Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered April 10, 1987 in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County, Criminal Division, at No. 126 Criminal 1986.
Robert G. Kochems, Assistant Public Defender, Mercer, for appellant.
Kenneth K. McCann, Assistant District Attorney, Mercer, for Com., appellee.
Brosky, Del Sole and Hoffman, JJ. Hoffman, J., concurs in the result. Brosky, J., files a dissenting opinion.
[ 371 Pa. Super. Page 552]
This is an appeal from a Judgment of Sentence directing that Appellant be incarcerated for a period of 10-20 years following the jury's determination that he was guilty of third degree murder.
Presented for our consideration is a claim that the trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion for "hybrid representation". Appellant further challenges the jury's finding
[ 371 Pa. Super. Page 553]
of guilt as being against the weight of the evidence and also asserts that there was insufficient evidence on the element of malice to support their verdict. In his final issue, Appellant questions the exercise of the trial court's discretion in formulating his sentence.
The first three allegations of error have been considered and properly disposed of by the Honorable Thomas T. Frampton in his Opinion dated January 15, 1987. We have reviewed the record to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law with respect to these claims. Having done so, it is clear that the resolution of these matters as set forth in the trial court opinion is well-founded in both law and fact as evidenced by the record. Thus, as to these issues, we affirm on of the able trial court opinion.*fn1
Remaining for our determination is consideration of the propriety of Appellant's sentence. As required by Pa.R.A.P., Rule 2119(f), Appellant, who is challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence has set forth in his brief "a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal". Id. On a separate page on his brief, immediately preceding the argument appears Appellant's statement which is entitled " STATEMENT OF THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION ". Therein Appellant alleges that his 10-20 year sentence of imprisonment is inappropriate under his particular circumstances. He specifically alleges that it
[ 371 Pa. Super. Page 554]
was error to impose "a maximum sentence for third degree murder on the appellant, a twenty-four year old person with only a misdemeanor adult record and many of the elements of voluntary manslaughter present in his case". Since Appellant has complied with the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), and since there appears to be a substantial question that the sentence imposed is not appropriate, we will allow the appeal of this issue and consider Appellant's claim. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b); ...