Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 20, 2013, Court of Common Pleas, Erie County, Criminal Division at No. CP-25-CR-0003348-2012
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., DONOHUE and PLATT, JJ. [*]
Damar Lamont Jordan ("Jordan") appeals from the June 20, 2013 judgment of sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas, Erie County, following his plea of guilty to third-degree murder (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(c)) and aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1)). After careful review, we affirm.
On September 30, 2012, in the 600 block of Wallace Street, Jordan shot and killed Kendall Bryant and seriously wounded Ramone Lemon. N.T., 4/ 25/ 13, at 7-8. Thereafter, the Commonwealth charged Jordan with murder (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501(a)), attempted murder (18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901, 2501(a)), two counts of aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1)), two counts of recklessly endangering another person (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705), possessing an instrument of crime (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a)) and firearms not to be carried without a license (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1)).
Jordan pled guilty pursuant to an open plea to third-degree murder and aggravated assault. I n exchange, the Commonwealth withdrew all other charges. On June 20, 2013, the trial court sentenced Jordan to serve 180 to 360 months of imprisonment for his conviction of third-degree murder and 66 to 132 months of imprisonment for his conviction of aggravated assault. The trial court imposed the term of imprisonment for aggravated assault consecutively to the term of imprisonment for third-degree murder.
On July 2, 2013, the trial court denied Jordan's motion tomodify his sentence. Thereafter, Jordan filed a timely notice of appeal followed by a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court filed its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion on September 6, 2013.
On appeal, Jordan presents the following issue for our review:
Whether the sentencing court committed a manifest abuse of discretion when it imposed a sentence in the middle to high end of the weapon enhanced standard guideline range and ordered the sentence[ s] for counts one and two to run consecutively, where the court focused only on the serious nature of the offenses and added significant weight to [ Jordan's] prior summary offense record to the exclusion of various mitigating circum stances that were applicable to [ Jordan] ?
Appellant's Brief at 4.
Jordan's claim presents a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. With respect to our review of a discretionary sentencing claim, this Court has stated:
Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. I n this context, an abuse of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for ...