� 1 This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence imposed after Appellant entered an open plea of guilty to one count of aggravated assault.
*fn1 His conviction was the result of an incident where, in the early morning hours of July 20, 1999, he and an accomplice drove past the Dick family residence and fired at least eleven shots into the house using a semi-automatic rifle. Although Appellant believed the house to be the residence of Arthur Decker, Decker actually lived two doors down. Bullet holes were found above the baby’s crib and in the headboard of the daughter’s bed. Immediately following the court’s acceptance of his guilty plea, Appellant waived the preparation of a presentence report and the court sentenced him to the maximum term of ten to twenty years of imprisonment. A timely filed post-sentence motion was denied without a hearing. This appeal followed in which Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. We vacate Appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing.
� 2 Initially, we note that sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, whose judgment will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 666 A.2d 690, 693 (Pa. Super. 1995). Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of sentencing for which there is no automatic right to appeal. Commonwealth v. Koren, 646 A.2d 1205, 1207 (Pa. Super. 1994). This appeal is, therefore, more appropriately considered a petition for allowance of appeal. 42 Pa.C.S.A. � 9781(b). Two requirements must be met before a challenge to the judgment of sentence will be heard on the merits. Koren, 646 A.2d at 1207. First, the appellant must set forth in his brief a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Id.; Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). Second, he must show that there is a substantial question that the sentence imposed is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code. 42 Pa.C.S.A. � 9781(b); Commonwealth v. Urrutia, 653 A.2d 706, 710 (Pa. Super. 1995).
� 3 The determination of whether a particular issue raises a substantial question is to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Commonwealth v. Maneval, 688 A.2d 1198, 1199-1200 (Pa. Super. 1997). Generally, however, in order to establish a substantial question, the appellant must show actions by the sentencing court inconsistent with the Sentencing Code or contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process. Id.
