Full Opinion

J-S28043-26 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : BARRY CHARLES SCHIFF : : Appellant : No. 1752 MDA 2025 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 13, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0000923-2018 BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: OCTOBER 20, 2026 Appellant, Barry Schiff, appeals from the August 13, 2020, judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County following a trial by jury after which Appellant was convicted of: two counts of Corrupt Organizations, felonies of the first degree1; five counts of Trafficking Individuals, felonies of the second degree2; three counts of Involuntary Servitude, felonies of the first degree3; one count Promoting Prostitution graded as a felony of the third degree4; one count Promoting Prostitution graded as a misdemeanor of the second degree5; one count Criminal Use of a ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 911(B)(3) 2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3011(A) 3 18 Pa.C.S. § 3012 4 18 Pa.C.S. § 5902(b)(1) 5 18 Pa.C.S. § 5902(b)(4) J-S28043-26 Communication Facility, a felony of the third degree6; one count Delivery of a Controlled Substance, an ungraded felony7; and one count of Criminal Conspiracy, a felony of the first degree8. Appellant was subsequently sentenced to an aggregate term of incarceration fifty-five and one half to one hundred and forty-one years’ incarceration. N.T. Sentencing Hearing 8/13/2020 at 30-35. We affirm. Appellant was convicted of the aforementioned offenses following a nearly two-week trial by jury for conduct relating to his involvement in the sex trafficking organization operating under the name “Adriana’s Angels.” Extensive testimony from his victims established that Appellant’s role in this organization involved coercing and controlling his victims by such methods as: procuring narcotics and alternatively administering them to or withholding them from the women; intimidating the victims through threats both directed at the victims themselves as well as their families, including their minor children; and restricting the movement of the women by taking and withholding their I.D.’s, phones, and car keys; all aimed towards the purpose of forcing or coercing the victims into prostitution for Appellant’s personal financial gain. N.T. Jury Trial, 11/5/2019 at 223-226, 284, 314-315; N.T. Jury Trial, 11/6/2019 at 365-366; N.T. Jury Trial, 11/7/2019 at 568. ____________________________________________ 6 18 Pa.C.S. § 7512(a) 7 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(3) 8 18 Pa.C.S. § 903 -2- J-S28043-26 Appellant was sentenced by the Honorable Judge Margaret C. Miller of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas on August 13, 2020, to an aggregate term of fifty-five and one half years to one-hundred and forty-one years of incarceration. N.T. Sentencing Hearing 8/13/2020, at 35. Appellant timely filed a post-sentence Motion challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence, which was subsequently denied. Appellant then appealed to this Court. However, due to a failure to include a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), and the Commonwealth’s objection to this briefing defect, this Court was precluded from reaching the merits of Appellant’s claim. Consequently, Schiff’s judgment of sentence was affirmed. See Commonwealth v. Schiff, 268 A.3d 405 (Pa. Super. 2021). Thereafter, Appellant filed a Post-Conviction Relief Act petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, which was granted, thereby reinstating Appellant’s direct appeal rights. Trial Court Opinion filed February 2, 2026 at 1. The instant appeal timely followed. Appellant presents only the following question for this Court’s review: Did the trial court abuse its sentencing discretion when it imposed an unreasonable and excessive de facto life sentence and failed to afford adequate weight to mitigating factors; specifically, defendant’s declining health and respective role in the offenses? Appellant’s Brief at 4. Initially, we observe that "challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to review as of right." Commonwealth -3- J-S28043-26 v. Derry, 2016 PA Super 250, 150 A.3d 987, 991 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citation omitted). In order to determine whether Appellant has successfully invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, we must first determine: (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved his issues; (3) whether Appellant's brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is inappropriate under the sentencing code. Commonwealth v. Corley, 2011 PA Super 227, 31 A.3d 293, 296 (Pa.Super. 