discretionary aspects claim in Pennsylvania

2017Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73, 83 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).

2017Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73, 83 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).

2018Commonwealth v. Machicote , 172 A.3d 595 , 602 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted).

2018As this Court has explained, in order to reach the merits of a discretionary aspects claim, we must engage in a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved his [or her] issue; (3) whether Appellant’s brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is appropriate under the [S]entencing [C]ode. ____________________________________________ 7 Appellant did not file a

2019Commonwealth v. Foust, 180 A.3d 416, 439 (Pa. Super. 2018) (cleaned up).

2019Id. (citations omitted).

2018Id. at 815-16 (quoting Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations omitted)).

2018Id. at 815-16 (quoting Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations omitted)).

2016See [Commonwealth v. Seagraves, 103 A.3d 839, 842 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal denied, 116 A.3d 604 (Pa. 2015)] (reviewing a juvenile appellant’s challenge to a life without parole sentence reimposed on remand following Miller and Batts II for an abuse of discretion); see also Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656, 662 (Pa.Super. 2015) (noting a discretionary aspects challenge based on a claim of an excessive sentence along with an assertion that the trial court did not consider a mitigating factor may present a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 133 (Pa.Super. 2014) (tre

2015See Seagraves, supra at 842 (reviewing a juvenile appellant’s challenge to a life without parole sentence reimposed on remand following Miller and Batts II for an abuse of discretion); see also Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656, 662 (Pa.Super.2015) (noting a discretionary aspects challenge based on a claim of an excessive sentence along with an assertion that the trial court did not consider a mitigating factor may present a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 133 (Pa.Super.2014) (treating a claim challenging the weight the trial court gave to various sentencing fa

2023See Mann, supra. Moreover, even if Appellant had preserved a discretionary aspects challenge, it would not merit relief.

2020See Mann, supra. Further, in his PCRA petition, Appellant did not assert he wished to raise on appeal an issue requiring preservation in the trial court or request reinstatement of his post-sentencing rights.

2023“Revocation of a probation sentence is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and that court’s decision will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an error of law or an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033, 1041 (Pa.Super. 2014).

2023“Revocation of a probation sentence is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and that court’s decision will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an error of law or an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033, 1041 (Pa.Super. 2014).

2017As this Court has explained, in order to reach the merits of a discretionary aspects claim, [w]e conduct a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether [the] appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence; (3) whether [the] appellant’s brief has a fatal defect; and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code. 12 Appellant does not challenge the discretionary aspects of his tampering with public records or making

2017Commonwealth v. Popielarcheck, 151 A.3d 1088, 1093 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted).

2026See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 936 (Pa. Super. 2013).2 ____________________________________________ 2 It is well-established that a defendant “cannot cure this waiver by including the challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing in his Rule 1925(b) statement.” Commonwealth v. Padilla-Vargas, 204 A.3d 971, 976 (Pa. Super. 2019). -3- J-S04030-26 Additionally, Appellant failed to raise a substantial question for our review.

2026See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 936 (Pa. Super. 2013).

2016See [Commonwealth v. Seagraves, 103 A.3d 839, 842 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal denied, 116 A.3d 604 (Pa. 2015)] (reviewing a juvenile appellant’s challenge to a life without parole sentence reimposed on remand following Miller and Batts II for an abuse of discretion); see also Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656, 662 (Pa.Super. 2015) (noting a discretionary aspects challenge based on a claim of an excessive sentence along with an assertion that the trial court did not consider a mitigating factor may present a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 133 (Pa.Super. 2014) (tre

2015See Seagraves, supra at 842 (reviewing a juvenile appellant’s challenge to a life without parole sentence reimposed on remand following Miller and Batts II for an abuse of discretion); see also Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656, 662 (Pa.Super.2015) (noting a discretionary aspects challenge based on a claim of an excessive sentence along with an assertion that the trial court did not consider a mitigating factor may present a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 133 (Pa.Super.2014) (treating a claim challenging the weight the trial court gave to various sentencing fa

2016See [Commonwealth v. Seagraves, 103 A.3d 839, 842 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal denied, 116 A.3d 604 (Pa. 2015)] (reviewing a juvenile appellant’s challenge to a life without parole sentence reimposed on remand following Miller and Batts II for an abuse of discretion); see also Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656, 662 (Pa.Super. 2015) (noting a discretionary aspects challenge based on a claim of an excessive sentence along with an assertion that the trial court did not consider a mitigating factor may present a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 133 (Pa.Super. 2014) (tre

2015See Seagraves, supra at 842 (reviewing a juvenile appellant’s challenge to a life without parole sentence reimposed on remand following Miller and Batts II for an abuse of discretion); see also Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656, 662 (Pa.Super.2015) (noting a discretionary aspects challenge based on a claim of an excessive sentence along with an assertion that the trial court did not consider a mitigating factor may present a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 133 (Pa.Super.2014) (treating a claim challenging the weight the trial court gave to various sentencing fa

2015Hence, we are precluded from addressing the discretionary aspects claim. 9 See Edwards, supra; Karns, supra. In his second issue, Appellant asserts that he was entitled to the same procedural due process afforded to an adult facing capital punishment under the.

