J-S31040-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : ZACHARY ALLEN SZEKERES, : : Appellant : No. 2187 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 14, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Perry County, Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-50-CR-0000065-2015 BEFORE: SHOGAN, OTT, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED MAY 17, 2016 Zachary Allen Szekeres (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence of one to five years of imprisonment imposed following his entry of a guilty plea to one count of accidents involving death or personal injury.

We affirm.

Appellant presents one issue on appeal to this Court, wherein he challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence.

Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to review as of right. An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test: We conduct a four-part analysis to 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, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

J-S31040-16

substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 9781(b).

Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa. Super. 2013) (some citations omitted).

Our review reveals that Appellant’s brief does not contain the requisite Rule 2119(f) statement, and the Commonwealth has objected to its absence.

Thus, Appellant’s claim is waived. See Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 861 A.2d 304, 308 (Pa. Super. 2004) (“Where an appellant fails to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) and the Commonwealth objects, the issue is waived for purposes of review.”). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary Date: 5/17/2016

-2-