J-S43003-19 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : BHARGAVE CHOWDARY PALETI : : Appellant : No. 1784 MDA 2018 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 4, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-35-CR-0001383-2017 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 23, 2019 Appellant, Bhargave Chowdary Paleti, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, following his negotiated guilty plea to two counts of disorderly conduct.1 We affirm. In its opinion, the trial court sets forth most of the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no need to restate them. Procedurally, we add the court ordered Appellant on October 31, 2018, to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant complied on November 26, 2018.2 ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5503(a)(1) and (a)(4). 2Appellant filed his Rule 1925(b) statement out of time. Nevertheless, this Court may address the merits of a criminal appeal, where a defendant files an ____________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S43003-19 Appellant raises one issue for our review: DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR AND ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY IMPOSING A MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE SENTENCE IN THE AGGRAVATED RANGE OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SENTENCING GUIDELINES, BY FAILING TO CONSIDER MITIGATING FACTORS PRESENT IN THE RECORD AND, THEREFORE, FAILED TO CONSIDER THE RELEVANT SENTENCING CRITERIA OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SENTENCING CODE, INCLUDING THE PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF…APPELLANT, HIS REHABILITATIVE NEEDS AND THE NEED FOR PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC? (Appellant’s Brief at 5). Appellant argues the sentencing court failed to consider several mitigating factors, including: his lack of a prior criminal record; his age; his compliance with conditions of house arrest during this case; his education; his employment as a physician; and his acceptance of responsibility for the conduct underlying the convictions. Appellant concludes the court unreasonably and/or incorrectly applied the Sentencing Guidelines when it imposed an aggravated range sentence. As presented, Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. See Commonwealth v. Cruz- Centeno, 668 A.2d 536 (Pa.Super. 1995), appeal denied, 544 Pa. 653, 676 A.2d 1195 (1996) (stating allegation court ignored mitigating factors ____________________________________________ untimely Rule 1925(b) statement, if the trial court had adequate opportunity and chose to prepare an opinion addressing the issue(s) raised on appeal. Here, the trial court issued an opinion addressing Appellant’s complaints. Therefore, we decline to consider Appellant’s issues waived. See Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428, 433 (Pa.Super. 2008) (en banc) (allowing for immediate review under these circumstances). -2- J-S43003-19 challenges discretionary aspects of sentencing).3 Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right. Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa.Super. 2000). Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue: [W]e conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals