*4 HUDOCK, ROWLEY, JJ. Before POPOVICH HUDOCK, Judge: trial, guilty found
Following nonjury substance with of a controlled possession four counts intent Timely post-trial deliver.1 filed motions were denied. Appellant’s original sentence of 8 to 20 years imprisonment was reduced to an aggregate term of 7 years in response to his motion to modify sentence. (1) (2) was also ordered to the costs pay: prosecution; $1,750 the sum of as restitution for the money advanced for cases; in police undercover activities connection with these (3) $2,000. a fine of A second motion to modify was denied appeal and this follows.2 For the reasons set forth below, affirm. appeal instant raises following issues for
our review:
(1) The trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to
dismiss the prosecutions pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(f).
(2) The trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss
on the of a violation of Appellant’s basis due process rights under the federal and state constitutions. (3) The trial court erred in refusing grant a motion for participation
recusal based on of the trial judge plea negotiations contravention of Pa.R.Crim.P. 319(b)(1).
(4) 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9781 is unconstitutional as it V,
direct conflict 10(c) with Article 9 and §§ Pennsylvania Constitution.
(5) The sentence imposed by harsh, the trial court
excessive and a gross abuse discretion and other- wise unconstitutional under the federal and state con- stitutions.
The facts of the case were summarized the trial court Following as follows. the sale of controlled substances Appellant to N. Trooper Morey, Ranee agent undercover Police, Pennsylvania for the State three complaints criminal were filed against Appellant December 1981. The 780-113(a)(30). 1. 35 P.S. § modify April We note that the second motion to was denied on 1987 after a notice of had been filed with this Court. *5 a Schedule delivered alleged Appellant that complaint
first complaint substance, The second cocaine. II controlled to a with intent deliver alleged Appellant possessed that substance, approximately I controlled non-narcotic Schedule alleged complaint third marijuana. The pounds of two II to deliver a Schedule with intent Appellant possessed substance, methamphetamine. ounce of one non-narcotic filed in connection with these Criminal informations were C.A., No. 6 1982. offenses at 1982, filed 24, complaint criminal was another
On March with intent to possessed that he against Appellant, alleging substance, II co non-narcotic controlled deliver Schedule caine, also with intent to deliver a possessed that he substance, marijuana. I non-narcotic controlled Schedule from purchase This was the result of a controlled complaint Trooper approximately ounces Appellant by Morey 1½ informa pounds marijuana. cocaine and 1½ Criminal C.A., to regard No. 141 these tions were filed at with offenses. 22, 1982, April request filed a Appellant
On 780-1183, appointment physician pursuant of a 35 P.S. § The punishment. in lieu of trial criminal trial disposition or order reflecting court entered an its refusal of 7, Appellant’s appeal on 1982. from request September quashed being interlocutory. order Allocatur was as Supreme subsequently granted our Court. How ever, withdrew his when Common examined agreed permit Appellant wealth The physician in accordance with 35 P.S. 780-118. record § Supreme to the trial from our Court on was returned 3,May 1985. had never filed a motion for
Because trial extension of time within which to commence under 1100(c), filed motions to dismiss Pa.R.Crim.P. two 1985, 1100(f) and July 8, based on Pa.R.Crim.P. on a court held process claimed due violation. trial these 14, 1972, 14, 64, 18, 233, April June As § P.L. No. eff. 1972. amended Oct. P.L. No. imd. effective. week, following fixed for the motions until the trial date *6 15, date, 1985. that the court entered an order July On motions, immediately and trial commenced denying both of issues raised multiplicity thereafter. We will address by Appellant seriatim. brief, argues underly
In his that the cases Appellant two for of his ing appeal right this should be dismissed violation 1100, 42 pursuant to a trial to Pa.R.Crim.P. Pa.C. speedy 1100(a)(2), S.A. Rule at the time the within criminal com filed, case in plaints provided were that a trial a court against is filed the defendant complaint which written from on days shall commence no later than 180 the date complaint Appellant which the is filed.4 summarizes his C.A., as in No. 6 1982 was position complaint follows. 141 Complaint filed on December 1981 while the No. C.A., 1982 filed on March calcu was lates the time of period filing complaints of between 1,300 1,209 and his trial as being days respectively. contends that 81 from a only days, resulting limited his Rule for the right, period May waiver of 23, 1982, July 1982 to are excludable in connection with C.A., concedes, however, No. 6 1982. He that the period delay appeal process, for the calculated to be 966 is days, excludable. to the calculation of the Rule respect With C.A., period regarding charges time at No. 1982, Appellant maintains that only 966-day appeal discussion, period following is Based on the excludable. find contentions are erroneous. 1100(d),
Initially,
during
we note that Rule
effective
case,
periods
all
of time relevant to this
mandated that any
period of
of the
delay
any stage
proceedings
results
31, 1987,
4. Effective December
Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100 was amended so
1100(a)(2)
that Pa.R.Crim.P.
