February 27, 2014
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICHARD VINSON, Appellant
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, October 18, 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-0012697-2011
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BOWES AND OTT, JJ.
FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
Richard Vinson appeals from the judgment of sentence entered October 18, 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. The sole issue presented is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. We affirm.
As we write exclusively for the parties, who are familiar with the factual context and legal history of the case, we set forth only so much of the facts and history as is necessary to our analysis. The record in the case sub judice reveals that two months after being released from custody for robbing a clerk at a grocery store, appellant held up another grocery store. Rather than throttle the clerk, as he had done in the previous robbery, this time appellant used his gun. Following a bench trial, appellant was convicted of robbery, three violations of the Uniform Firearms Act,  theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, possession of an instrument of crime, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person. Thereafter, on October 18, 2012, the trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate sentence of 13½ to 27 years of state incarceration. The following day, on October 19, 2012, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Again, the sole issue presented concerns the discretionary aspects of appellant's sentence. In order to preserve an issue pertaining to the discretionary aspects of sentence, the issue must first be raised either at the time of sentencing, or in a post-sentence motion. Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270, 275 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 580 Pa. 695, 860 A.2d 122 (2004). As appellant failed to do either, the issue is waived. Appellant did not raise the specific claims presented herein at the sentencing hearing. Nor did appellant raise these specific reasons in a post-sentence motion; in fact, appellant acknowledges that a post-sentence motion was not filed. (See appellant's brief at 4.) Therefore, any such challenge is waived. See Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 355 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 594 Pa. 704, 936 A.2d 40 (2007) ("an appellant can seek to appeal discretionary sentencing issues only after preserving them during the sentencing hearing or in post-sentence motions"), citing Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247, 1250 (Pa.Super. 2006); Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 586 Pa. 723, 890 A.2d 1057 (2005) ("Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or raised in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing.") (citations omitted).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.