Commonwealth v. Howarth

Full title: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DANIEL HOWARTH, Appellant

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Feb 13, 2017

No. 839 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 13, 2017)

Opinion

J-S85037-16 No. 839 EDA 2016

02-13-2017

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DANIEL HOWARTH, Appellant

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 19, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-09-CR-0001359-2015 BEFORE: PANELLA, RANSOM and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:

Daniel Howarth ("Howarth") appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his guilty pleas to conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person and disorderly conduct.¹ We affirm.

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903, 2702(a)(1), 2701(a)(3), 2705, 5503(a)(4).

In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/2/16, at 1-2.

On appeal, Howarth raises the following issue for our review: "Did the [trial c]ourt err in imposing a sentence of not less than two and one half [years,] nor more than five years [in prison,] followed by five years of probation?" Brief for Appellant at 4.²

2 Although Howarth stated his issue somewhat differently in his Concise Statement, we will review his issue. See Pa.R.A.P 2116(a).

Howarth contends that the sentencing court failed to consider his lack of a criminal record, age, rehabilitative needs, troubled background, decision to plead guilty, and his expression of remorse. Id. at 11. Howarth claims that, although the sentencing court described in its Opinion the futile efforts made by the juvenile probation department to rehabilitate Howarth, the court made no mention of this deficiency at the sentencing hearing. Id. Howarth argues that, when sentencing him, the sentencing court's primary focus was the seriousness of the crime, and the distinction between co-defendants. Id. Howarth contends that the sentencing court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a state prison term, rather than imposing a mitigated-range sentence, which would have permitted Howarth to remain in the county jail. Id. at 12. Howarth emphasizes that this was his first violent crime, the complainant took the first step toward violent behavior, and the assaultive behavior resulting in injury was not linked to Howarth. Id. Howarth claims that the sentence imposed is unduly harsh and excessive, given his role in the crimes, his background, and his young age.³ Id. at 13.

3 Howarth states that he was 18-years-old at the time of the crime. See Brief for Appellant at 10.

In its Opinion, the sentencing court addressed Howarth's issue, set forth the relevant law, and concluded that the issue lacks merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/2/16, at 3-7. We agree with the reasoning of the sentencing court and affirm on this basis as to Howarth's issue. See id.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 2/13/2017

Image materials not available for display.