now states that a trial in a court case in
defendant,
complaint
against
which a written
is filed
where the
incarcerated,
days
defendant
is
shall commence no later than 180
complaint
from the date on which the
is filed.
Pa.R.Crim.P.
1100(a)(3) now mandates
that a trial
in a court case in which a
defendant,
complaint
against
written
is filed
where the defendant
bail,
liberty
days
is at
on
shall commence no later than 365
from the
complaint
date on which the
is filed.
attorney
or his
of the defendant
unavailability
from the
com
determining
period
excluded when
must be
Riffert,
Pa.Su
of trial.5 mencement
Further,
we observe
10, 549 A.2d
per.
filing
intervening
a defendant’s
time
between
that the
of such
disposing
court’s
motions and
trial
pre-trial
from the
excluded
properly
is also time which
motions
Rule 1100 due to
under
computation
180-day period
the defendant. unavailability
until
could not commence
supra
(defendant’s trial
Riffert,
the trial
disposed
motion was
pretrial
his omnibus
while his motion
thus, he
unavailable
be tried
court;
that a case is
period
the time
Additionally,
was pending).
computa
from the Rule 1100
excluded
properly
*7
Commonwealth, 495
490,
v.
Here, petition for to file an appellant’s interlocutory leave that, appeal rendered her unavailable for trial. we Given appellant’s unavailability must look to see whether result- ed in the date on court any delay beyond which this did; remanded the record to the trial court. it Plainly, delay scheduling some a case for trial is inevitable remand, for the trial court expect- whenever we cannot be
115
once with
at
proceed
else and
everything
drop
toed
the record
know from
Here
do not
we
remanded.
case
mentioned, occurred, for as
much delay
exactly how
remanded the
we
exactly
disclose
when
not
does
record
for on
slight,
delay
that the
was
record;
do know
but we
decision
after our
8, 1982,
days
thirty
less than
March
file an interlocu-
leave to
for
appellant’s petition
denying
April
trial for
scheduled
the trial court
tory appeal,
for continu-
request
further
appellant’s
for
but
then.
ance,
have commenced
trial would
defined
cannot be
unavailability
cases establish
Our
to the facts
according
must
determined
but
be
precisely
case____
finding
difficulty
I
have no
therefore
of each
to the trial
our remand
from the date of
delay
that the
19, 1982,
trial,
fairly
was
April
for
to the date set
delay
appellant’s unavailability.
to
attributable
excluded,”
it
...
from which
“automatically
therefore
(Citations omit-
tried.
