Opinion
J-S51004-16 No. 280 EDA 2016
06-24-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. PATRICIA SUE DAVENPORT Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 17, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0008280-2014 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Patricia Sue Davenport, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, following her open guilty plea to one (1) count each of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance ("PWID") and criminal conspiracy, and two (2) counts of endangering welfare of children ("EWOC"). We affirm.
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30); 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903, 4304, respectively.
The trial court's opinion fully set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises one issue for our review:
THE SENTENCES IMPOSED WERE MANIFESTLY HARSH AND EXCESSIVE AND NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES. MOREOVER, IN NOT CONSIDERING THE POSITIVE REHABILITATIVE ATTRIBUTES OF [APPELLANT] FROM THE PSI AND PPI AND RELYING SOLELY ON THE CONDUCT OF APPELLANT AND THE BELIEF THAT THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS CONDUCT WHEN FASHIONING THE GUIDELINES, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE TRIAL COURT PUT TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON PUNISHMENT.(Appellant's Brief at 7).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable William R. Carpenter, we conclude Appellant's issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed February 23, 2016, at 5-17) (finding: Appellant raises substantial question with claim that court departed from guidelines for PWID sentence without placing sufficient reasons on record; nevertheless, court explained upward departure from guidelines was justified by depraved nature of crime, exceptional harm to victim, and Appellant's lack of remorse and attempt to blame victim; Appellant violated duty of care toward her daughter and her daughter's instinctive trust for Appellant; Appellant's daughter is now recovering drug addict; youth enhancement considers only age of victim and not parent-child relationship; Appellant had heightened duty to her own child as opposed to unrelated child; court's review of presentence investigation report raised presumption that court considered mitigating factors; upward departure from guidelines was appropriate for PWID sentence; Appellant's challenge to standard-range EWOC sentence fails to raise substantial question; moreover, court relies on previously stated reasons for sentence imposed; Appellant raises substantial question with claim that court improperly imposed state sentence, rather than county sentence, for conspiracy conviction; court imposed maximum term of ten years' incarceration for conspiracy; therefore, court had authority to commit Appellant to state correctional facility pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9762(b); further, state sentence was appropriate in light of all relevant sentencing factors; additionally, court did not abuse its discretion by applying credit for time served to conspiracy conviction instead of PWID conviction). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 6/24/2016
Image materials not available for display.