J-S45008-17

_____________________________

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

AMY MACHALETTE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 654 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 2, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012069-2013

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 07, 2017

Appellant, Amy Machalette, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following her 

bench trial convictions of aggravated assault, possessing instruments of 

crime (“PIC”), recklessly endangering another person (“REAP”), and simple 

assault.1 We affirm.

In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant 

facts of this case. Therefore, we have no need to restate them. 

Procedurally, on October 1, 2013, the Commonwealth charged Appellant 

with aggravated assault, PIC, REAP, and simple assault. On October 3, 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1), 907(a), 2705, 2701(a), respectively.
J-S45008-17

- 2 -

2013, Appellant filed a suppression motion, which claimed Detective Druding 

continued to question her after she had asked for an attorney while in police 

custody on September 9, 2013. After an April 4, 2014 hearing, the court 

denied the motion on April 10, 2014. Appellant proceeded to a bench trial 

on July 6, 2015. On July 9, 2015, the court convicted Appellant of 

aggravated assault, PIC, REAP, and simple assault. The court deferred 

sentencing pending the preparation of a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”) 

report. 

On October 2, 2015, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate 

term of forty (40) to eighty (80) months’ incarceration, followed by five (5) 

years’ probation. On October 8, 2015, Appellant timely filed a post-sentence 

motion, which the court denied on February 19, 2016. Appellant timely filed 

a notice of appeal on February 26, 2016. On March 2, 2016, the court 

ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on 

appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.1925(b), and Appellant timely complied on April 

4, 2016.

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

DID NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING APPELLANT’S 

MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE STATEMENT THAT WAS TAKEN 

FROM APPELLANT WHILE SHE WAS IN CUSTODY AND 

INVOKED HER 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SPEAK WITH 

COUNSEL BEFORE ANSWERING FURTHER QUESTIONS?

WAS NOT THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE 

CONVICTION FOR AGGRAVATED ASSAULT UNDER 

[SECTION] 2702[?] THE EVIDENCE FAILED TO ESTABLISH 

THAT...APPELLANT POSSESSED A WEAPON AND 
J-S45008-17

- 3 -

INTENTIONALLY SHOT [VICTIM] WHILE INTENDING TO 

CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY INJURY. DID THE 

COMMONWEALTH FAIL TO SHOW THAT APPELLANT 

INTENTIONALLY SHOT [VICTIM] OR ACTED WITH MALICE 

MANIFESTING AN EXTREME INDIFFERENCE TO THE VALUE 

OF HUMAN LIFE?

(Appellant’s Brief at 3). 2 

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Daniel J. 

Anders, we conclude Appellant’s issues on appeal merit no relief. The trial 

court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the 

questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed October 4, 2016, at 5-

9) (finding: (1) Detective Druding interviewed Appellant on day of shooting; 

prior to start of interview, Detective Druding read Appellant her Miranda

rights and asked Appellant if she understood her rights; Appellant responded 

that she understood her rights and signed Miranda waiver form; when 

Detective Druding asked Appellant whom she shot, Appellant replied, “My 

dad said I should get a lawyer”; Detective Druding immediately stopped 

interview and reiterated to Appellant that it was her decision to get attorney; 

after brief silence, Appellant started talking about shooting and stated she 

shot Victim; as result, Detective Druding continued interviewing Appellant; 

____________________________________________

2 Throughout the trial court proceedings and on appeal, Appellant has 

erroneously labeled the suppression issue as a denial of her Sixth 

Amendment right to counsel. Nevertheless, Appellant’s claim actually 

challenges the alleged denial of her Fifth Amendment right to counsel during 

a custodial interrogation. 
J-S45008-17

- 4 -

significantly, Appellant did not attempt to stop interview at any time or make 

any other reference to attorney during interview; additionally, Appellant 

reviewed and signed her statement upon completion of interview; under 

these circumstance, Appellant did not “unambiguously” invoke her right to 

counsel, and court properly denied suppression motion; (2) Commonwealth 

presented ample evidence at trial, which established Appellant intentionally 

shot Victim at close range without justification; this evidence included 

Appellant’s statement to Detective Druding in which Appellant said she 

aimed low and shot Victim when Victim made fist to punch Appellant; Victim 

did not sustain serious bodily injury only because bullet struck her 

cellphone; fact that bullet hit cellphone instead of Victim’s thigh did not 

preclude finding that Appellant had specific intent to cause serious bodily 

injury to Victim; thus, sufficient evidence supported Appellant’s conviction of 

aggravated assault). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s 

opinion. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/7/2017
Circulated 07/14/2017 12:32 PM