timely
was
appellant
follows that
ted)
Thus,
360-61,
Id., Pa.Superior 350 Ct. to the date of remand from the delay conclude that the following the withdraw- our Court Supreme trial court from 3, 1985, the date set Appellant’s appeal, May al Appel- trial, attributable July (66 days) period that this of time unavailability lant’s computation from the excluded automatically therefore date. Rule 1100 run Appel of time that period we calculate Accordingly, C.A., to No. 6 for trial with reference lant was available that trial on calculations show days.6 123 Our C.A., 6 1982 23, 1981) (Complaint filed December Days Available for Trial: Month: December, January, 1982
February, 1982
March,
116 C.A., 141 1982 listed at No. commenced within charges began days 1100 as trial 32 countable period the Rule time Because find complaint that, was filed.7 we based after trial, was tried within Appellant on his availability 1100, Rule conclude mandate of 180-day this underlying cases entitled to have two not dismissed. court erred trial next contends of a violation of to dismiss on basis motion
denying federal and state constitu- under the process rights his due argues he predicated what argument This tions. illegal intentional the trial court’s and Commonwealth’s 780-118(a) of the under Con- rights of his frustration 4/22/82) (Pre-trial 22 April, filed motion 1982 7, 22, 0 1982—September April 1982 when motion denied 10, 7, appellate September 1982—September when 1982 3 process began 10, 3, 1982—May (Appeal period) 0 September 1985 3, (Record May to trial court on 1985 remanded 15, 5/3/85)—July 1985 trial) (Date 0 of commencement filing Complaint days until Commence- from Total 123 Trial ment of C.A., 141 1982 24, 1982) (Complaint filed March
Days Available for Trial: Month: March, 7 1982 4/22/82) (Pre-trial 22 April, filed 1982 motion 7, 22, 0 1982—September April 1982 when motion denied 10, appellate September 1982—September when 1982 3 process began Period) (Appeal 0 September 1982—May (Record May trial court on remanded to 5/3/85)—July trial) (Date commencement Complaint filing Days until Commence- from Total of Trial ment *10 .8 Act, Substance, 35 Drug, trolled Device Cosmetic P.S of due alleged process, Appellant Because of this violation charges claims he is entitled to a dismissal criminal reasons, we find this con against following him. For the merit. Appellant totally tention of to be without which protection upon constitutional in the due clause of independently process relies is based of the land the United States Constitution and law Const. clause of Constitution. U.S. Pennsylvania XIV; I, provisions Amend. Pa. Const. art. 9. These § life, guarantee person deprived liberty, that a is not to be (14th Amendment) due of law property process or without (art. I, 9). The terms unless of the land or law § legal are process “law of the land” and “due of law” Heck, equivalents. Commonwealth v. Pa.Super. 341 (1985), A.2d 575 A.2d 212 affirmed 517 Pa. 535 491 (1987) (citation omitted). for those process respect person
Due
of law insures
immunities so rooted in the traditions and conscience
al
fundamental,
implicit
as to
ranked as
or those
people
our
(citation omitted).
In
Id.
in
concept
liberty.
ordered
process
of the due
order for
to claim a violation
constitutions,
would
clauses of the federal and state
which
him relief,
illegal
an intentional and
entitle
there must be
of a fundamental con
governmental body
frustration
a
v.
Darcy Handy,
U.S. ex rel.
right Appellant.
stitutional
(1951),
grounds,
rev’d on other
930
Further, (1989), this Court concluded while 557 A.2d *11 in an ARD is program solely for placement recommendation of prosecutor, of the admission an province within the is of the trial court program by grace offender into the Therefore, an motion. accused upon the Commonwealth’s into the right acceptance program has no to demand he complain precluded participation. when is from cannot 232, Accord, v. Ayers, Commonwealth Pa.Super. 363 525 Likewise, (1987). by analogy, acceptance A.2d 804 disposition into in lieu of trial or program accused grace 780-118 is of the punishment criminal under § Accordingly, motion. trial court on the Commonwealth’s due Appellant’s there was no violation we find that state constitutions as rights under the federal and process not fundamental constitu disposition under 780-118 is § right. tional reaching questions which raises
Before sentence, argu must first we address concerning his Pennsyl of the 42 9781 violative ments that Pa.C.S.A. § 9781, contends that as vania Constitution.9 § Tuladziecki, v. 508, 513 Pa. Commonwealth interpreted in cases (1987) appellate jurisdiction 17 522 A.2d “limit[s] discretionary aspects is a review of the where the issue maintains, This, 29.) at he (Appellant’s brief sentence.” V, 9, Pennsylvania in direct conflict with art. issue; instead, simply it does not brief this 9. The Commonwealth argues question as to [the] record does not raise substantial that "the 9.) (Commonwealth’s at brief propriety [of sentences.]"
119 argument acknowledge We Constitution. Judge distinguished colleague, of our the concerns echoes Barnes, Pa.Super. 388 See, v. Commonwealth Del Sole. (en banc) (Del Sole, concurring); (1989) J. 327, A.2d 777 565 339, A.2d Laskaris, Pa.Super. 385 561 v. Commonwealth Nevertheless, (Del Sole, analy- our (1989) concurring). J. 16 controlling appel- scheme statutory convinces us that sis the provi- does not conflict with review of sentences late of our State Constitution. sions recalling that are commences analysis
Our
attempt
exercise
reasonable
vindicate
obliged
every
provisions.
its
uphold
of a statute
constitutionality
549, 569,
Trill,
543 A.2d
Pa.Super.
v.
