Opinion
J-S46013-16 No. 2955 EDA 2015
08-02-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. STEVEN LEE TOMINO, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 23, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0002115-2014 CP-48-CR-0002931-2014 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Steven Lee Tomino, appeals from the judgment of sentence of an aggregate term of 27 to 54 years' incarceration, imposed after he was convicted of various offenses including robbery, false imprisonment, aggravated assault of a police officer, and criminal conspiracy. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions, the trial court's denial of his pretrial motion to suppress a statement he gave to police following his arrest, and discretionary aspects of his sentence. After careful review, we affirm.
Briefly, Appellant's convictions stem from his participation, along with one cohort, in the armed robbery of Geraldine and James Petry in their home in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. During the robbery, Appellant's cohort held a gun to Mr. Petry's head while Appellant bound both victims, locked them in the pantry of their home, and threatened to kill them if they called police. When, after the robbery, an officer attempted to apprehend Appellant, he fought with the officer, causing cuts to the officer's hands and knees.
Appellant was charged with various offenses in two separate cases that were consolidated for trial. At the close of the trial, the jury convicted Appellant of two counts of robbery (threat of serious bodily injury); two counts of conspiracy to commit robbery; one count of theft by unlawful taking; one count of receiving stolen property; two counts of unlawful restraint; two counts of false imprisonment; and single counts of resisting arrest, aggravated assault, and fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. On March 23, 2015, he was sentenced to the aggregate term stated supra.
Appellant filed timely post-sentence motions, which the court denied on August 24, 2015. He then filed a timely notice of appeal, and also timely complied with the court's order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. The court filed a responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion, stating that it was relying on the analysis set forth in its August 24, 2015 order denying Appellant's post-sentence motions. Herein, Appellant raises three claims for our review:
1. Was the evidence presented at the time of trial sufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction for the offense[s] of robbery, criminal [conspiracy] to commit robbery, and aggravated assault[?]Appellant's Brief at 6.
2. Did the trial court err in denying [Appellant's] pre-trial motion to suppress his statement to the police in violation of [Appellant's] constitutional rights under Miranda ?
3. Was the trial court's sentence excessive given [Appellant's] rehabilitative needs?
Miranda v. Arizona , 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966).
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the certified record, and the applicable law. We have also examined the August 24, 2015 opinion (titled, "Statement of Reasons") of the Honorable Craig A. Dally of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, which was drafted to accompany Judge Dally's order denying Appellant's post-sentence motions, and to which Judge Dally refers in his Rule 1925(a) opinion. See Trial Court Order, 8/24/15. In his opinion, Judge Dally accurately and thoughtfully disposes of Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions, see id. at 5-12; his challenge to the court's denial of his pre-trial motion to suppress, see id. at 3-5; and his challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence, see id. at 12-14. Appellant's rather cursory argument in his appellate brief requires no further elaboration by this Court. See Appellant's Brief at 10-14. Instead, we adopt the rationale set forth by Judge Dally in his August 24, 2015 order and affirm Appellant's judgment of sentence on that basis.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 8/2/2016
Image materials not available for display.