Full Opinion

J-S32034-26 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : T-MICKA MCNARY : : Appellant : No. 2602 EDA 2025 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 28, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005727-2024 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : T-MICKA MCNARY : : Appellant : No. 192 EDA 2026 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 28, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002535-2024 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : T-MICKA MCNARY : : Appellant : No. 193 EDA 2026 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 28, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002579-2024 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA J-S32034-26 : v. : : : T-MICKA MCNARY : : Appellant : No. 194 EDA 2026 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 28, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005730-2024 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : T-MICKA MCNARY : : Appellant : No. 195 EDA 2026 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 28, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005733-2024 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : T-MICKA MCNARY : : Appellant : No. 196 EDA 2026 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 28, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005734-2024 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : -2- J-S32034-26 T-MICKA MCNARY : : Appellant : No. 197 EDA 2026 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 28, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005735-2024 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : T-MICKA MCNARY : : Appellant : No. 198 EDA 2026 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 28, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005736-2024 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : T-MICKA MCNARY : : Appellant : No. 199 EDA 2026 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 28, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005737-2024 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : T-MICKA MCNARY : : Appellant : No. 200 EDA 2026 -3- J-S32034-26 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 28, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005738-2024 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : T-MICKA MCNARY : : Appellant : No. 201 EDA 2026 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 28, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005739-2024 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : T-MICKA MCNARY : : Appellant : No. 202 EDA 2026 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 28, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005740-2024 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : T-MICKA MCNARY : : Appellant : No. 203 EDA 2026 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 28, 2025 -4- J-S32034-26 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005741-2024 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : T-MICKA MCNARY : : Appellant : No. 204 EDA 2026 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 28, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005752-2024 BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 3, 2026 T-Micka McNary (“McNary”) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed at fourteen dockets following her non-negotiated guilty pleas for burglary, theft by unlawful taking, criminal trespass, forgery, and related offenses as described, infra. We affirm. The trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion sets forth the pertinent facts and procedural history: FACTUAL HISTORY The relevant facts were stipulated as follows: [Appellant] T-Micka McNary [hereinafter “McNary”] was arrested in the early morning hours of February 4, 2024, at the Parkway Condominiums at 2601 Pennsylvania Avenue in Philadelphia, and she was subsequently charged with burglary, criminal trespass, ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. -5- J-S32034-26 theft, and related charges. At the time of her arrest, police recovered numerous items from her person, including the clothes she was wearing (subsequently referred to as her “arrest clothes”), and they recovered the vehicle that she had driven to the scene and that she identified as hers – a white Ford Explorer Limited with California license plate number 8RME369 . . . which was subsequently searched pursuant to a search warrant. Following her arrest, various detectives from different divisions in the City of Philadelphia were able to link [her] to numerous previous burglary, trespass, and theft incidents through a combination of video evidence, evidence recovered from her person or vehicle, and eyewitness identifications. ... As a result of these incidents, McNary was arrested and charged with burglary, criminal trespass, and related offenses on 14 separate transcripts. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On November 8, 2024, [the trial court] granted the Commonwealth’s motion to consolidate McNary’s transcripts for trial. Immediately thereafter, [she] entered into a non-negotiated [guilty] plea before [the trial] court to one count each of burglary,[1] theft by unlawful taking,[2] and receiving stolen property (“RSP”)[3] and two counts of criminal trespass [4] on CP- 51-CR-0002579-2024 On April 28, 2025, McNary entered into a non-negotiated [guilty] plea before [the trial court] on the remaining 13 transcripts to a total of 11 counts of burglary, 11 counts of theft by unlawful taking, and one count each of criminal trespass, forgery,[5] and impersonating a public servant.[6] The matters immediately moved to sentencing, and [the trial court] sentenced her to an aggregate term of 99 to 198 months (8.25 to 16.5 years) of ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a)(3). 2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921(a). 3 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(d). 4 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3503. 5 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4101(a)(2). 6 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4912. -6- J-S32034-26 confinement and 1 year of probation. A presentence report (“PSI”) was ordered and reviewed in advance of the April 28 th hearing. On May 8, 2025, McNary filed post-sentence motions to withdraw her plea and reconsideration of sentence on CP-51-CR-0005727- 2024. On September 8, 2025, those motions were denied by operation of law. She filed a timely notice of appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on CP-51-CR-0005727-2024 on October 7, 2025. On November 24, 2025, McNary filed a petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) on the remaining transcripts. The PCRA court granted relief and reinstated her post-sentence motion and appellate rights on January 5, 2026. She filed motions to withdraw her plea and for reconsideration of sentence on that same day, which the trial court denied. She filed a timely notice of appeal on the remaining dockets on January 12, 2026. McNary filed a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal on January 28, 2026, in which she asserts that the [trial court] erred in denying her motion to withdraw her plea because her plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary and that [the trial court] abused its discretion when fashioning her sentence. Trial Court’s “Amended Opinion,” filed 3/4/26, at 2-3. In McNary’s “Brief of Appellant,” she presents the following question for this Court’s consideration: Did the lower court err by imposing a manifestly excessive and clearly unreasonable sentence where the sentence was based solely on the number of crimes and the lower court merely paid lip service to the significant mitigation presented at the sentencing hearing? Brief of Appellant, at 2. McNary asserts that if the trial court appropriately considered her mitigating circumstances and rehabilitative needs at sentencing, then it would not have imposed the aggregate sentence that she received. This claim -7- J-S32034-26 addresses the discretionary aspects of her sentences at each docket. Challenges to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are not appealable as of right. See Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73, 83 (Pa. Super. 