HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0003054-2010
COMMONWEALTH
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
:
:
:
AARON J. GREGOR
: NO. CP-21-CR-3054-2010
IN RE: DEFENDANT’S POST-SENTENCE MOTION
ORDER AND OPINION
Before the Court is Defendant’s Post-Sentence Motion. (Defendant’s Post-Sentence
Motion, filed Sept. 1, 2011). Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty at Count 1 of
Criminal Attempt to Burglary, guilty at Count 2 of Loitering and Prowling at Night Time, guilty
at Count 3 of Possessing Instruments of Crime, and guilty at Count 5 of Criminal Attempt to
Criminal Trespass. (Verdicts, dated Jun. 9, 2011; Order of Court, In Re: Defendant Found
Guilty After Jury Trial, Jun. 9, 2011). On August 23, 2011, Defendant was sentenced by this
court to undergo a term of imprisonment in a State Correctional Institution for a period of not
less than two nor more than five years, said imprisonment to be followed by supervised
probation for a period of 12 months. (Order of Court, In Re: Sentencing Proceedings, Aug. 23,
2011). Subsequent to the entry of the judgment of sentence imposed for the above-listed
convictions, Defendant filed the instant Post-Sentence Motion asserting that the verdict reached
in his jury trial was against the weight of the evidence and also seeking a modification of
sentence, contending that it was excessive and unreasonable for the reasons contained therein.
(Defendant’s Post-Sentence Motion, filed Sept. 1, 2011).
On October 18, 2010, Defendant was arrested by Patrolman Timothy Ryan of the West
Shore Regional Police Department, and Defendant was charged at Count 1, Criminal Attempt to
Burglary; at Count 2, Loitering and Prowling at Night Time; at Count 3 Possessing Instruments
of Crime; and at Count 5, Criminal Attempt to Criminal Trespass. A jury trial was held on June
7, 2011 through June 9, 2011, with the undersigned judge presiding.
At trial, the Commonwealth called four witnesses: Defendant’s ex-girlfriend and owner
of property located at 207 Pine Street, Wormleysburg, Cumberland County, PA 17043, Jolleen
Pazich; a friend and former co-worker of Defendant, Jessica Varner; the West Shore Regional
Police officer who responded to the dispatch, investigated, and arrested Defendant, Patrolman
Timothy Ryan; and a Constable who had previously attempted to work with Defendant and
Pazich regarding the return of certain property, Constable Ted Stricklar. Defendant testified on
his own behalf, but did not present any other witnesses.
In the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief, Jolleen Pazich testified as to a fragmented and
strained relationship between herself and Defendant. (Notes of Testimony, 10, In Re: Jury Trial
Proceedings, Jun. 7-9, 2011 (hereinafter “N.T. __”)). Pazich testified that she and Defendant
began a relationship approximately four years prior to the start of the trial, and, at some point
during their relationship, Defendant moved into the 207 Pine Street residence owned by Pazich.
(N.T. 10). In approximately December of 2009, Pazich decided to end their relationship and
informed Defendant that he was to leave the residence. (N.T. 11). The Defendant, however,
refused her repeated requests to move out of her home, and, she eventually changed the locks to
the residence and informed Defendant to pick up some of his personal belongings which she had
left outside for him. (N.T. 12). Pazich testified that, throughout the months following their
breakup, she made repeated unsuccessful attempts to return the remainder of Defendant’s
property to him, and each attempt was met with resistance, opposition, and conflict. (N.T. 13).
Pazich also testified to an incident, other than the one at issue sub judice, where
Defendant had broken into her home and placed Ambien in a bottle of cranberry juice she kept in
2
the refrigerator. (N.T. 15). She testified that one morning she observed Defendant running out
of her home when Defendant had not had permission to be there. (N.T. 15). She testified that she
imbibed some of the cranberry juice and immediately thereafter began to feel the dazing effect of
Ambien. (N.T. 15). She testified additionally that her residence showed signs of attempted
break-ins, such as hatch marks on windows and a broken basement window lock. (N.T. 16). As
a result of the incidents, Pazich testified that she was frightened and sent Defendant a “no-
contact” letter by way of certified mail, which was returned as a result of Defendant’s refusal to
sign for the parcel. (N.T. 20-21).