2015Hence, we are precluded from addressing the discretionary aspects claim.9 See Edwards, supra; Karns, supra. In his second issue, Appellant asserts that he was entitled to the same procedural due process afforded to an adult facing capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment and Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

2023Id. (citation omitted).

2023Commonwealth v. Mulkin, 228 A.3d 913, 916 (Pa. Super. 2020) (some citations omitted).

2019Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900, 902 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted).

2018Commonwealth v. Disalvo , 70 A.3d 900 , 902 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citations omitted).

2016Batts, supra. See also Commonwealth v. Dawson, ___ A. 3d ___ [ 2015 PA Super 256 ] (Pa. Super. 2015) (denying appellant’s petition for permission to appeal the discretionary aspects of her sentence, where Commonwealth lodged objection to appellant’s failure to include a Rule 2119(f) statement in her brief).5 Having reviewed Lewis’s arguments, and having found them to be meritless or waived, we affirm the judgment of sentence.

2016See Batts II, 125 A.3d at 44 (declining to review a discretionary aspects claim where the appellant’s brief did not include a Rule 2119(f) statement, 9 Marinucci failed to raise her claim of bias before the trial court, either at sentencing or in her post-sentence Motion.

2015Hence, we are precluded from addressing the discretionary aspects claim. 9 See Edwards, supra; Karns, supra. In his second issue, Appellant asserts that he was entitled to the same procedural due process afforded to an adult facing capital punishment under the.

2015Hence, we are precluded from addressing the discretionary aspects claim.9 See Edwards, supra; Karns, supra. In his second issue, Appellant asserts that he was entitled to the same procedural due process afforded to an adult facing capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment and Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

2026Although she has not included in her brief a statement of the reasons to allow the discretionary-aspects challenge pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), we may overlook that deficiency because the Commonwealth has not objected and “the presence or absence of a substantial question can easily be determined from [her] brief.” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830 A.2d 1013, 1017 (Pa.Super. 2003).

2026See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 936 (Pa. Super. 2013).2 ____________________________________________ 2 It is well-established that a defendant “cannot cure this waiver by including the challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing in his Rule 1925(b) statement.” Commonwealth v. Padilla-Vargas, 204 A.3d 971, 976 (Pa. Super. 2019). -3- J-S04030-26 Additionally, Appellant failed to raise a substantial question for our review.

2024See Appellant’s reply brief at 4 (citing Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 580 A.2d 857, 860 (Pa.Super. 1990)).

2023Commonwealth v. Aulisio, 253 A.3d 338 , 343–44 (Pa. Super. 2021) (quoting Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010)).

2023Commonwealth v. Aulisio, 253 A.3d 338 , 343–44 (Pa. Super. 2021) (quoting Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 , 170 (Pa. Super. 2010)).

2023Commonwealth v. Williams, 198 A.3d 1181, 1186 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

2020See id. (holding that the Miller factors were immaterial where the Commonwealth did not seek LWOP, and instead, considering the sentencing issue as a discretionary aspects challenge under the sentencing code).

2020See Commonwealth v. Tukhi, 149 A.3d 881, 888 (Pa.Super. 2016) (determining defendant waived discretionary aspects of sentencing claim by not preserving issue at sentencing or in post-sentence motion; waived issue is frivolous in context of Anders brief). -8- J-S07026-20 Moreover, even if Appellant had preserved a discretionary aspects challenge, it would not merit relief.

2020“Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

2019See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843, 848 (Pa.Super. 2006) (holding substantial question raised by claim court improperly based aggravated range sentence on factor constituting element of the offense); Commonwealth v. Ritchey, 79 A.2d 1183 , 1186 (Pa.Super. 2001) (holding substantial question raised by claim court provided insufficient reasons for sentence and relied solely on seriousness of offense). -8- J-S49043-19 -9-

2019See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Kiesel, 854 A.2d 530, 533 (Pa.Super. 2004) (“Because the Appellant failed to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) and the Commonwealth -4- J-A27009-19 objected to the omission, this Court may not review the merits of the claim, and we deny allowance of appeal.”).1 Judgment of sentence affirmed.

2018See Kalichak, supra at 290-93 .