2011)(citation omitted). Here, as we have previously observed, Appellant preserved his challenge to the discretionary aspects of the sentence imposed in a post- sentence motion for reconsideration, and further the instant appeal was timely filed. Additionally, Appellant’s instant brief contains a compliant Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement. In this statement, Appellant contends that he has raised a substantial question where he claims both that the sentence imposed was excessive and that the sentencing court failed to consider mitigating factors. Appellant’s Brief at 10-11. As this Court has previously held that such claims indeed raise a substantial question, we find that Appellant has successfully invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, and we proceed to review the merits of his appeal. See Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015). -4- J-S28043-26 In reviewing challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentence, we observe the following standard: 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. Hyland, 2005 PA Super 199, 875 A.2d 1175, 1184 (Pa.Super. 2005). When imposing sentence, a court is required to consider the particular circumstances of the offense and the character of the defendant. In considering these factors, the court should refer to the defendant's prior criminal record, age, personal characteristics and potential for rehabilitation. Where pre-sentence reports exist, we shall...presume that the sentencing judge was aware of relevant information regarding the defendant's character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors. Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 2014 PA Super 10, 84 A.3d 736, 761 (Pa.Super. 2014)(quotation marks and quotation omitted). In this matter, the Honorable Judge Miller explained her reasoning underlying the sentence imposed as follows: In considering Mr. Schiff individually, as I am required to do when I sentence, I am mindful of his prior record score and also mindful of many statements that he made to the troopers throughout the investigation, statements that he made to the victims, and quoting from the presentence investigation report, the report itself describes his statements as both contradictory and convoluted. And that in a nutshell is how Barry Charles Schiff paints himself, in a contradictory and convoluted manner to create whatever image he deems necessary at that given time to fulfill whatever -5- J-S28043-26 goal he has at that given time, whether it be to further the corrupt organization in a business sense or to control, manipulate, threaten, coerce, and injure the direct victims, putting on a persona of a mob affiliate and then putting on a persona as somebody who is simply off medication and an innocent victim on his own behalf. I don't buy that. I don't buy either statement. What I buy is the impactful, sincere testimony of a group of women who saw firsthand, heard firsthand, and were treated firsthand by Barry Schiff as if they were objects, as if they were commodities to be treated with scorn and threats, to be abused, to be drug-addled, to be coerced. To treat other human beings like that offends not just them but also our community and society as a whole, and my sentence on certain counts is in the aggravated range. I have considered that the only way by which to achieve justice in this matter is to impose consecutive sentences, not only to ensure that each victim receives justice, but because the nature of the crimes themselves deserve an independent sentence and answerability to that criminal behavior, each in and of itself, and not a volume discount for the varieties and degrees of bad behavior that satisfy the elements of these various crimes. N.T. Sentencing Hearing 8/13/2020 at 30-32. After due consideration of Appellant’s arguments, we find no reason to conclude the Honorable Judge Miller abused her discretion in this matter. To begin, Appellant identifies as the mitigating circumstances to which Her Honor failed to afford adequate weight as Appellant’s age at time of sentencing and his “poor health.” Appellant’s Brief at 16. While Appellant does not explain in his brief what precisely constituted his “poor health,” he directs this Court to review his Post-sentence Motion filed August 24, 2020, which itself cites the PSI. Id. at 16-17. As Her -6- J-S28043-26 Honor was provided with the PSI prior to sentencing, and explicitly referenced both it and Mr. Schiff’s discussion of his medical needs on the record, we find that Appellant has failed to overcome the presumption that the sentencing Court indeed considered and weighed all information contained in the report. Insofar as Appellant argues that his sentence was disproportionate to the crimes committed, we find his attempt to diminish the severity of his heinous acts distasteful and unavailing. While he may choose to characterize his conduct as merely “brokering escorts,” contend that his victims “knew what they were getting into,” or shift blame onto his co-defendant, or indeed to highlight that Appellant was so magnanimous as to allow some of the women under his control to come and go freely, he achieves nothing more than to validate Judge Miller’s assessment of his character and utterly apposite sentencing. Id. at 15-16. As such, we find that Appellant’s sole issue merits no relief and thus we affirm. Judgment of sentence affirmed. -7- J-S28043-26 Judgment Entered. Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 10/20/2026 -8-