Pazich also testified about an engagement ring that had been given to her by Defendant
prior to the deterioration of their relationship. (N.T. 22). Pazich testified that she was more than
willing to give the ring back to Defendant, and, in fact, made repeated attempts to return it.
(N.T. 22-23). Pazich testified that after she had observed Defendant breaking into her home and
then fleeing, she noticed that the ring had been taken. (N.T. 23). The Defendant admitted that
he had retrieved it. (N.T. 23). Pazich testified that she informed Defendant to keep the ring;
however, not long thereafter Defendant placed the ring in an envelope and returned it to her with
a note that read as follows:
8/28/2010. Here you go, it was meant for you. I am leaving in a few days so I
don’t need anything. No room to take it. Listen to my last song, please. Jole, I
love you and I am sorry you hate me. I don’t know what happened. Be happy,
okay. I love you, always did. Always yours, Aaron. Tomorrow is three months.
I guess there is no going back.
(N.T. 26, Commonwealth Ex. 2, admitted at Trial, Jun. 8, 2010).
Pazich testified that despite the no contact letter and an additional no trespass letter,
Defendant continued to send her flowers and emails, and put notes on her car in which he
expressed his desire to resume his relationship with her. (N.T. 26-27). Pazich testified that she
3
was terrified of Defendant, and, as a result, installed a security system in her home and carried
with her a Taser, Mace, and a knife. (N.T. 28). Pazich testified that Defendant’s attempted
contacts continued for months. These contained emotional and desperate pleas for her return, as
well as threats of suicide. (N.T. 31-32; Commonwealth Ex. 3, admitted at Trial, Jun. 8, 2010).
Pazich testified that, on October 17-18, 2010, she was out of town and visiting a friend
when she was notified that her home alarm system had been activated. (N.T. 36). Pazich
testified that the time was approximately 3:30 a.m. when she received the notification, and she
immediately contacted the West Shore Regional Police Department. (N.T. 37). She testified that
she promptly returned home, and upon her arrival noticed that a bar and hammer that had
previously been in place to secure her basement window had fallen onto the oil furnace below.
(N.T. 37-38). Additionally, Pazich testified to a basement light that was illuminated, as well as
damage done to another basement window that appeared to be the result of an attempted use of a
saw. (N.T. 38).
On cross-examination, Pazich testified as to property still in her possession which
belonged to Defendant, including, but not limited to, the following: a baby grand piano, tools, an
air compressor, a 100 inch projector screen, an Elgin pocket watch, a TAG Heurer men’s watch,
a Breitling 18k two-tone men’s watch, an iMac computer, HP LaserJet printer, all-in-one-printer,
various items of clothing, a wine refrigerator, stainless steel table, Sony 500 disc CD changer, an
MTD lawn mower, and a snow blower. (N.T. 58-59, 67-68).
Jessica Varner, a friend and former co-worker of Defendant, testified on behalf of the
Commonwealth and, on direct examination, stated that at some point she had become aware of
an attempted burglary at the home of Jolleen Pazich. (N.T. 77). Varner testified that she spoke
with Defendant about what she had heard, and she testified that Defendant admitted to her that
4
he had attempted to break into the Pazich residence after some of his friends had convinced him
that it was a “good idea.” (N.T. 77). Additionally, Varner testified that after she had spoken
with Defendant regarding the events of October 18, she spoke with Ptlm. Ryan whereupon she
expressed concern for the safety of Jolleen Pazich. (N.T. 78).
On cross-examination, Varner testified she believed Defendant had made a bad decision,
and that she did not believe that Defendant wanted to hurt Pazich. (N.T. 79). Varner testified
that Defendant had expressed his desire to her of his intent to leave the area and move on with
his life. (N.T. 79).
On redirect examination, however, Varner testified that she was indeed concerned for the
safety of Pazich as Defendant was “going through a rough time” and she what she “didn’t want
to see was a domestic violence or anything like that.” (N.T. 80). Varner testified that she was
also concerned for Pazich’s safety because Defendant had confided in her regarding his attempt
to break into the Pazich home. (N.T. 81). On recross examination, Varner again clarified that
she was concerned for both her “emotional well-being” as well as her “physical well-being,” and
she stated that her concern stemmed from her understanding that Defendant was “taking the
breakup rough.” (N.T. 81-82).
