⁴ As outlined in the affidavit of probable cause attached to the criminal complaint. Trial Court Opinion, May 4, 2023, at 1-3 (internal citations to guilty plea transcript and some footnotes omitted). In November 2022, the trial court held a sentencing hearing, where it heard from Montgomery County Detective David Holtzman, Walker’s sister Neiara Walker (“Neiara”), and Walker’s employer Khaleef Murray. Detective Holtzman testified as the affiant in the case and as an expert in the illegal transfer of firearms. He testified regarding Walker’s role in the conspiracy, including that “Walker set up, arranged to go to the gun stores. He contacted the gun stores. He gave . . . Gresham a ride to the gun stores, he accompanied him to the locations, provided him money to purchase the firearms, and subsequently put the guns on the street.” N.T., Nov. 29, 2022, at 15. Neiara testified about the murder of Walker’s father and the impact the murder had on Walker. Id. at 53-58. Murray testified that he has known Walker since he was a child, had employed Walker at his car dealership prior to his arrest, and would employ him again upon release from prison. Id. 50- 52. The trial court also heard Walker’s allocution, entertained argument from the assistant district attorney and defense counsel, and reviewed a presentence investigation report (“PSI”). The five convictions for the sale or transfer of firearms- second/subsequent offense were each subject to a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. The trial court imposed three consecutive five-to-ten-year sentences for three of the convictions. For the remaining two convictions, the court imposed five-to-ten-year sentences concurrent to the sentences imposed for the other convictions. For the sale or transfer of firearms-first offense conviction, the court imposed a concurrent two-to-five-year sentence. For the dealing in proceeds from unlawful activity and corrupt organizations convictions, the court imposed one and a half to three-year concurrent sentences. For the criminal use of a communication facility conviction, the court imposed no further penalty. The aggregate sentence was 15 to 30 years’ imprisonment. At sentencing, the trial court gave an extensive on-the-record explanation of its reasons for the sentence: This Court has considered a great deal of information. We spent a lot of time together today. I’ve considered all of the information presented today in the courtroom. I have the benefit of a [PSI], which I read with great interest. I’ve considered the sentencing memoranda presented and the letters presented in support of Mr. Walker. I considered the arguments of counsel, and, again, the testimony and Mr. Walker’s statements. So I want the record to be clear that I’ve considered everything here. And I’ve also considered, while it’s not really a part of the record, [the assistant district attorney] made reference to it, I’ve considered the co-defendant, because I was the sentencing Judge in Mr. Smalls’ case. So I had the benefit of hearing his role in the organization and I imposed the sentence on him. So, Mr. Walker, the first thing I’ll say to you is I’m very sorry for the loss of your father. It is very clear that that impacted your life, as one would expect, in a very tragic and negative way. Your sister’s testimony was very powerful in that regard. You were a very young person. You’re not a child, young child, but as a teenager, very close with your dad, and his death by gun violence I know set you on a trajectory that, perhaps, you could not have anticipated . . . in the earlier days of your life. And it’s clear from all of the other information that I’ve reviewed that things did change for you, and they changed for the absolute worse. And that’s something you’re going to have to deal with throughout the rest of your life, and there’s nothing that the Court can do about that. But I recognize it. I recognize how devastating that kind of event can be in somebody’s life, especially someone who’s young. I have looked at all aspects of this case. And I think that [defense counsel], perhaps, said it best: Mr. Walker took what was started by someone else and ran with it. In this case, Mr. Walker’s brother, Nasim Smalls, and Tyrone Gresham started something. I might analogize it to a lemonade or a snack stand. And Mr. Walker took it and ran with it and turned it into a conglomerate ready to be franchised. I mean, he just ran with it. Walker argues the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him to 15 to 30 years’ incarceration because it improperly focused on the nature of the offenses without considering Walker’s expression of remorse, acceptance of responsibility, lack of a significant criminal record, difficult childhood, and “excellent prospects for rehabilitation and future employment.” Id. at 7. He points out that if he had not been subject to the mandatory five- year minimum sentence for the sale or transfer of a firearm convictions, the standard guideline range for the convictions would have been 24 to 36 months’ incarceration. Walker claims the trial court improperly focused on the seriousness of the crime and its impact on the community while ignoring other relevant