J-A17021-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ROBERT WILLIAMS : : Appellant : No. 730 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 17, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011614-2007

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., RANSOM, J. and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 08, 2017

Appellant, Robert Williams, appeals from the judgment of sentence of six to twelve months of county incarceration plus six years of reporting probation, entered on February 17, 2016, following the revocation of his probation for technical violations. We affirm.

On August 28, 2008, Appellant was found guilty of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, intentional possession of a controlled substance, carrying a firearm without a license, carrying a firearm

in public in Philadelphia, possession of an instrument of crime, possession of a loaded weapon, and simple assault.^[1] The trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate of eleven and one-half to twenty-three months of county ____________________________________________

J-A17021-17

Appellant presents the following questions for our review:

J-A17021-17

Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence, a challenge which does not entitle him to review as of right. Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058, 1064 (Pa. Super. 2011). Prior to addressing a discretionary challenge, this Court engages in a four-part analysis: 1) whether the appeal is timely; 2) whether Appellant preserved his issue; 3) whether Appellant’s brief contains a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and 4) whether that statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is inappropriate under the sentencing code. See Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa. Super. 2013); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). Although Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, he did not preserve his claim at sentencing or in a timely post-sentence motion. See Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 365 (Pa. Super. 2005) (noting that issues challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence must be raised in a post-sentence motion or by presenting the claim to the court during sentencing proceedings; absent these efforts the issue is waived). Accordingly, Appellant has waived his challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Id. Next, Appellant purports to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the revocation hearing. First, he claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his revocation because Appellant’s submission of cold water as a urinalysis sample was not “willful conduct” amounting to a probation violation. See Appellant’s Brief at 28-29. Second, he claims that

J-A17021-17

there was no evidence for ten of the eleven travel violations. See Appellant’s Brief at 25. When reviewing a sufficiency challenge to revocation, we examine whether, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence and its inferences supported revoking probation. See Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033, 1041 (Pa. Super. 2014). Revocation of probation will be upheld where the Commonwealth proved by a preponderance of evidence that a defendant violated his probation. See Commonwealth v. Allshouse, 33 A.3d 31, 37 (Pa. Super. 2011). Willfulness of conduct is not a requirement for probation revocation; a court may revoke upon proof of violation of specified conditions of probation. See 42 Pa. C.S. 9771(b). Appellant was required to submit a urine sample for a mandatory drug screen as a term of his probation. TCO at 17. Appellant admitted to submitting a false sample for the urinalysis in violation of his terms of probation. See N.T., 12/10/15, at 49. This admission alone is sufficient to find a violation of probation. Accordingly, Appellant’s claim fails. Finally, Appellant’s 1925(b) statement does not raise the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the other ten violations. Thus, he has waived this claim for purposes of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provision of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”). The evidence was sufficient

J-A17021-17

to support the revocation of probation, and Appellant is not entitled to relief. Colon, 102 A.3d at 1041. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 9/8/2017