Ptlm. Ryan testified that on October 18, 2010, he received a dispatch from Cumberland
County Control regarding a burglar alarm coming from 207 Pine Street, Wormleysburg,
Cumberland County, PA 17043. (N.T. 83). Around 3:11 a.m. on that date, he responded to the
dispatch and arrived at the home of Jolleen Pazich to investigate the call. (N.T. 83). In addition
to being informed by dispatch of the sounding burglar alarm, Ptlm. Ryan testified that he was
informed that Defendant, the ex-boyfriend of Pazich, may have been a contributing factor to the
alarm. (N.T. 84). Ptlm. Ryan testified that he requested the assistance of the East Pennsboro
5
Township Police Department, and, upon their arrival at the home, the officers began to examine
the exterior of the residence. (N.T. 85). A basement light could be seen from the exterior of the
property, but there was no immediate sign of the Defendant or his vehicle. (N.T. 85). Ptlm.
Ryan testified that he continued to examine the property and noticed that across the street there
was an alleyway and wooded area (N.T. 85-86). Upon his arrival to the wooded area, Ptlm.
Ryan testified that he was startled when he stumbled upon Defendant laying prone chest down
on the ground. (N.T. 89). Defendant was wearing dark clothing, a dark baseball cap, and had
with him a black duffel bag. (N.T. 90). Subsequent to a search of his person, it was revealed
that Defendant was in possession of a flashlight, a pair of latex gloves found in his front pocket,
and another pair of latex gloves found in his back pocket. (N.T. 90). Additionally, found in
Defendant’s black nylon duffel bag was a roll of duct tape; multiple condoms; a drywall saw;
and two bottles of liquid, one containing canola oil and the other containing water. (N.T. 92-94).
After the precautionary search, Ptlm. Ryan testified that he began to speak with
Defendant whereupon Defendant revealed that he knew “he went too far this time” and stated
that he simply “was trying to obtain his engagement ring. . . and watches back” from the Pazich
residence (N.T. 95-96). Defendant also stated that, while he had not successfully made entry
into the residence, he had attempted to make entry through the basement window to the rear of
the property by using the saw found in the duffel bag. (N.T. 96). Defendant informed Ptlm.
Ryan that he had been using the latex gloves and the flashlight while he attempted to enter the
home, and, when questioned about the duct tape, Defendant told the officer that he had once seen
a movie that depicted the use of duct tape to minimize the noise of a breaking window. (N.T. 96-
97). Additionally, Defendant informed Ptlm. Ryan that the canola oil was “to be used with the
saw,” and the bottle of water was “in case he became thirsty.” (N.T. 97). With regard to the
6
condoms, it was Defendant’s contention that he simply “forgot that he had them in his bag at the
time.” (N.T. 97). Defendant also admitted to Ptlm. Ryan that he was aware that he was not
welcome at the Pazich home. (N.T. 98).
Ptlm. Ryan testified that once Defendant was placed into custody, Jolleen Pazich’s father
arrived at the residence and the officer was able to make entry. (N.T. 101). The basement
window showed signs of an attempted entry consistent with Defendant’s statements that he had
tried to saw through frame of the window. (N.T. 101). Ptlm. Ryan testified that saw shavings
and groove marks consistent with the type of blade found in Defendant’s duffel bag were
observable by flashlight and appeared to be freshly made. (N.T. 101-102). Additionally, a
second basement window showed signs of an attempted entry where a copper bar and hammer,
positioned against the window for additional security, had fallen onto an oil tank below. (N.T.
101).
Subsequent to Defendant’s arrest, the statements described above were confirmed in a
written statement provided to Ptlm. Ryan. (N.T. 99; Commonwealth Ex. 8, admitted at Trial,
Jun. 8, 2010). The statement read as follows: “I tried to break into Jolleen Pazich’s home to get
my engagement ring back. I did not understand why she would want to keep it. I wanted to sell
it because I needed the money. I tried to break-in the basement window using a saw.” (N.T. 99;
Commonwealth Ex. 8, admitted at Trial, Jun. 8, 2010).