Commonwealth
(1988) (citation omitted),
allocatur denied
Jones,
(1989);
vidual’s of right in all to a court of right appeal There shall a of cases be record; and there shall also record from a court not of be an from a court of record or from right appeal a of to an to a court of record or agency administrative court, provided the selection of such court to be appellate rights appeal shall other such of as law; and there be by law. may provided be noted, that this V, already As maintains 9.
art. § which, in pertinent Pa.C.S.A. restricted right § part provides:10 may file a petition or the Commonwealth
The defendant discretionary aspects of the of a appeal of for allowance to appellate a misdemeanor felony sentence for or appeals. for such jurisdiction has initial Allow- court that at the discretion may granted appeal ance is a it that there substan- appears court where appellate not imposed appropriate the sentence question tial chapter. under this 9781(b) language limiting, do as not view
We
§
right
relinquishing
or
a convicted defendant’s
restricting,
An
access to this Court
appellant’s
this Court.
appeal to
Rather,
9781(b)
find
to be a
remains undisturbed.
we
§
establishing a threshold burden which
enactment
legislative
discretionary as-
appealing
who is
from the
appellant,
sentence, must first
before we will consider
pects
satisfy
minimis threshold bur-
This
de
appeal.
of the
the merits
to entertain
jurisdiction
does not defeat this Court’s
den
Rather,
procedural
mechanism
appeals.
places
such
it
the questions
are
determine whether
whereby able
further
posed
import
of sufficient
to warrant
review.
are
9781(b),
Legislature
clearly
has
acknowl-
adopting
In
§
given
trial courts
deep-rooted tradition that
are
edged the
sentences, and,
has
yet,
it
bal-
fashioning
latitude
wide
recognizing that
process
discretion with a review
anced that
completely
not
unfettered.
such discretion is
recognizes
uniqueness
statutory scheme
[T]he
encompassed
that is
the sentenc-
exercise of discretion
9781(b)
defendant
provides the
or
ing decision. Section
a limited
in an attack
only
the Commonwealth with
discretionary
legal
of a
sentence
upon
aspects
[this
V,
Appellant argues only
art.
9781 conflicts with
9. With-
§
only
greater specificity,
gravamen
we can
assume that the
out
*13
argument
language
point
this
the
contained
9781(b),
Appeal.
of
Allowance
§
Pa.C.S.A.
court],
statutory-
Thus the
appellate
[footnote omitted]
law, recognizing that
long standing
reflects the
case
law
should not
prerogative
sentencing
trial court’s
be
the
Green, 494 Pa.
fettered.
unduly
(1981);
474 Pa.
Sutley,
imposed § V, 10(c) infringe of our with art. State Constitution § Supreme rule-making authority. Appel Court’s upon 2116(b), requiring questions cites to Pa.R.A.P. “any lant aspects imposed of the sentence ...” discretionary Questions Involved appellant’s included “Statement example as an of such a conflict. He maintains Appeal”, has Supreme specifically provided ap Court of sentence in peals discretionary aspects promul from the 2116(b), Rule such have been gating appeals unduly but Legislature’s adoption restricted § V, 10(c) pertinent part Pennsylvania The of art. of the provides: Constitution power prescribe
The shall have the Supreme Court general governing practice, procedure rules and the con courts, duct of all ... such rules are consistent with if enlarge this and neither nor abridge, Constitution nor modify rights any litigant, the substantive affect to determine the right Assembly General any court.... jurisdiction of
(Emphasis supplied) language is clear above that quoted
It from rule-making is not absolute. Supreme authority Court’s general promulgated by Supreme may rules Court to determine right Assembly not “affect the General Thus, court.” we find there is no jurisdiction any wherein the General conflict between Pa.C.S.A. § ap- this court’s to hear Assembly jurisdiction determined *14 sentence, of and the discretionary aspects from the peals The fash- authority. rules rule-making Court’s Supreme simply constitutionally cannot Supreme the Court ioned of jurisdiction this legislatively the determined supercede Court. challenge to final constitutional
In his third and (f), which “denies argues that subsection § of appeal for allowance right petition the to a absolutely challenge sentence any of unsuccessful Supreme the Court V, conflicts with art. of Court[,]” also Superior § 30.) find (Appellant’s brief We the State Constitution. As wholly previous in merit. argument lacking “a discussed, guarantees Constitution Pennsylvania ly appellate from of record ... to aw a court right court, provided by of such court to be law.” the selection V, providing In (Emphasis supplied) 9. art. “[t]he § appellate jurisdiction have exclusive Superior Court shall are except appeals such classes of as ... appeals all ... or Supreme of the Court jurisdiction the exclusive within this Court[,]” legislature selected the Commonwealth defendant to which convicted appellate Court as The 42 Pa.C.S.A. Constitu right appeal. has the § nothing more. tion requires reasons, 42 Pa.C.S.A.