2015). Instead, prior to reviewing the merits of a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence, this Court must conduct a four-part analysis, in which we 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, [see] Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the sentencing code, [see] 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation and unnecessary capitalization omitted). After filing a timely post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied, McNary filed a timely notice of appeal and included in her brief both a statement of questions presented and a Rule 2119(f) statement. We review each to determine whether she has presented a substantial question for our review. See Commonwealth v. Provenzano, 50 A.3d 148, 154 (Pa. Super. 2012) (holding we must examine the statement of questions presented and the prefatory Rule 2119(f) statement to determine whether a substantial question exists). A substantial question “advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific -8- J-S32034-26 provision of the sentencing code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Glass, 50 A.3d 720, 727 (Pa. Super. 2012) (unnecessary capitalization omitted). “Our inquiry must focus on the reasons for which the appeal is sought, in contrast to the facts underlying the appeal, which are necessary only to decide the appeal on the merits.” Commonwealth v. Akhmedov, 216 A.3d 307, 328 (Pa. Super. 2019) (en banc). McNary argues that the trial court’s exercise of sentencing discretion was inconsistent with the Sentencing Code and contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process because, she maintains, it “focused on the quantity of offenses to the exclusion of both mitigation and rehabilitation[, . . .] which it was required to show that it meaningfully considered. . . .” Brief of Appellant at 17.7 Our Court has held that “an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). As such, we conclude that McNary’s challenge to the imposition of her aggregate sentence, together with her claims that the trial court failed to ____________________________________________ 7 In McNary’s appellate brief, she references mitigating factors addressed within her Presentence Investigation Report, such as the murder of her biological mother when she was an infant and her difficulties coping with anger issues through her teenage years, but she acknowledges being raised by adoptive parents “who did their best to create a supportive household for her.” See Brief of Appellant at 3. -9- J-S32034-26 consider mitigating factors presents a substantial question. Accordingly, we will review the merits of this claim. Our standard of review of a discretionary sentencing claim is as follows: 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. In 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 reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision. Commonwealth v. Clemat, 218 A.3d 944, 959 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). “When reviewing sentencing matters, this Court must accord the sentencing court great weight as it is in the best position to view the defendant's character, displays of remorse, defiance or indifference, and the overall effect and nature of the crime.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 249 A.3d 1206, 1217 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted). When imposing sentence, the trial court must consider the circumstances of the offense and the character of the defendant. The trial court should refer to the defendant's prior criminal record, age, personal characteristics, and potential for rehabilitation. Where, however, the sentencing judge had the benefit of a Presentence Investigation Report, this Court will presume that he or she was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant's character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors. Clemat, 218 A.3d at 959-60 (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1135 (Pa. Super. - 10 - J-S32034-26 2009) (“The sentencing judge can satisfy the requirement that reasons for imposing sentence be placed on the record by indicating that he or she has been informed by the [PSI]; thus properly considering and weighing all relevant factors.”). “[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Moury, 992 A.2d at 171. With respect to the imposition of consecutive sentences, we observe: Long standing precedent ... recognizes that the Sentencing Code affords the sentencing court discretion to impose its sentence concurrently or consecutively to other sentences being imposed at the same time or to sentences already imposed. We will not disturb consecutive sentences unless the aggregate sentence is “grossly disparate” to the defendant's conduct, or “viscerally appear[s] as patently unreasonable.” Brown, 249 A.3d at 1212 (citations and brackets omitted). The trial court recounts in its Rule 1925(a) opinion that it acknowledged, at the sentencing hearing, being informed by a pre-sentence report, which permits us to presume it was aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations. The record shows, moreover, that the relevant sentencing guidelines recommendation for each individual offense was read aloud, the court considered the guidelines, and it imposed a mitigated or below-guideline range sentence for each offense. N.T., 4/28/25, at 11-17, 65-68. The trial court then elected to run the sentences consecutive to each other. We conclude that the trial court committed no error when it applied meaningful mitigation in fashioning each sentence, considered McNary’s - 11 - J-S32034-26 broader record—including that she committed these multiple residential burglaries and business thefts at a time in which she was on probation for cases involving the same offenses—and elected to impose a consecutive, aggregate term of 8 1/4 to 16 ½ years’ incarceration as commensurate to her recidivist conduct. One is not entitled to a “volume discount” on multiple convictions by the imposition of concurrent sentences, Brown, 249 A.3d 1216, and we discern no error in the individualized sentence imposed by the trial court in this case. Accordingly, McNary is due no relief on her sentencing claim. Judgment of sentence is Affirmed. Date: 11/3/2026 - 12 -