Constable Ted Stricklar was the last witness to testify on behalf of the Commonwealth
during the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief. Stricklar testified that he was contacted by
Defendant near the end of 2009 with regard to utilizing the constable’s services in helping to sort
out the property dispute between Defendant and Pazich. (N.T. 110). Stricklar testified that
despite his attempts, Defendant became difficult to work with regarding formulation of a list of
7
things to be retrieved. (N.T. 112). Stricklar testified that “Jolleen just wanted it to be over. I
mean, she just wanted Aaron to come and get his property. But we never really could get a set
date and time that we could come to the house. . . .” (N.T. 114).
Defendant took the stand at trial to testify on his own behalf. During his direct
examination, Defendant briefly discussed the events surrounding the attempted break-in on
th
October 18. (N.T. 138). He claimed that he went to the Pazich residence with the intent to
retrieve his belongings. (N.T. 138). Furthermore, Defendant testified that he did not dispute the
statement he had given to Ptlm. Ryan pertaining to his attempt to use the saw in order to gain
entry into the home. (N.T. 138).
On cross-examination, Defendant testified that he was aware that Pazich had changed the
locks to the home in approximately May of 2010. (N.T. 143). Defendant also testified that he
had received a text message from Pazich not long thereafter that he was not welcome to go back
to the residence. (N.T. 143). Defendant also testified that, while there was some dispute as to
how it was obtained, he had indeed received the engagement ring back from Pazich sometime in
August of 2010. (N.T. 146). Furthermore, Defendant testified consistently with the Pazich
testimony that he returned the ring to Pazich with a note stating that the ring was hers to keep.
(N.T. 146). Defendant also testified that Pazich had agreed to return some of the property that
was in her possession prior to the night of the attempted break-in.
With regard to the events of October 18, Defendant testified that he walked to the Pazich
residence and observed that no cars were in the driveway. (N.T. 152). Defendant then testified
as follows:
A: . . . It was like 3:00 in the morning. I am thinking there is no way she is
coming home. It is 3:00 in the morning. I didn’t want to get caught in the house.
I was going there to get a few items and leave. That’s why I brought the bag.
8
You know, I didn’t bring a huge duffel. I brought enough to carry what I was
going for.
. . .
Q: You were going there for what items, sir?
A: Heuer, Breitling, there was a Pippo. I will explain that if you want me to. It’s
another watch. The ring.
Q: The ring that you had given back to her?
A: Yeah.
(N.T. 152-53).
Furthermore, Defendant’s testimony regarding the means with which he attempted to
make entry into the home was neither illusory nor deceptive. Defendant testified as follows:
Q: What were you planning on doing with the saw?
A: I actually didn’t know. I mean, I was kind of winging it. So I figured I could,
you know, maybe saw through something. And that wasn’t going too well. It
didn’t go through right. So that’s when I started like pushing on the window.
. . .
Q: So your intention was to saw through the window whenever you arrived?
A: My intention was to, yeah, to get into the window.
Q: Into the basement window?
A: Correct.
. . .
Q: Why didn’t you break in through one of the regular windows in the house? I
mean, there is other windows other than the basement window, right?
A: It is lit up. You know, that little window back there I think was my safest bet.
It was kind of dark.
Q: You wanted to break into a window where it was dark out, is that right?
A: Yeah.
…
Q: Okay. So you used this saw, right?
A: That’s correct.
9
Q: To cut and try to break into that window?
A: That is correct.
Q: And when you tried to cut and break into the window what happened?
A: The saw kind of - - it like went into the vinyl. You can see that. And it wasn’t
working . . .then I started pushing on the window. I figured I could pop it out,
because it just kind of popped in there.
(N.T. 153-56).
Defendant testified that when he attempted to kick in the window, the alarm went off and
he quickly realized that the police would be arriving to investigate. (N.T. 156). Defendant
testified that, in an attempt to hide from the police, he found cover behind a tree in the wooded
area near to the Pazich residence until he was apprehended by Ptlm. Ryan. (N.T. 156).
