No. 00418 Pittsburgh 1984, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of March 6, 1984, in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County, Criminal Division, at: No. 418 Criminal 1983, 419 Criminal 1983, 420 Criminal 1983, 421 Criminal 1983, No. OTN: B-205343-5, OTN: B-205346-1, OTN: B-205299-3, OTN: B-205304-1
Lorinda L. Hinch, Assistant Public Defender, Mercer, for appellant.
Charles S. Hersh, Assistant District Attorney, Hermitage, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Rowley, Olszewski, and Popovich, JJ.
[ 341 Pa. Super. Page 220]
This is an appeal from judgments of sentence on four counts of theft by failure to make required disposition of funds received.*fn1 Appellant contends that the sentencing judge abused his discretion in 1) ordering the sentences to be consecutive to other sentences being served in another county, and 2) sentencing appellant in the aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines.
The facts of this case are as follows: Four informations were filed between September 6 and September 12, 1983, charging appellant with theft by deception. The charges involved appellant's receipt of money from various people for goods appellant then never delivered. The informations were later amended to charge theft by failure to make required disposition of funds received. Appellant pleaded guilty to all four informations and was sentenced to six to twelve months on the first count, and eighteen to forty-eight months on each of the other three counts. The sentencing judge ordered that the four sentences be concurrent to one another, but consecutive to time already being
[ 341 Pa. Super. Page 221]
served in Crawford County. A motion to modify sentence was denied without a hearing and this appeal followed.
Appellant first argues that the sentencing judge abused his discretion by ordering the sentences to be served consecutively to sentences being served in Crawford County. Since this issue was not raised in appellant's motion to modify sentence, it has been waived. Commonwealth v. Brown, 288 Pa. Super. 171, 431 A.2d 343 (1981), Commonwealth v. Bethel, 295 Pa. Super. 312, 441 A.2d 1248 (1982).
Appellant next contends that his sentences of eighteen to forty-eight months were improper because the sentencing judge failed to provide adequate reasons for sentencing him within the aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines.*fn2 We do not agree.
Section 303.3 of the sentencing guidelines, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721, 204 Pa.Code § 303.3 (Purdons 1982) provides:
§ 303.3 AGGRAVATING OR MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
When the court determines that aggravating or mitigating ...