Opinion
J-S47021-15 No. 2172 MDA 2014
08-19-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. WILLIAM CLARK, Appellee
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 28, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0002146-2014 BEFORE: ALLEN, OTT, and STRASSBURGER, JJ. CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. --------
I agree with the Majority's conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Appellant's weight-of-the-evidence claim. Regarding Appellant's challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence, in his Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement, Appellant, in my view, merely presents what amounts to a bald assertion that his sentence is excessive. Thus, he has failed to raise a substantial question worthy of appellate review. See , e.g., Commonwealth v. Fisher , 47 A.3d 155, 159 (Pa. Super. 2012) ("[A] bald assertion that a sentence is excessive does not by itself raise a substantial question justifying this Court's review of the merits of the underlying claim.").