J-S42018-20
`
`NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
`
`
`COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`
`GABRIEL ORTIZ
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Appellant
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
` IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
` PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
` No. 3281 EDA 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 25, 2017
`In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
`No(s): CP-51-CR-0001019-2015,
`CP-51-CR-0001019-2015
`
`
`BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
`
`MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed: December 17, 2020
`
`
`
`Appellant, Gabriel Ortiz, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered
`
`on August 25, 2017 in the Criminal Division of the Philadelphia County Court
`
`of Common Pleas. We dismiss the appeal.
`
`
`
`At approximately 7:52 p.m. on February 26, 2013, Appellant shot Miguel
`
`Gonzalez multiple times in the chest, back, and left leg. Gonzalez
`
`subsequently died of his wounds.
`
`
`
`On February 13, 2017, Appellant entered a guilty plea to third-degree
`
`murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and possessing an instrument of
`
`crime.1 Although the trial court described Appellant’s plea as “open,” it was
`
`subject to an agreement between the parties that Appellant’s aggregate
`
`sentence would be capped at 15 to 30 years’ imprisonment. On August 25,
`
`____________________________________________
`
`1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c), 903, and 907(a), respectively.
`
`
`
`

`

`J-S42018-20
`
`2017, in accordance with the parties’ agreement, the trial court sentenced
`
`Appellant to concurrent terms of 15 to 30 years’ incarceration for third-degree
`
`murder and criminal conspiracy, as well as a concurrent term of two years of
`
`reporting probation for possessing an instrument of crime. The court directed
`
`these sentences to run concurrently to any other sentence Appellant was
`
`serving. On August 31, 2017, Appellant moved for reconsideration of his
`
`sentence, which the court denied on October 18, 2017.
`
`
`
`Appellant filed a notice of appeal on November 17, 2017. On November
`
`27, 2017, the trial court ordered Appellant to file and serve a concise
`
`statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
`
`After several extensions, Appellant filed his concise statement on May 17,
`
`2018. On June 14, 2018, the trial court issued its Pa.R.A.P 1925(a) opinion,
`
`explaining that the court complied with the dictates of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721
`
`and, more specifically, considered Appellant’s mental illness and treatment
`
`history before imposing sentence. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/14/18, at 4–7.
`
`
`
`Appellant alleges on appeal that the sentencing court failed to properly
`
`consider Appellant's mental illness in imposing its sentence in this case. In
`
`support of this claim, Appellant submitted a one-page argument baldly
`
`asserting that his sentence was manifestly unreasonable because the trial
`
`court acknowledged, but failed to consider, his mental illness. Appellant’s
`
`submission neither refers to nor discusses with specificity the evidentiary
`
`record or the relevant pleadings, orders, and opinions that appear on the trial
`
`court’s docket. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (points raised in arguments submitted
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`J-S42018-20
`
`before Superior Court shall be addressed through discussion and citation of
`
`authorities as are deemed pertinent). Moreover, while Appellant challenges
`
`the discretionary aspects of his sentence, he neglected to include a concise
`
`statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of his appeal, as required
`
`by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f).2 Because Appellant’s threadbare and undeveloped
`
`argument omits discussion of relevant facts, issues, and pertinent authority,
`
`we deem it deficient and we further find that those deficiencies undermine
`
`meaningful appellate review. For these reasons, we dismiss this appeal.3 See
`
`____________________________________________
`
`2 The Commonwealth has not objected to this omission.
`
` 3
`
` Even if we undertook conventional appellate review, Appellant would not be
`entitled to relief. Appellant’s argument is that the trial court inadequately
`considered his mental illness in fixing his sentence. Here, however, the parties
`agreed that the maximum aggregate sentence the court could impose was a
`term of 15 to 30 years’ imprisonment. The court accepted this agreement and
`imposed an aggregate sentence of 15 to 30 years for third-degree murder,
`criminal conspiracy, and possessing an instrument of crime. Ordinarily, the
`law only permits a discretionary sentencing challenge to the aspects of a
`sentence which fall outside the scope of a plea agreement. See
`Commonwealth v. Reichle, 589 A.2d 1140, 1141 (Pa. Super. 1991) (noting
`that “there is no authority to permit a challenge to the discretionary aspects
`of [a] sentence” where the appellant received what was promised under the
`terms of an agreement). Moreover, Appellant does not appear to make a
`showing that his claims constitute a substantial question in the sense that the
`sentencing court took action inconsistent with the Sentencing Code or contrary
`to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process. See
`Commonwealth v. Cannon, 954 A.2d 1222, 1229 (Pa. Super. 2008).
`“[T]his Court has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate
`consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for
`our review.” Id. (citation omitted). Because Appellant received sentences
`within the standard range of the guidelines, “a review of the merits of the
`discretionary aspects of his sentence is not warranted.” Id. Lastly, a review
`of the transcript from Appellant’s sentencing hearing reveals that the trial
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`J-S42018-20
`
`Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (briefs “shall conform in all material respects with the
`
`requirements of the [appellate rules]” and appeals shall be subject to
`
`dismissal where defects in an appellant’s brief are substantial).
`
`
`
`Appeal dismissed.
`
`Judgment Entered.
`
`
`
`
`
`Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
`Prothonotary
`
`
`
`Date: 12/17/20
`
`____________________________________________
`
`court reviewed a Social Security Disability opinion discussing Appellant’s
`mental illness, a presentence investigation report, and an evaluation
`addressing Appellant’s mental health. See N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 8/25/17,
`at 18. The court also explained that it considered the sentencing guidelines
`and gave due consideration to “every aspect of the requirements.” Id. at 20.
`Hence, it does not appear that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing
`standard range sentences for Appellant’s crimes.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`