J-S39033-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ALBERT CASTAPHNEY : : Appellant : No. 187 WDA 2024 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 26, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0005560-2019

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: NOVEMBER 25, 2024 Appellant Albert Castaphney appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his convictions for aggravated assault, strangulation, unlawful restraint, and possessing an instrument of crime (PIC).1 Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the discretionary aspects of his sentence. After review, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.

We adopt the trial court’s summary of the underlying facts and procedural history of this matter. See Trial Ct. Op., 3/15/24, at 1-10. Briefly, Appellant and Torie Miesko (the victim) were in a relationship and had a child together in 2018. Between April 23, 2019 and May 6, 2019, while Appellant, the victim, and their six-month old child were living together in Appellant’s grandmother’s house, Appellant used threats and recurring physical abuse to ____________________________________________

J-S39033-24

prevent the victim from leaving the house despite the victim’s attempts to escape. During this two-week period, Appellant struck the victim with his hands, a broomstick, a sledgehammer, and cans of vegetables, and Appellant abused the victim while she was holding their six-month-old child. Appellant also prevented the victim from eating and sleeping. When the victim was finally able to escape, she ran to a neighbor’s house with the baby. The victim was transported to the hospital where she had to undergo oral maxillofacial surgery due to the severe injuries to her head and face. The victim also suffered numerous injuries to her eyes, neck, back, legs, and hands.

Appellant was ultimately arrested, charged, and convicted of the aforementioned crimes. See id. at 4-10.2 After the trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion, Appellant filed a timely appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing Appellant’s claims.

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues: 1. Was the evidence at trial insufficient to support [Appellant’s] conviction for aggravated assault where the Commonwealth failed to elicit testimony that [Appellant’s] actions were ____________________________________________

-2- J-S39033-24

accompanied by the [Appellant’s] malice - i.e., a knowing disregard of a virtually certain risk of serious bodily injury?

2. Was the evidence at trial insufficient to support [Appellant’s] conviction for unlawful restraint where the Commonwealth failed to elicit sufficient testimony that the victim was actually restrained from leaving the residence?

3. Was the evidence at trial insufficient to support [Appellant’s] conviction for [PIC] where the Commonwealth failed to elicit sufficient evidence that [Appellant] intended to employ the instrument (a broomstick) criminally?

4. Was [the trial court’s] imposition of an order that [Appellant] have no contact with his minor child invalid because it was not tailored to the offense and consistent with his rehabilitative needs?

Appellant’s Brief at 5 (formatting altered).

Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and relevant legal authority, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., at 1-21. The trial court thoroughly addressed Appellant’s claims of error and correctly concluded that he was not entitled to relief.3 See id. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. ____________________________________________

-3- J-S39033-24

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.4

____________________________________________

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

Commonwealth v. Proctor, 156 A.3d 261, 273 (Pa. Super. 2017) (formatting altered and citation omitted). “A substantial question exists only when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.” Id. (citation omitted). Here, the record reflects that Appellant preserved his issue by raising it in his post-sentence motion, filing a timely appeal and Rule 1925(b) statement, and including a Rule 2119(f) statement in his brief. See id. Further, we conclude that Appellant’s claim raises a substantial question. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Glawinski, 310 A.3d 321, 325 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2024) (providing that a claim that a no contact order was too severe under the circumstances, was not individualized, and restricted the defendant’s liberty raised a substantial question) (citing Commonwealth v. Koren, 646 A.2d 1205, 1208 (Pa. Super. 1994)). As such, Appellant has properly presented his issue. However, the trial court explained its rationale for the no-contact order, and for the reasons stated in the trial court’s opinion, Appellant is not entitled to relief. See Trial Ct. Op. at 19-21. Moreover, we emphasize that the trial court had the benefit of a presentence investigation (PSI) report. See N.T., 9/26/23, at 35. “[W]here the trial court is informed by a PSI [report], it is presumed that the court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and that where the court has been so informed, its discretion should not be disturbed.” Commonwealth v. Edwards, 194 A.3d 625, 638 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted and formatting altered).

-4- J-S39033-24

DATE: 11/25/2024

-5- Circulated 10/28/2024 02:21 PM