Opinion
J-S18029-16 No. 885 MDA 2015
03-10-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ROSS BONADDIO Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 24, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-35-CR-0000807-2014 BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Ross Bonaddio appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County following his plea of guilty but mentally ill to Kidnapping with the Intent to Inflict Bodily Injury or to Terrorize. The Honorable Michael J. Barrasse sentenced Bonaddio to forty- two to ninety months, followed by ten years of special probation. Following our careful review of the parties' briefs, the record, and the relevant case law, we affirm based on Judge Barrasse's opinion.
The court held a hearing on September 26, 2014, to determine if Bonaddio was mentally ill at the time he committed the offense. Dr. Richard E. Fischbein, an expert in forensic psychiatry, testified that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Bonaddio suffered from paranoid schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder at the time of the crime and that this substantially affected his capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
A person who is found guilty but mentally ill or who pleads guilty but mentally ill "may have any sentence imposed on him which may lawfully be imposed on any defendant convicted of the same offense." 42 Pa.C.S. § 9727.
The trial court has fully summarized the procedural and factual history of this case, which we adopt and need not restate here since we write for the parties. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/22/15, at 2-3. On appeal, Bonaddio challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence, and points to several violations of the Sentencing Code, as follows:
Should the forty-two (42) to ninety (90) month sentence imposed after Mr. Bonaddio's plea of "Guilty But Mentally Ill" be set aside, and the case remanded for re-sentencing because, although the sentence was within [the] standard guideline range, application of the guidelines was clearly unreasonable (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c)(2)) and thus the sentence constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion and violates basic sentencing norms in that, given the extraordinarily mitigating circumstances arising from Mr. Bonaddio's mental illness, the sentence is unreasonably harsh and disproportionate to Mr. Bonaddio's reduced culpability, and further, the sentence violates specific provisions of the sentencing code in that the sentence evinces[:] a) a failure to consider Mr. Bonaddio's rehabilitative needs as mandated by 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b), b) a failure to consider that Mr. Bonaddio "did not contemplate that his conduct would cause or threaten serious harm" (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9722(2)), c) a failure to consider "substantial grounds tending to excuse or justify" his conduct (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9722(4)), d) a failure to consider the expert's opinion that Mr. Bonaddio would be "particularly likely to
respond affirmatively to probationary treatment" (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9722(10)), and e) the reasons for sentence were not adequately disclosed in open court at the time of sentencing (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b)).Appellant's Brief, at 4.
Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing court and will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Walls , 926 A.2d 957, 961 (Pa. 2007). An appellate court must accord the sentencing court's decision great weight because the court is in the best position to consider the defendant's character, display of remorse, defiance or indifference, and the overall effect and nature of the crime. Id. Additionally, challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing are not reviewable as of right. Commonwealth v. Sierra , 752 A.2d 910, 912 (Pa. Super. 2000). Rather, an appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his or her sentence must satisfy the following four-part test:
[W]e conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether appellant's brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b).Commonwealth v. Evans , 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (some citations omitted). An appellant raises a substantial question when he demonstrates that the sentencing court's actions were inconsistent with the Sentencing Code or contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process. Commonwealth v. Ferguson , 893 A.2d 735 (Pa. Super. 2006).
Bonaddio has satisfied these procedural requirements for preserving his sentencing challenge, and the Commonwealth concedes that Bonaddio's Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) Statement has raised a substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Diaz , 867 A.2d 1285 (Pa. Super. 2005).
The trial court applied the proper governing principles and reviewed the statutory provisions governing guilty-but-mentally-ill pleas. Additionally, the court detailed the information that it considered before imposing the sentence, including the presentence investigation and psychiatric evaluations. Based upon our review, we agree with Judge Barrasse's assessment and analysis of Bonaddio's substantive claims, see Trial Court Opinion, at 4-12, and we conclude that Judge Barrasse did not abuse his discretion. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of sentence based on Judge Barrasse's opinion. We direct the parties to attach a copy of the opinion in the event of further proceedings.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 3/10/2016
Image materials not available for display.