has been violated, (3) what fundamental norm the sentence violated, and (4) the manner in which it violated the norm. Within this framework, "[a] defendant may raise that a sentence is not appropriate . . . a Id. substantial question where he receives consecutive "Issues challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence must be raised in a post -sentence motion or by presenting the claim to the trial court during the sentencing proceedings. Absent such efforts, an objection to a Commonwealth v. discretionary aspect of a sentence is waived." Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365, 371 (Pa. Super. 2012) quoting Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1273-74 (Pa. Super. 2006). 3 -4 J -S07022-17 sentences within the guideline ranges if the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable, resulting in an excessive sentence." Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013). An excessive sentencing claim made in conjunction with an assertion that the court did not consider mitigating factors may also raise a Perry, 883 A.2d 599, 602 substantial question. See Commonwealth v. (Pa. Super. 2005). Here, Tilden's Rule 2119(f) statement outlines six reasons he believes present a substantial question for appeal. Appellant's Brief, at 10. Taken in aggregate, reasons (1), (2), (3), (5) and (6) address Tilden's contention that the trial court did not address or consider his drug addiction either as mitigating factor or as the nexus of what he avers was spree constituting a single criminal episode. a a three -robbery crime Reason (4) addresses Tilden's compromised ability to make the victims of his robberies whole. Noticeably absent from Tilden's Rule 2119(f) Statement is an identification of where within the sentencing guidelines his sentence falls or any assertion that his sentence was imposed in violation of the sentencing guidelines. These elements are required. See Naranjo, 53 A.3d at 72. Additionally, Tilden proffers no reason nor cites to authority suggesting that imposition of his sentence "violates a particular provision of the Sentencing Code or is contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process." Commonwealth v. Johnson, 873 A.2d 704, 708 -5 (Pa. Super. J -S07022-17 2005). Also noticeably absent from Tilden's Rule 2119(f) Statement is a claim that imposition of consecutive sentences has resulted in an excessive sentence. Dodge, supra; Perry, supra.4 We statement agree is with the that Tilden's Rule 2119(f) Commonwealth's Brief at 4. Tilden's Commonwealth technically deficient. sentence falls within the lower end of the standard range of the sentencing guidelines, and he offers no legitimate argument suggesting the imposition of consecutive sentences is unreasonable or results in an excessive punishment. Tilden's Rule 2119(f) statement fails to raise a substantial question to justify review of the discretionary aspect of his sentence. We, therefore, may not review the merits of his claim. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judge Musmanno joins the Memorandum, Judge Bowes concurs in the result. 4 We note that the court considered Tilden's PSI report. Where the sentencing judge had the benefit of a PSI report, it will be presumed that he or she was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant's character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors. Commonwealth v. Boyer, 856 A.2d 149, 154 (Pa. Super. 2004). Moreover, each robbery perpetrated by Tilden involved different individual victims, occurred approximately one week apart from one another and took place in two different jurisdictions. The crimes are not related factually or temporally, and thus do not constitute a single criminal episode. See 18 Pa.C.S. §110(1)(ii). Further, at Tilden's sentencing hearing, he acknowledged the Commonwealth agreed to the lower end of the standard sentencing range. N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 8/11/16, at 6. -6 J -S07022-17 Judgment Entered. seph D. Seletyn, Prothonotary J Date: 4/4/2017 -7

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.