COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ISAHIA HECHAVARRIA
No. 772 MDA 2024, No. 773 MDA 2024
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARCH 21, 2025
J-A27025-24; NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37; Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 25, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-35-CR-0000420-2023, CP-35-CR-0000658-2022
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
Isahia Hechavarria appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after he pled guilty to terroristic threats and kidnapping and aggravated assault in two separate cases involving different incidеnts and victims. He challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentences. Upon review, we vacate the sentence in the terroristic threats case, and we affirm the sentence in the aggravated assault and kidnapping case.
While out on bail for the charges pending in that case, Hechavarria was arrested and charged in the second case (2023 CR 420). The trial court set forth the facts as follows:
On 8/20/2022, an Officer from the Scranton Police Patrol division responded to 115 South Sumner Ave., for a report of a gunshot victim who was at the residence. Officer Hyler arrived on scene and observed the victim, Mercedes Gonzales, lying on the floor of the living room of the residence. Officеr Hyler observed a gunshot wound to Gonzales‘s left thigh. The bleeding was controlled, and Gonzales was conscious and alert.
Officer Hyler was able to interview Gonzales, who indicated that a male by the name of “Isaiah” was the actor however, his first name was spelled uncommonly. Isaiah was further described as a Cuban male.
Gonzales indiсated that she was the front seat passenger of a vehicle driven by Isaiah and she and Isaiah were the only occupants. Gonzales indicated that Isaiah shot her in the leg with a handgun which was described as a revolver, while in the vehicle. Gonzales then exited the passenger side of the vehicle and ran to 115 South Sumner Ave, where police were called. 115 South Sumner Ave. was not a known residence for Gonzales, and she went there looking for help. Gonzales also indicated that at some point during the altercation, while in possession of the weapon, Isaiah forcibly took her cellular phone (Apple iPhone) and Apple Watch.
Trial Court Opinion, 6/20/24, at 4-5.
Hechavarria filed this timely appeal. He and the trial court complied with Aрpellate Rule 1925.
On appeal, Hechavarria raises the following issues:
- Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion when it imposed:
- An unwarranted harsh and excessive sentence of twelve (12) to twenty-four (24) months on the terroristic threats offense (2022 CR 658) erroneously believing that it was a standard range sentence;
- An unwarranted harsh and excessive sentence of twenty-four (24) to forty-eight (48) months on the aggravated assault offense (2023 CR 420); and
- An unwarranted harsh and excessive aggravated range sentence of sixty-six (66) to one hundred thirty-two (132) months on the kidnapping offense (2023 CR 420).
- Whether the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences rather than concurrent sentences.
Hechavarria first claims that his sentence for terroristic threats was harsh and excessive because the trial court erroneously sentenced him in the aggravated range when the court intended to sentence him in the standard range. The trial court and the Commonwealth concede this error. Trial Court Opinion, 6/20/24, at 7-8; Commonwealth‘s Brief at 4. The minimum standard range sentence for this offensе was restorative sanctions (RS) to less than 12 months. However, the court imposed a sentence of 12 to 24 months’ incarceration. See N.T., 4/25/24, at 17-18. In its opinion, the trial court stated:
it does appear this court exceeded the standard guideline range by one day, resulting in an aggravated sentence. Furthermore, this court did not provide а statement of reasons for the aggravated sentence as required by law. As such, this court concedes error and asks for the matter to be remanded for resentencing on the terroristic threats . . . .
Trial Court Opinion, 6/20/24, at 7-8. Therefore, we need not further consider Hechavarria‘s issue regarding his sentence for terroristic threats. We will vacate the sentence in this case (2022 CR 658) and remand for further proceedings.
Hechavarria‘s two remaining issues pertain to the discretionary aspects of his sentence in the second case (2023 CR 420). “Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to review as of right.” Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010).
(1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether [a]ppellant preserved his issue; (3) whether [a]ppellant‘s brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence [in accordance with 2119(f)]; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is appropriate under the sentencing code . . . . [I]f the appeal satisfies each of these four requirements, we will then procеed to decide the substantive merits of the case.
Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033, 1042-43 (Pa. Super. 2014) (quoting Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa. Super. 2013)). Hechavarria has satisfied the first three requirements under Colon. Accordingly, we must determine whether Hechavarria has raised a substantial question.
In his Rule 2119(f) statement, Hechavarria claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed a harsh and excessive sentence for aggravated assault at the high end of the standard range and for kidnapping in the aggravated range. Hechavarria maintains that the court focused only on the crimes, especially kidnapping, and did not consider his background, character, rehabilitative needs, and mitigating factors. Hechavarria‘s Brief at 12. Additionally, Hechavarria clаims that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed the sentences for kidnapping and aggravated assault consecutive to each other because the incident involved the same victim and occurred at the same time. Id.
A court‘s exercise of discretion in imposing a sentence concurrently or consecutively does not ordinarily raise a substantial question. Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581, 587 (Pa. Super. 2010)[.] Rather, the imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences will present a substantial question in only “the most extreme circumstances, such as where the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the length of imprisonment.” Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365, 372 (Pa. Super. 2012)[(en banc)].
Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 338-39 (Pa. Super. 2015). “[T]he key to resolving the preliminary substantial question inquiry is whether the decision to sentence consecutively raises the aggregate sentence to, what
Based upon the foregoing, we conсlude that Hechavarria‘s challenge to the trial court‘s imposition of two lengthy consecutive sentences as unduly harsh and excessive, together with his claim that the court focused on the crimes without considering other pertinent sentencing factors when it sentenced him, presents a substantial question. Therefore, we will consider the merits of his sentencing claims.