Defendant testified consistently with the statements he first provided to Ptlm. Ryan; specifically,
that he had the duct tape with him to mask the sound of breaking glass, the gloves were an
attempt to prevent his fingerprints from being recovered, the canola oil in the bottle was to be
used as a lubricant for the saw, and the condoms simply happened to be in the duffel bag. (N.T.
156-58). The cross-examination of Defendant concluded as follows:
Q: You don’t dispute, sir, that you attempted to break into her house?
A: I do not dispute that.
Q: You don’t dispute, sir, that you knew she did not want you in the house at that
time?
A: I do not dispute that either.
Q: You don’t dispute, sir, that this happened at nighttime, right?
A: Actually it was morning. It was 3:00, 4:00 a.m.
Q: It was dark outside?
A: It was dark, yeah.
10
Q: You don’t dispute that you had this saw, and you were intending to use it to
break into her house?
A: My bag, my saw.
(N.T. 164-65).
When reviewing a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, a new trial
will not be granted on the basis of a challenge to the weight of the evidence except in “truly
extraordinary circumstances, i.e., ‘when the jury's verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to
shock one's sense of justice and the award of a new trial is imperative so that right may be given
another opportunity to prevail.’” Commonwealth v. United States Mineral Products Company,
598 Pa. 331, 341-42, 956 A.2d 967, 973 (2008) (citing Armbruster v. Horowitz, 572 Pa. 1, 9-10,
813, A.2d 698, 703 (2002)). When a defendant moves for a new trial on grounds that the verdict
is contrary to the weight of the evidence, he concedes “that there is sufficient evidence to sustain
the verdict but contends, nevertheless, that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.”
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 324 Pa. Super. 420, 425, 471 A.2d 1228, 1230 (Pa. Super. 1984). A
motion challenging the weight of the evidence should not be granted “where it merely identifies
contradictory evidence presented by the Commonwealth and the Defendant.” Commonwealth v.
Chamberlain, __ A.3d __, 2011 WL 4865239, 7 (Pa. 2011). The grant of a new trial on the
ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is “necessarily committed to the
sound discretion of the trial court due to the court’s observation of the witnesses and the
evidence.” Chamberlain, 2011 WL 4865239, 7 (Pa. 2011). A trial court’s denial of a post-
sentence motion challenging the verdict as against the weight of the evidence will not be
disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Id.
11
With respect to the charges at Count 1 and Count 5, a person commits an attempt when,
“with intent to commit a specific crime, he does any act which constitutes a substantial step
toward the commission of that crime.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901(a); Commonwealth v. Galindes, 2001
PA Super 315, ¶ 11, 786 A.2d 1004, 1009 (2001). To secure a conviction of an individual for
the crime of burglary, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
individual “enter[ed] a building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion
thereof, with intent to commit a crime therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the
public or the actor is licensed or privileged to enter.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a). Our Supreme
Court has held that when attempting to secure a conviction for burglary, the Commonwealth is
not required to allege or prove what particular crime a defendant intended to commit after
making forcible entry into a residence. Commonwealth v. Alston, 539 Pa. 202, 209, 651 A.2d
1092, 1095 (1994). Rather, the element of intent to commit a crime after entry may be proved by
direct evidence or “may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the incident.” Galindes,
2001 PA Super 315, ¶ 11, 786 A.2d at 1009; Alston, 539 Pa. at 207, 651 A.2d at 1094. Intent
may be “inferred from actions as well as words. However, actions must bear a reasonable
relation to the commission of a crime.” Alston, 539 Pa. at 207, 651 A.2d at 1094.
In order for the Commonwealth to secure a conviction on the charge of Loitering and
Prowling at Night Time, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a
defendant maliciously loitered or maliciously prowled around a dwelling house or any other
place used wholly or in part for living or dwelling purposes, belonging to or occupied by another,
at night time. 18 Pa.C.S.A. §5506. On the charge of Possessing Instruments of a Crime, the
Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly possessed an instrument of a crime with the intent to employ it
12
criminally. 18 Pa.C.S.A. §907(a). On the charge of Criminal Attempt to Criminal Trespass, and
in connection with the above definition of Criminal Attempt, the Commonwealth must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant, knowing he is not licensed or privileged to do so,
did break into any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion
thereof. 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a) to 3503(a)(1)(ii).
