Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 21, 2010 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011263-2009
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stevens, P.J.
BEFORE: STEVENS, P.J., GANTMAN, J., and LAZARUS, J.
Appellant, Antwine Griffin, challenges a May 21, 2010 judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County*fn1 following his conviction for aggravated assault,*fn2 robbery*fn3 and criminal conspiracy.*fn4 We affirm.
After he and a conspirator viscously beat a man with a steel pipe and stole his wallet, Griffin was convicted of the above crimes on March 25, 2010, following a jury trial before the Honorable Denis P. Cohen. He was subsequently sentenced to a standard range sentence of four to eight years' imprisonment for aggravated assault, and a concurrent two to four years' imprisonment each for robbery and conspiracy. The terms of imprisonment were to be followed by five years' probation.*fn5
A pro se post-sentence motion for retrial and to reconsider Griffin's sentence was denied, and no direct appeal was filed, but a timely pro se petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act resulted in the reinstatement of Griffin's direct appeal rights, nunc pro tunc, on the grounds that Griffin's trial counsel had failed to advise him of his right to appeal.
The instant counseled appeal was thus filed, and Griffin has complied with a court directive to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal. He now asks us to determine:
I. Whether the trial court erred in denying the Appellant's post sentence motion in that the sentence imposed was harsh and unreasonable.
II. Whether the trial court erred in denying the Appellant a new trial because the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
III. Whether the trial court erred in denying the Appellant relief because the verdict was contrary to law on the charges of Robbery, Aggravated Assault, and Criminal Conspiracy.
Appellant's brief at 4.*fn6
Appellant's initial allegation relates to the discretionary aspects of his sentence.
Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to review as of right. Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 912 (Pa. Super. 2000). An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court's jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:
We conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether appellant's brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that ...