Our standard of review of a sentencing claim is as follows:
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. In this context, an abuse of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, thаt 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.
Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1275 (Pa. Super. 2006). Where there is an abuse of discretion, the sentence must be vacated. See Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957, 961 (Pa. 2007).
The Sentencing Code requires that when sentencing a defendant, the triаl court must first consider the sentencing guidelines.
In his last two claims, Hechavarria maintains that his sentences for aggravated assault and kidnapping were harsh and excessive. Specifically, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed a 24-month minimum sentence of inсarceration for aggravated assault, which is at the highest end of the standard range. Additionally, he argues that the court did not indicate on the record the reasons for this sentence or explain what in his history or character necessitated a maximum sentence of 4 years’ incarceration. Hechavarria‘s Brief at 14. Regаrding his sentence for kidnapping, Hechavarria argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed a 66-month minimum sentence of incarceration for kidnapping, which is in the aggravated range. Id. at 13, 17.
In sentencing him as such, Hechavarria claims that the trial court did not consider his background and character, rehabilitative needs, оr relevant mitigating factors. Hechavarria argues: he is 23 years old; he is young enough to make changes and is amenable to doing so; he has mental health issues and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD“), but he is willing to address these issues. Instead of considering these factors, according to Hechavarria, the trial court focused exclusively on the seriousness of his offenses. Id. at 16-18.
Lastly, Hechavarria claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed his sentences for aggravated assault and kidnapping consecutively.
For these reasons, Hechavarria contends that his sentence for aggravated assault and kidnapping should be vacated, and the second case (2023 CR 420) also should be remanded for resentencing. We disagree.
Initially, we observe that the trial court considered the sentencing guidelines when it sentenced Hechavarria. Trial Court Opinion, 6/20/24, at 2. Hechavarria had a prior rеcord score of 3. N.T., 4/25/23, at 7. The offense gravity scores for aggravated assault and kidnapping were 8 and 10, respectively. Thus, the sentencing guidelines recommended a standard range, minimum sentence of 18 to 24 months, plus or minus 9 months, for aggravated assault, and 42 to 54 months’ incarceration, plus or minus 12 months, for kidnapping. Trial Court Opinion, 6/20/24, at 2.
The trial court sentenced Hechavarria to 24 to 48 months’ incarceration for aggravated assault. Hechavarria‘s minimum sentence for aggravated assault was within the standard range, albeit at the highest end. Sentences imposed within the standard range of the sentencing guidelines are presumed to be reasonable. Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1134 (Pa. Super. 2009). Additionally, his 4-year maximum sentence was well within the statutory limit of 10 years.
Regarding Hechavarria‘s sentence for kidnapping, the trial court sentenced him to 66 to 132 months’ incarceration, which was in the aggravated range. The court explained its reasons for this sentence:
Number one, at the time this incident was committed you were out on bail for a crime of viоlence. Number two, the victim was shot during the kidnapping. Number three, the victim escaped the kidnapping by jumping out of a moving car. And number four, you fled the scene resulting in a, for lack of a better word, a manhunt. So, all of those circumstances lead me to believe that a sentence that‘s aggravated is appropriate in this cаse.
N.T., 4/25/24, at 18-19. Thus, the court identified particular facts and gave specific reasons to support this sentence. Notably, the court did not focus only on the seriousness of the crime itself.
Furthermore, our review of the record shows that the trial court considered Hechavarria‘s character, background, rehabilitative needs, аnd relevant mitigating factors when it sentenced him for aggravated assault and kidnapping. The trial court had a presentence investigation report (“PSI“), which it reviewed. N.T., 4/25/24, at 17. It is well settled that where a sentencing court is informed by a PSI, “it is presumed that the court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and that where the court has been so informed, its discretion should not be disturbed.” Ventura, 975 A.2d at 1135. The court also noted that it reviewed the documents Hechavarria submitted, which included: a list of online classes he took while
Additionally, counsel highlighted the mitigating factors for the court, including Hechavarria‘s work in the kitchen, his prior drug problem, his three children, and prior employment. Id. at 8. Hechavarria told the court that he participated in therapeutic and cognitive thinking programs while incarcerated. He also told thе court about his: mental health issues, which stemmed from trauma in his life, alcoholism, education, employment after release, and remorse. Id. at 13-16. However, the trial court also received a statement from the victim explaining how this incident greatly affected her life and her family‘s, how she thought she would not escape the car аlive, and that she hoped his sentence would help restore her peace of mind. Id. 2-3.
Based upon our review of this case, and the sentencing transcript, we conclude that the trial court considered all the relevant sentencing factors. However, the nature and gravity of the offenses and Hechavarria‘s need for rеhabilitation and treatment weighed more heavily in the court‘s opinion. See id. at 19. On appeal, “[w]e cannot re-weigh the sentencing factors and impose our judgment in place of the sentencing court.” Macias, 968 A.2d at 778.
Lastly, regarding Hechavarria‘s consecutive sentences for aggravated assault and kidnapping, this Court has long held that a sentencing court has broad discretion regarding whether a defendant serves sentences
Based upon the foregoing, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court‘s sentence for Hechavarria‘s aggravated assault and kidnapping convictions. His claims merit no relief.
In conclusion, we vacate Hechavarria‘s sentence for terroristic threats in the first case and remand for resentencing in accordance with the trial court‘s request. We affirm Hechavarria‘s sentence in the second case for aggravated assault and kidnapping.
Judgment of sentence in 2022 CR 658 vacated in part and remanded with instructions; jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment of sentence in 2023 CR 420 affirmed in part.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/21/2025