Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of October 3, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0000201-2012, CP-25-CR-0003432-2011
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J., GANTMAN AND OLSON, JJ.
Appellant, Ramon David Deberry, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on October 3, 2012, following his guilty pleas to burglary, conspiracy, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. We affirm.
The trial court briefly summarized the facts and procedural history of this case as follows:
On July 2, 2012,  [A]ppellant appeared before the Honorable Michael R. Dunlavey, now senior judge , for the purpose of entering a guilty plea. At that time, [Appellant] decided not to plead guilty. On July 11, 2012, he appeared before the Honorable John Garhart  and pled guilty to counts 2 and 3 of docket 3432 of 2011 (criminal conspiracy to commit robbery and burglary). He also pled guilty to count 4 of 201 of 2012 (unauthorized use of a motor vehicle). On October 3, 2012, he was sentenced  as follows: (1) at docket number 3432 – 2011, count 2 (criminal conspiracy to commit robbery), 18 – 36 months['] confinement; (2) at count 3 (burglary), 18 – 36 months to be served consecutively to count 2. At docket 201 – 2012, he was sentenced to 2 – 24 months['] confinement to be served concurrently with count 2 of docket 3432 – 2011. These were all standard range sentences. The criminal conspiracy and burglary sentences were in the low end of the applicable sentencing guidelines. [Appellant] did not file a post sentence motion or direct appeal, but he did, on November 14, 2012, file a pro se [m]otion [t]o [m]odify [s]entence which [the trial c]ourt treated as a PCRA petition. Counsel was appointed for him. After subsequent proceedings, [Appellant's] right to file a post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc and appeal were granted by [the trial court] by order dated March 11, 2013.
Trial Court Opinion, 5/7/2013, at 1-2 (record citations and footnotes omitted). Appellant filed a post-sentence motion that the trial court denied by order entered on February 5, 2013. This timely appeal followed.
On appeal, Appellant presents the following issues for our review:
A. Whether the sentencing court committed legal error and abused its discretion in failing to afford due consideration and deference to the mitigating factors presented and otherwise discernible on behalf of  [A]ppellant relative to the explanation tendered as to the criminal allegations by  [A]ppellant and his acceptance of responsibility?
B. Whether the sentencing court committed legal error and abused its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence scheme thereby constituting an excessive sentence in disregard of the rehabilitative needs and prospects of  [A]ppellant?
Appellant's Brief at 2.
Both of Appellant's issues challenge the discretionary aspects of sentencing. Hence, we will examine them together. In his first issue, Appellant claims the trial court failed "to afford due consideration and deference to the mitigating factors presented[, ]" i.e., he has a four-year old child, his father suffers from pancreatic cancer, his intention to continue schooling, the prospect of gainful employment, and his acceptance of responsibility for the criminal conduct at issue. Id. at 5-6. Appellant also challenges the imposition of consecutive sentences as excessive and "contrary to the rehabilitation" of Appellant given the aforementioned mitigating circumstances. Id. at 6.
As previously stated, Appellant's issues are challenges to the trial court's discretionary ...