factors. He maintains the court failed to adequately explain how the sentence “was responsive to the standards embodied in the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9701, et seq.” Id. at 10. Walker maintains the court’s focus on the nature of the offense and the impact on the community to the exclusion of all other relevant factors was an abuse of discretion. In addition to the factors listed above, Walker notes that he was 21-years-old at the time of the PSI; he had been employed as a home health aide for his grandmother, worked construction for two years, and purchased and resold old cars; he enjoyed his family’s support, and would live with family when released from prison; and he had secured employment at a car dealership. He further ____________________________________________ entered an appearance in this Court. New counsel has informed this Court that he does not intend to file a new brief. pointed to the testimony of his sister regarding the impact his father’s murder had on him. He argues that his “involvement in criminality was an aberration for a young man with a demonstrated work ethic who had excelled in school and sports until his world collapsed when he lost the guidance of his father.” Id. at 14. He likens his case to Commonwealth v. Coulverson, 34 A.3d 135 (Pa.Super. 2011). There is no absolute right to appeal the discretionary aspects of a sentence. Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1042 (Pa.Super. 2013) (en banc). Rather, before addressing a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence, this Court must determine whether the appellant: (1) filed a timely notice of appeal; (2) properly preserved the sentencing issue at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider or modify sentence; (3) included in the appellate brief a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for appeal; and (4) has asserted a substantial question that the sentence is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code. See Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa.Super. 2013); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). “[I]f the appeal satisfies each of these four requirements, we will then proceed to decide the substantive merits of the case.” Austin, 66 A.3d at 808 (citation omitted). Walker filed a timely notice of appeal, preserved the issue in a post- sentence motion, and included in his appellate brief a concise statement of reasons relied upon for appeal. Further, Walker raises a substantial question in his statement of reasons—the court erred because it “relied solely on the seriousness of [Walker’s] crime and its impact on the community” and failed to consider all relevant sentencing factors when imposing the “unduly harsh” sentence, including, among other things, his rehabilitative needs. Walker’s Br. at 8; see Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 340 (Pa.Super. 2015) (finding a challenge to consecutive sentences as excessive, combined with a claim that the court failed to consider rehabilitative needs and mitigating factors, presented a substantial question). “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. Snyder, 289 A.3d 1121, 1126 (Pa.Super. 2023) (quoting Commonwealth v. Edwards, 194 A.3d 625, 637 (Pa.Super. 2018)). “An abuse of discretion occurs where ‘the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.’” Id. (citation omitted). In imposing a sentence, the sentencing court must consider “the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b). We presume a court that has the benefit of a PSI has been adequately apprised of all relevant sentencing information. Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903, 908 (Pa.Super. 2008). In Coulverson, the trial court imposed a sentence of 18 to 90 years’ incarceration. 34 A.3d at 139. The defendant argued the maximum sentence, which included multiple consecutive statutory maximum sentences, was clearly unreasonable. We agreed. We reasoned that the trial court’s acknowledgement of the PSI was “perfunctory,” and it “focused its consideration entirely on the severity of [the defendant’s] offenses and the victims’ impact statements.” Id. at 150. We pointed out that “[i]ts discussion evinced no consideration whatsoever of the dysfunction that marked [the defendant’s] own life, his cooperation and remorse, his attempts at reclaiming a productive role in society, or the possibility that, with appropriate mental health treatment, he might succeed at rehabilitation after serving a substantial term of [18] years’ incarceration.” Id. Walker’s claim lacks merit. Contrary to his contention, the trial court considered all factors presented, including his traumatic adolescence and rehabilitative prospects. However, the court also considered the seriousness of the crime and its impact on the community and, in balancing the sentencing factors, it imposed an aggregate sentence of 15 to 30 years’ incarceration. Unlike the sentence imposed by the trial court in Coulverson, the sentence here was individualized and was not clearly unreasonable. Based on the record, we cannot say the court abused its discretion. Judgment of sentence affirmed. - 10 - J-S31036-23 Date: 12/11/2023 - 11 -