Appeal from the Sentence of January 14, 1976, of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Cambria County, at Nos. C-160 June Term, 1974, C-374, 1975, C-375, 1975, C-374-A, 1975, C-375-A, 1975, C-376, 1975 and C-376A, 1975.
Stephen L. Dugas, Ebensburg, for appellant.
James A. Nelson, Assistant District Attorney, and D. Gerard Long, District Attorney, Ebensburg, for appellee.
Watkins, President Judge, and Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort and Spaeth, JJ. Spaeth, J., files a dissenting opinion in which Hoffman, J., joins.
This is an appeal from judgments of sentence imposed on appellant Leonard E. Andrews following his pleas of guilty to three charges of robbery, three charges of aggravated assault and one charge of violating the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. His sole contention is that his sentences*fn1 "should be reduced so as to more
appropriately reflect the totality of the circumstances of the case." Appellant's Brief at 4. We affirm.
It is well-settled that the sentence to be imposed upon a convicted defendant is within the sole discretion of the sentencing judge, whose discretion is very broad. Commonwealth v. Kaminski, 244 Pa. Super. 388, 368 A.2d 776 (filed December 15, 1976), and cases therein cited. Provided that the sentence imposed is within statutory limits, we should not find an abuse of discretion unless the sentence is so manifestly excessive as to inflict too severe punishment. E.g., Commonwealth v. Person, 450 Pa. 1, 297 A.2d 460 (1972); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 235 Pa. Super. 185, 340 A.2d 515, allocatur refused, 235 Pa. Super. xxvii (1975); Commonwealth v. Riggins, 232 Pa. Super. 32, 332 A.2d 521 (1974).
While appellant was not the lone perpetrator of the three robberies and aggravated assaults, his sentences were more severe than those imposed on the other individuals involved. A court, however, is not required to impose a like sentence on all participants. Commonwealth v. Burton, 451 Pa. 12, 301 A.2d 675 (1973); Commonwealth v. Johnson, supra. "The sentencing judges, after considering all the facts related to each defendant, is justified in imposing different sentences." Commonwealth v. Burton, supra, 451 Pa. at 15, 301 A.2d at 677 (citation omitted).
Here, the lower court, after reviewing the presentence investigation report, imposed sentences within the statutory limits. Although appellant may have shown "remorse and repentance, and a willingness to make amends," we cannot conclude that these sentences are manifestly excessive. The sentences therefore will not be disturbed.