Com V Thompson R
J-A08028-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
RAYMOND THOMPSON :
:
Appellant : No. 1835 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 27, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0007870-2023
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED JULY 22, 2025
Raymond Thompson appeals from the judgment of sentence entered
following his guilty plea to third-degree murder and possession of instrument
of crime.1 Thompson challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. We
affirm.
In April 2024, Thompson entered a guilty plea to the above-referenced
charges. In June 2024, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate sentence
of 22½ to 45 years’ incarceration. Thompson did not file a post-sentence
motion or challenge the sentence at the sentencing hearing. He filed a timely
notice of appeal.
Thompson raises the following issue: “Did the trial judge abuse her
discretion by imposing a manifestly excessive sentence, when both sentences
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c) and 907, respectively.
J-A08028-25
were consecutive, where the trial judge failed to adequately consider
[Thompson’s] mental health issues and remorse as mitigation?” Thompson’s
Br. at 7.
Thompson argues the trial court abused its discretion when sentencing
him by imposing a manifestly excessive sentence. He points out the court
imposed the sentences consecutively and claims the court failed to adequately
consider mitigation evidence of Thompson’s mental health issues and
remorse.
Thompson’s issue challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence.
Before reviewing the merits of such a challenge, this Court must first
determine whether the appellant: 1) filed a timely appeal; 2) preserved the
claim at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion; 3) included in the appellate
brief a concise statement of reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal; and
4) raised a substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187
A.3d 266, 272 (Pa.Super. 2018) (en banc).
Here, Thompson failed to satisfy the second requirement. Thompson did
not file a post-sentence motion raising this discretionary issue or raise the
issue at the sentencing hearing. Therefore, he did not preserve it and waived
it on direct appeal. See Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1042
(Pa.Super. 2013) (en banc) (stating claims challenging discretionary aspects
of sentence must be raised in post-sentence motion or at sentencing, and the
failure to do so results in waiver).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-2-
J-A08028-25
Date: 7/22/2025
-3-