Com. v. Wood, T. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S68039-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. TYREEK B. WOOD, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 875 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on January 17, 2104 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, No. CP-51-CR-0012409-2012 BEFORE: ALLEN, JENKINS and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED DECEMBER 09, 2014 Tyreek B. Wood (“Wood”) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his convictions of carrying a firearm without a license, carrying a firearm on the public streets of Philadelphia, and possessing an instrument of crime.1 We dismiss the appeal. The trial court set forth the relevant procedural and factual history, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/29/14, at 1-4. On appeal, Wood raises the question for our review: “Did the [trial] court err in failing to sentence [Wood] to a mitigated sentence and [failing] to 1 consider the rehabilitative needs of [Wood] where [Wood] took 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6106, 6108, 907. J-S68039-14 responsibility for the crimes he was convicted of?” Brief for Appellant at 3 (capitalization omitted). Wood argues that even though he was sentenced in the low end of the standard guidelines range, the trial court refused to consider that he accepted responsibility for his actions because Wood exercised his right to a trial by jury. Id. at 11-12. Wood also claims that because he is a first time offender, he should have been eligible for probation. Id. at 15. Wood challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test: We conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether the 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 the 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.A. § 9781(b). *** The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. A substantial question exists only when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process. Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quotation marks and some citations omitted). -2- J-S68039-14 Here, Wood filed a timely Notice of Appeal, presented his claim in a Motion to Reconsider Sentence, and included a Rule 2119(f) Statement in his brief. Wood argues that he has presented a substantial question because the trial court failed to consider certain mitigating factors in imposing sentence. Brief for Appellant at 8. Wood also claims that the trial court failed to consider his rehabilitative needs in violation of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b). Brief for Appellant at 8. Wood’s contentions do not raise a substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912, 918-19 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating that consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question); see also Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 936-37 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating that claims regarding the trial court’s failure to consider a defendant’s rehabilitation needs or imposition of a standard range sentence do not raise a substantial question). Moreover, where, as here, the trial court had the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation report, “we can assume that the [] court was aware of relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed mitigating statutory factors.” those considerations along with Rhoades, 8 A.3d at 919; see also Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1135 (Pa. Super. 2009) (stating that where the trial court had the benefit of a pre-sentence investigative report, it was aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations). Accordingly, we are precluded from addressing Wood’s -3- J-S68039-14 challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence of this basis. See Rhoades, 8 A.3d at 919 (wherein this Court concluded that it could not address appellant’s discretionary aspects of sentencing claim because a substantial question was not raised and the trial court had the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation report).2 Appeal dismissed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/9/2014 2 The trial court specifically stated during sentencing that nothing in Wood’s record indicated that he should receive a mitigated sentence. See N.T., 1/17/14, at 27. The trial court also rejected Wood’s characterization that he pled guilty to the crimes, as he did not fulfill the requirements of Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 590. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/29/14, at 8-9. Indeed, the jury specifically found Wood guilty of the above-mentioned crimes. See N.T., 11/22/13, at 18-19. Moreover, our review of the record indicates that the trial court considered Wood’s rehabilitation needs and had the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation report before imposing the sentence. See N.T.. 1/17/14, at 31-32 (wherein the trial court stated that Wood is not eligible for rehabilitation programs); see also Trial Court Opinion, 4/29/14, at 9. -4- Circulated 11/21/2014 09:56 AM Circulated 11/21/2014 09:56 AM Circulated 11/21/2014 09:56 AM Circulated 11/21/2014 09:56 AM Circulated 11/21/2014 09:56 AM Circulated 11/21/2014 09:56 AM Circulated 11/21/2014 09:56 AM Circulated 11/21/2014 09:56 AM Circulated 11/21/2014 09:56 AM

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.