J-S79031-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JUAN RAMON SILVA, 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1074 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 22, 2018

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0005476-2016

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED MARCH 15, 2019

Juan Ramon Silva (“Silva”) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed following his convictions of two counts each of aggravated indecent 

assault – complainant less than 13 years old, indecent assault of a person less 

than 13 years of age, and corruption of minors.1 We affirm.

The trial court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history 

underlying the instant appeal as follows:

On May 10, 2016[, the] Lancaster City Bureau of Police 

received a report from the Lancaster County Children and Youth 

Agency that [Silva] had had inappropriate sexual contact with his 

step-grandchildren, I.R. [born in August 2001] and A.R. [born in 

August 2003] some years prior. Both children were forensically 

interviewed at the Lancaster County Children’s Alliance regarding 

the allegations. Each child disclosed that on separate occasions 

in 2008 or 2009, [Silva] digitally penetrated them during 

overnight visits at his home at 603 S. Prince Street in Lancaster, 

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3125(a)(7), 6318(a)(1), 6301(a)(1).
J-S79031-18

- 2 -

Based on these disclosures, Detective Aaron Harnish 

[(“Detective Harnish”)] contacted [Silva] on August 22, 2016[.] 

[Silva] voluntarily came in to the Lancaster Bureau of Police to be 

interviewed. The two-and-a-half-hour interview was captured on 

video. At the outset of that interview, [Silva] was read his 

Miranda[2]rights[,] and he indicated that he was making a 

knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of those rights. [Silva] 

was also advised of his right to counsel[,] and indicated that he 

was willing to waive that right. During the first half of the 

interview, [Silva] made admissions that he had physical contact 

with the victims, but denied sexual contact. After taking a short 

break[,] Detective Harnish informed [Silva] that based on a 

review of the evidence in this case and the statements made by 

[Silva], charges against [Silva] had been approved[,] and 

Detective Harnish continued to interrogate him. [Silva] continued 

to deny intentional sexual conduct but made admissions that skinon-skin contact may have occurred. Following the interview, 

[Silva] was taken into custody.

Prior to trial, [Silva] filed two pre-trial suppression 

[M]otions.[FN] At the hearing on both [M]otions, [the trial court] 

asked counsel to outline the specific suppression issues to be 

addressed. [Silva] stipulated that he was properly Mirandized at 

the beginning of the interrogation and that there was no challenge 

to the first half of the interview. Counsel then acknowledged that 

the only challenge being raised was whether he was unfairly 

induced into inculpating himself by Detective Harnish’s 

interrogation tactics. After a careful review of the record and the 

law, [the trial court] found [Silva’s] claims meritless and denied 

his suppression [M]otion on November 13, 2017.

[FN] The first suppression [M]otion broadly challenged that 

his waiver of Miranda rights prior to the interview was not 

knowing, voluntary, and intelligent[,] although it did not 

aver a specific reason as to why this was the case. The 

second suppression [M]otion challenged that Detective 

Harnish unfairly induced [Silva] into inculpating himself.

After a four-day jury trial[, Silva] was convicted on January 

25, 2018 of [the above-mentioned crimes]. [The trial court] 

____________________________________________

2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
J-S79031-18

- 3 -

subsequently sentenced [Silva,] on June 22, 2018[,] to an 

aggregate [term] of ten to twenty (10-20) years of incarceration. 

[Silva] filed his Notice of [] Appeal on July 2, 2018[,] and his 

[court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)] Concise Statement of Errors on 

July 19, 2018[,] to which the Commonwealth provided a timely 

response.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/14/18, at 1-3 (citations to record and some footnotes 

omitted).

On appeal, Silva raises the following question for our review:

Whether the trial court erred in denying [Silva’s] [M]otion to 

suppress the portion of [Silva’s] video-recorded statements to law 

enforcement where [Silva] admits to having physical contact with 

the victims[,] when the record clearly demonstrated that [Silva] 

requested an attorney and no longer wished to answer questions?

Brief for Appellant at 4.

