Commonwealth v. Taylor

Full title: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DENISE TAYLOR, Appellant

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Nov 21, 2017

J-S65035-17 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 21, 2017)

Opinion

J-S65035-17 No. 3475 EDA 2016

11-21-2017

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DENISE TAYLOR, Appellant

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 9, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-51-CR-0001467-2015 BEFORE: OLSON, OTT and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:

Denise Taylor ("Taylor") appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following the entry of her guilty plea to third-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime.¹ We affirm.

1

In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant procedural and factual history, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/15/16, at 1-3.

On appeal, Taylor raises the following issue for our review: "Was it not improper for the [trial] court to receive testimony from Thomas Major Cook [("Cook")] during sentencing proceedings consisting of the witness's recommendation that [Taylor] receive the maximum penalty permitted by law?" Brief for Appellant at 3.

Taylor contends that the sentencing court agreed that Cook's testimony during the sentencing hearing was not proper victim impact testimony, but improperly determined that Cook's statement had no impact on the outcome of the hearing. Id. at 15. Taylor asserts that the sentencing court erred by permitting, over objection, Cook to express his personal opinion that Taylor should receive the maximum sentence, and that his opinion was shared by the decedent's entire family. Id. at 16. Taylor asserts that "[i]t appears from the record that the sentencing court relied, at least in some part, upon this impermissible sentencing factor in rejecting defense counsel's recommendation[,] and imposing a sentence of 20 to 40 years instead." Id. at 17.

In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Taylor's issue, set forth the relevant law, and determined that the issue lacked merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/15/16, at 3-6. We agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court, which is supported by the record and free of legal error, and affirm on this basis as to Taylor's sole issue on appeal. See id.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/ _________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 11/21/2017

Image materials not available for display.

See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502, 907(a).