Opinion
J-A26041-15 No. 432 MDA 2015
12-14-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL SLAUGHTER, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 4, 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-22-CR-0002736-2013 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., WECHT, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Christopher Michael Slaughter, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas following his jury conviction of aggravated assault on a police officer and related offenses. Appellant led police on a high speed chase in a densely populated neighborhood, causing an accident which inflicted severe, continuing injuries to a police officer and an innocent bystander. On apprehension, police found 6.2 grams of cocaine and unused baggies in the vehicle. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, and claims his sentence was excessive. We affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them at length here.
For context and the convenience of the reader, we note briefly that Appellant fled from a traffic stop at high speed, ignoring lights and sirens, running through a number of stop signs, and narrowly avoiding other pedestrians in a heavily populated residential neighborhood. A police officer testified as an expert that in his opinion the quantity of cocaine was possessed with intention to sell or deliver to another person.
A jury convicted Appellant of aggravated assault on a police officer, aggravated assault with malice, fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, recklessly endangering another person, and possession with intent to deliver. The court, with the benefit of a Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (PSI), sentenced Appellant to a term of not less than twenty-nine and one-half to not more than fifty-nine years' incarceration. This appeal followed.
Appellant raises the following two questions for our review:
I. Whether the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant's conviction for: aggravated assault where Appellant did not possess the requisite mens rea of malice; reckless endangerment where there was very little risk of injury to bystanders, and; [sic] possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver where Appellant did not possess the controlled substance at issue?(Appellant's Brief, at 6).
II. Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant's Post-Sentence Motion where his sentence was excessive and unreasonable and constitutes too severe a punishment in light of the alleged gravity of the offense, Appellant's rehabilitative needs, and what is needed to protect the public?
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court we conclude that there is no merit to the issues Appellant has raised on appeal. The trial court opinion properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, 9/17/15, at 8-16) (concluding: (1) there was ample evidence to support the verdict of guilty for each conviction; and (2) the court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing Appellant, with the benefit of a PSI, where Appellant, who was on parole at the time of the offenses, did not accept responsibility for the horrific collision, demonstrated a complete lack of remorse, and had a previous conviction for aggravated assault). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/14/2015
Image materials not available for display.