We adhere to the following standard of review:

In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, our responsibility 

is to determine whether the record supports the suppression 

court’s factual findings and legitimacy of the inferences and legal 

conclusions drawn from those findings. If the suppression court 

held for the prosecution, we consider only the evidence of the 

prosecution’s witnesses and so much of the evidence for the 

defense as, fairly read in the context of the record as a whole, 

remains uncontradicted. When the factual findings of the 

suppression court are supported by the evidence, the appellate 

court may reverse if there is an error in the legal conclusions 

drawn from those factual findings.

Commonwealth v. Arnold, 932 A.2d 143, 145 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation 

omitted).

Silva claims that he asserted his right to an attorney when he realized 

that Detective Harnish would not allow him to leave the interview. Brief for 

Appellant at 10. According to Silva, Detective Harnish continued to question 
J-S79031-18

- 4 -

Silva, even after he requested an attorney, in an attempt to obtain a 

confession. Id. at 10-11; see also id. at 11 (arguing that Detective Harnish

lied to Silva by indicating that an assistant district attorney was watching the 

interview, and by stating that there was medical evidence establishing that 

digital penetration had occurred years prior). Silva asserts that any 

statements he made to Detective Harnish, after expressing his wish for an 

attorney, should have been suppressed. Id. at 11-12.3

The trial court addressed Silva’s claim as follows:

[Silva’s] only claim on appeal is that his statement to 

Detective Harnish should have been suppressed at trial because 

he requested an attorney and no longer wished to answer 

questions. ... [Silva] did not raise this claim in the suppression 

hearing held on October 23, 2017. In fact, [Silva] stipulated at 

the beginning of that hearing that his Miranda waiver was 

knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. [Silva] never challenged that 

he was denied the right to counsel or was otherwise forced to 

answer questions. For this reason, [the trial court] considers his 

appeal on this issue waived.

Even if [Silva] had properly preserved this issue[,] it is 

meritless. An invocation of the right to remain silent or request 

for an attorney must be unambiguous. After careful review of the 

two-and-a-half-hour interview, [Silva] at no time unambiguously 

requested an attorney or indicated that he no longer wished to 

answer questions. The only point in the interview in which [Silva] 

might have mentioned obtaining counsel was mumbled and could 

be interpreted as either: “I might call her a liar[,]” or “I might 

have to call a lawyer.” If it is the former, which indeed seems 

most likely given the context in which the statement was given, 

there is no appealable issue. If it is the latter, it would not qualify 

as an unequivocal request for an attorney[,] nor an indication that 

____________________________________________

3 Silva failed to cite to any relevant legal authority in support of his claim. 

See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (providing that the argument shall include “such 

discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.”).
J-S79031-18

- 5 -

he no longer wished to answer questions. Indeed, the assertion 

that [Silva] no longer wished to answer questions is belied by the 

fact that he told Detective Harnish that he did not regret coming 

in to talk to him[,] even after he was told that he was being 

charged. [Silva’s] contention is therefore meritless.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/14/18, at 3-4 (citations and some paragraph breaks 

omitted). Our review confirms that Silva failed to preserve his claim in his 

Motion to suppress, at the suppression hearing, or in a post-hearing 

submission.

4

 See Commonwealth v. Carper, 172 A.3d 613, 619 (Pa. Super. 

2017) (indicating that a defendant must preserve a suppression issue in a 

motion to suppress, at a suppression hearing, or in a post-hearing 

submission); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302 (providing that “[i]ssues not raised in 

the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”). 

Thus, his sole claim on appeal is waived.

Because Silva failed to preserve his claim for review, and we otherwise 

discern no error by the trial court, we affirm Silva’s judgment of sentence.

____________________________________________

4 We additionally note that while the video recording of the challenged 

interview was admitted into evidence at trial, Silva failed to include a copy of 

the video in the certified record. See Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 

1, 7 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating that “the responsibility rests upon the appellant 

to ensure that the certified record on appeal is complete in the sense that it 

contains all of the materials necessary for the reviewing court to perform its 

duty.”).
J-S79031-18

- 6 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/15/2019