On the charge of Criminal Attempt to Burglary, Defendant’s own testimony at trial
established his attempt to make forcible entry into the Pazich residence. The evidence presented
established that Defendant used a handsaw on a basement window and attempted to kick in
another, both while attempting to gain access into a home that he knew he did not have
permission to so enter. Ptlm. Ryan testified to fresh groove marks, fresh shavings, and a fallen
copper bar and hammer, all consistent with Defendant’s statements that he attempted to gain
access to the home through the two basement windows. The evidence at trial also established the
circumstances surrounding the incident from which the jurors could have properly determined a
nefarious intent on the part of Defendant. By Defendant’s own testimony, he desired to retrieve
an engagement ring and various watches, all of which had been gifted to Pazich at some point
with Defendant’s stated intent that she either “keep” or “give to her son” those items which he
sought to recover. With respect to the defendant’s explanation regarding the items found in his
bag, it is axiomatic that the jury as the fact finder was free to believe all, part, or none of the
testimony. This is additionally true with Defendant’s contention that he was merely attempting
to gain entry to retrieve his own property.
In addition, the evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly demonstrated that Defendant
loitered or prowled around the Pazich residence without lawful purpose or reason. The evidence
also demonstrated that Defendant intentionally possessed instruments of a crime with the intent
13
to employ them criminally. Defendant himself testified that he possessed a saw to aid his entry
into the home, and he also possessed duct tape to muffle the noise of breaking window glass.
Finally, the evidence presented at trial overwhelming demonstrated that Defendant attempted to
break into the Pazich residence knowing that he was not licensed or privileged to do so.
With regard to Defendant’s Motion to Modify Sentence, we note that a lengthy
sentencing proceeding was held on August 23, 2011. Defendant was afforded the opportunity to
present several character letters, a character witness, and his own statement. Defendant received
a twenty-four month minimum sentence, a sentence within the standard range guidelines on the
charge of Attempted Burglary (21-27 months). Defendant was also sentenced to 12 months
consecutive supervised probation, which was again within the standard range guidelines on the
Loitering and Prowling at Nighttime charge (RS – 6 months). Defendant’s Motion takes issue
with his sentence largely as a result of his contention that the guilty verdict on the charge of
Criminal Attempt to Burglary was against the weight of the evidence. However, for the reasons
stated above, we cannot agree with Defendant that the verdict was shocking to one’s sense of
justice. Defendant’s sentence on the charge of Criminal Attempt to Burglary, therefore, was
neither excessive nor unreasonable.
The Defendant contends that, notwithstanding the appropriateness of his sentencing
regarding the Criminal Attempt to Burglary charge, the sentence imposed continues to be
excessive and unreasonable as the result of our “failure to consider other mitigating factors; …
failure to consider the rehabilitative needs of the defendant; … failure to consider the sentence
necessary to protect the public; and … failure to account for the character of the defendant.”
At the sentencing proceedings, Defendant was afforded the opportunity to present this court with
a reason why he should have received a mitigated sentence. We saw nothing in the statements of
14
his friends or in his continued efforts to explain away his conduct which satisfied us that a lesser
sentence was appropriate. We continue to be satisfied that a lesser sentence would, in fact,
depreciate the seriousness of his conduct on the night of October 18, 2010.
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of December, 2011, upon consideration of Defendant’s Post-
Sentence Motion, and following argument, Defendant’s Post-Sentence Motion is hereby
DENIED.
BY THE COURT,
___________________________
Kevin A. Hess, P.J.
15
COMMONWEALTH
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
:
:
:
AARON J. GREGOR
: NO. CP-21-CR-3054-2010
IN RE: DEFENDANT’S POST-SENTENCE MOTION
BEFORE HESS, P.J.
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of December, 2011, upon consideration of Defendant’s Post-
Sentence Motion, and following argument, Defendant’s Post-Sentence Motion is hereby
DENIED.
BY THE COURT,
___________________________
Kevin A. Hess, P.J.
Christylee L. Peck, Esquire
Sr. Assistant District Attorney
Royce L. Morris, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rlm