For we conclude that foregoing plainly and violate our clearly, palpably, 9781 does not State Constitution. relating his Appellant’s arguments
We now address questions In statement involved section of sentence. brief, imposed the sentence Appellant queries his whether harsh, and a this case was excessive trial court unconstitutional discretion and otherwise gross abuse of in that: federal and state constitutions under the on the nature of the (a) solely The trial court focused failed to consider individual charges utterly and family of the and that characteristics sentence; fashioning appropriate in it situation punishment is cruel and unusual (b) The sentence of the to the nature and seriousness disproportional offenses, to the sentence disproportional and also co-defendant; con- (c) adequately properly The trial court failed to factors favor a statutory sider the and social which sentence of probation;
(d) spirit legisla- imposed sentence violates *15 in that it is imposed sentencing guidelines
tively sentencing line grossly then-applicable out of with the of offense for which sen- guidelines type for tenced;
(e) justi- The trial court failed to state sufficient reasons a sentence of total incarceration of this dura-
fying tion;
(f) The trial failed to determine Appellant’s ability he pay especially
to fines and costs since will be time; period incarcerated for a and lengthy The trial court made (g) regarding Appel- statements are drug
lant’s rehabilitation and activities which to- which, fact, in tally unsupported by the record and case; further, to the contrary were record this and held him for and responsible unspecified nebulous drug charged sales for which he was not or convicted. 8-9.) (Appellant’s pp. brief at
As
makes
Appellant only
a bald assertion that
the sen
imposed
tence
is
unconstitutional
under the fed
“otherwise
constitutions”,
eral and state
he does not assail
because
of his sentence
that
it exceeds the
legality
by claiming
limits,
his
as a
to the
statutory
argument
challenge
we view
Therefore,
of his
discretionary aspects
sentence.
an
right,
Appellant’s appeal
this case is not taken as of
concerning
imposed
the sentence
must
considered as a
v.
Commonwealth
petition
permission
appeal.
for
Williams,
Appel
Here, ignored years five the lower court factors appellant, myriad from the and free behavior a produc- that Mr. Chilcote had become suggested which had, fact, and earned a sentence society tive member of among myriad Included those factors were probation. had raising family, Mr. was married and Chilcote and most liking, found a well much to his very paying job all, there did not to be indica- importantly appear any related to resuming previous illegal activity tion of his his controlled substances.
Also, in letters and as witnesses fifty people over Mr. offered favorable comments on behalf of Chilcote court, and it is without doubt that a co-defendant this matter received a time and sen- probationary served Mr. to twenty tence whereas Chilcote received seven years. did,
In fashioning sentence it the lower fo- solely exclusively cused on the nature of the offenses involved, yet, unspecified and worse even ascribed drug debulous to Mr. activity Chilcote. [sic] Lastly, way beyond sentencing the sentence was guidelines applicable though at the time even the case was not controlled sentencing guidelines them- selves.
All of these factors strongly support combined to claim that this sentence was harsh and exces- extremely and an sentencing sive abuse of the discretion vested in our trial courts. readily apparent, Appellant
As is has omitted from his 2119(f) statement allegations presented several of the questions concerning statement of involved his sentence. *17 at 437-438. These supra allegations See omitted include contentions that the trial court failed to the consider individ fashioning ual characteristics of when the sen tence; punishment, tha the sentence is cruel and unusual t disproportional to the nature and seriousness of the spirit the
offenses; imposed violates that the sentence justification that sufficient sentencing guidelines; the stated; not and that the imposed was length sentence the ability to to sentencing court failed determine fines and costs. pay statements, 2119(f) Rule to required
With reference
the en banc
of this Court which
panel
observe that
Williams,
our
supra,
v.
noted that
Commonwealth
decided
appellant
“if
in
has held that
the brief
the
Court
Supreme
sentence does
aspects
discretionary
from the
statement,
2119(f)
Superior
not include Rule
[the
Court]
opposing party
the
has
though
even
quash
appeal,
the
may
statement,
‘if
of the
no
to
absence
objection
raised
hampered by the lack
may
significantly
review
”
327,
at
562 A.2d at
Pa.Super.
