Opinion
J-S19012-17 No. 1671 MDA 2016
05-12-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. THOMAS EARL BECKER Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 22, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0002306-2012 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. --------
Appellant, Thomas Earl Becker, appeals from the amended judgment of sentence entered in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, based on his jury trial conviction of three counts each of indecent assault and corruption of minors, two counts of aggravated indecent assault of a child, and one count of rape of a child. We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3126(a)(7), 6301(a)(1), 3125(b), and 3121(c), respectively.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On June 26, 2012, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with various criminal offenses in connection with his repeated sexual abuse of minors A.C., S.C., and J.S. ("Victims"). Appellant proceeded to a jury trial on May 13, 2013. On May 15, 2013, the jury convicted Appellant of three counts each of indecent assault and corruption of minors, two counts of aggravated indecent assault of a child, and one count of rape of a child. The court deferred sentencing pending the preparation of a pre-sentence investigation ("PSI") report and an assessment by the Sexual Offender Assessment Board ("SOAB") to determine if Appellant met the criteria for classification as a sexually violent predator ("SVP").
On August 2, 2013, the court imposed SVP status based on its determination that Appellant suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes him likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses. The court immediately proceeded to sentencing, where K.S. and C.B. testified. K.S. is the mother of J.S. and daughter of Appellant, and C.B. is the mother of A.C. and S.C. K.S. and C.B. detailed the substantial effects of the sexual abuse on Victims. After an extensive explanation of its reasons, the court sentenced Appellant to ten (10) to twenty (20) years' imprisonment for the rape of a child conviction, ten (10) to twenty (20) years' imprisonment each for the aggravated indecent assault of a child convictions, one (1) to two (2) years' imprisonment each for two of the indecent assault convictions, nine (9) to twenty-four (24) months' for the remaining indecent assault conviction; and one (1) year probation each for the corruption of minors convictions. The court ordered Appellant to serve the rape of a child, aggravated indecent assault of a child, and indecent assault convictions consecutively; thus, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of thirty-two (32) years and nine (9) months to sixty-six (66) years' imprisonment. Appellant's sentence included mandatory minimum sentences for the rape of a child conviction and the two aggravated indecent assault of a child convictions.
Appellant timely filed a motion for reconsideration of his sentence on August 12, 2013, which the court denied the same day. On September 12, 2013, Appellant filed a notice of appeal. This Court quashed the appeal as untimely on November 14, 2013. After the court reinstated Appellant's direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc, Appellant filed a notice of appeal on January 7, 2014. On October 7, 2014, this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, and Appellant did not seek further review with our Supreme Court. See Commonwealth v. Becker , 108 A.3d 105 (Pa.Super. 2014). On July 27, 2015, Appellant timely filed a pro se PCRA petition. The court appointed counsel on July 30, 2015, and PCRA counsel filed an amended petition on October 23, 2015. After the Commonwealth conceded that Appellant was serving an illegal sentence in light of Commonwealth v. Wolfe , ___ Pa. ___, 140 A.3d 651 (2016), the PCRA court subsequently vacated Appellant's judgment of sentence and scheduled a resentencing hearing for September 22, 2016.
At the September 22, 2016 resentencing hearing, K.S., C.B., and Victim A.C. explained the lasting impact the sexual abuse has had on Victims. Appellant apologized to Victims and stated he did not mean to hurt anyone. The court ultimately sentenced Appellant to twelve and one-half (12½) to twenty-five (25) years' imprisonment for the rape of a child conviction, five and one-half (5½) to eleven (11) years' imprisonment each for the aggravated indecent assault of a child convictions, one (1) to two (2) years' imprisonment each for two of the indecent assault convictions, nine (9) to twenty-three (23) months' for the remaining indecent assault conviction, and nine (9) to twenty-three (23) months' each for the three corruption of minors convictions. The court ordered Appellant to serve all sentences consecutively; thus, the court imposed an aggregate term of twenty-eight (28) years and six (6) months to fifty-eight (58) years and eight (8) months' imprisonment. Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion on September 29, 2016, which the court denied the same day. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on October 7, 2016. On October 12, 2016, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); and Appellant timely complied on October 21, 2016.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
WHETHER THE AGGREGATE SENTENCE OF NOT LESS THAN 2[8]½ TO NOT MORE THAN 58 YEARS AND 8 MONTHS WHICH INCLUDED A SENTENCE OF 12½ TO 25 YEARS FOR RAPE OF A CHILD WAS UNDULY HARSH AND A MANIFEST ABUSE OF DISCRETION?(Appellant's Brief at 5).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Dennis E. Reinaker, 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 December 2, 2016, at 3-7) (finding: Appellant's challenge to increased sentence for rape of child hinges on court's alleged failure to consider Appellant's good behavior in prison; this allegation fails to raise substantial question to invoke appellate review; moreover, this challenge has no merit because court had benefit of PSI report, set forth reasons for sentence on record, and incorporated its findings and comments from original sentencing hearing; Appellant also claims court failed to consider mitigating factors at resentencing; this claim does not raise substantial question to invoke appellate review; moreover, court's imposition of reduced aggregate sentence demonstrated its consideration of relevant mitigating factors contained in PSI report and Appellant's Integrated Correctional Plan; Appellant next claims his sentence is unreasonable in light of his character and circumstances of offense; despite Appellant's sexual abuse of three minor girls over extended period of time, court imposed standard guideline range sentences for each of Appellant's convictions; Appellant's total confinement will prevent him from engaging in similar sexually abusive acts in future; sentence is also consistent with impact of offenses on Victims, who suffer daily psychological trauma as result of Appellant's abuse; further, sentence is consistent with Appellant's rehabilitative needs as exhibited by Appellant's success while incarcerated; finally, Appellant's bald excessiveness claims do not raise substantial question to invoke appellate review; moreover, sentence is not excessive in light of disturbing nature of Appellant's offenses and continued devastating effects abuse has had on Victims; under these circumstances, Appellant's challenge to discretionary aspects of his sentence fails). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/12/2017
Image materials not available for display.