Id. 386
concise statement.’
Gambal,
280,
v.
522 Pa.
quoting Williams
(1989). The
Court also noted
A.2d
Gambal,
supra,
the decision in that
since, Williams,
case
it
dispositive of the
before
not
2119(f)
(but
flawed) Rule
statement had
fatally
requisite
Common
opined that
decision
provided,
been
but
importance
illustrate the
wealth
Gambal
“serves to
reviewing
upon
of the
of reasons relied
court
statement
327, 562
Id.
at
at
appeal”.
for allowance of
Gambal
that
Court also
A.2d 1388. We further note
“
having
access to
concise statement
opined
‘[b]y
2119(f),
may
reviewing
under Pa.R.A.P.
required
determination of whether a substantial
be aided
its
make a
hoc deter
post
without
exists,
having
question
”
entire
Common
reviewing
mination
after
brief’
Gambal,
285-86,
supra
wealth v.
Appellant’s him sentencing court held of his sentence is that the aspects unspecified drug sales responsible for nebulous and This claim is charged he not or convicted. belied which was sentencing proceedings. Contrary transcript assertions, merely trial court reiterated Appellant’s his during compilation of by Appellant made statements with and in course of his interviews report presentence (N.T., at Drs. and Sadoff. Wawrose 3/6/87, 27-29.) leads to the sentencing proceedings of the Our review not re- arguments do warrant Appellant’s conclusion that lief. erred in re- the trial court lastly argues participation recusal a motion for based
fusing grant in contravention negotiations in plea trial judge claim 319(b)(1). any concedes that Pa.R.Crim.P. waived, the trial is but that during the trial of unfairness hearing appear- creates sentencing sitting at of judicial which the canons impropriety ance of bias 27-28.) Appel- at (Appellant’s brief seek to avoid. ethics preside another judge relief is that requested lant’s discussed, nothing we find previously As resentencing. sentence, it making thereby with inappropriate further. consider this contention for us to unnecessary affirmed; appeal of sentence judgment in part. quashed
POPOVICH, J., concurring opinion. files POPOVICH, concurring. Judge, disagreement with my to note separately I write “42 9781 does not Pa.C.S.A. conclusion that majority’s § our Constitu- violate State plainly clearly, palpably, 440) Rather, I am convinced that (Opinion at tion.” § appeal a defendant right of the absolute violates Constitution, Article Pennsylvania to the pursuant sentence provides: 9 which in all cases to a court right appeal There shall be record; also and there shall a court not of record from record or from an from a court of right *21 record or to an to a court of agency administrative as to be court, the selection of such appellate law; rights such other and there shall be by provided law. provided by may as col- distinguished agree my me to with leads My opinion Sole, who, concurring in his Del Joseph league, Judge
131 Barnes, 388 v. in Commonwealth opinion concluded, “... (1989), also 777, 781 A.2d 9 of the Article Section 9781(b) violates Pa.C.S.A. § of the analysis adopt I his Constitution.” Pennsylvania Barnes, A.2d at set forth issue as constitutional Laskaris, 385 Pa.Su- v. See also Commonwealth 780-781. Sole, Del by (1989) (concurring opinion 561 A.2d per. J.). require the with compliance convinced
I am further Tuladziecki, 508, 522 Pa. ments of adding by resources (1987) judicial wastes valuable A.2d 17 attack on defendant’s of a analysis tier to our additional sentence.1 of his aspects discretionary issues. sentencing appellant’s address simply should We discretionary attack on appellant’s I have reviewed discre- no found abuse sentence and have of his aspects com- sentencing judge sentencing court. tion code, sentencing requirements with the plied mini- maximum and statutory within sentence well investigation presentence mums, court had an extensive reasons adequate stated and the court disposal, at its the record. See imposed on the sentence Devers, 519 Pa. I (1988). Accordingly, 546 A.2d majority. result reached concur Note, majority’s slip opinion is devoted eight pages full almost any appellant presented substantial of whether to the determination address- concerning propriety and then questions sentence questions raised. ing the two substantial on the merits