J-S59014-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: L.W.

APPEAL OF: L.W.

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

: No. 2842 EDA 2013

Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered August 13, 2013,

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, 

Juvenile Division, at Nos. CP-51-JV-0040075-2010,

CP-51-JV-0040108-2010, CP-51-JV-0040127-2010,

CP-51-JV-0050441-2007, CP-51-JV-0070191-2007

and CP-51-JV-0110326-2006.

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 16, 2014

Appellant, L.W., appeals from the dispositional order1entered on 

August 13, 2013, by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. We 

affirm.

At the time of the disposition hearing on August 13, 2013, Appellant 

was nineteen years old.2 Appellant’s Brief at 8. A review of the record 

reveals that in November 2006, at the age of twelve and while in the sixth 

grade, Appellant was arrested on charges of robbery, theft, conspiracy, 

possession of an instrument of crime, simple assault, receiving stolen 

property, and reckless endangerment. He ultimately was adjudicated 

 

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1

 We have corrected the caption to reflect that the appeal is from the 

dispositional order.

2

 Appellant remained a “child” as defined in the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 

6302. In re J.M., 42 A.3d 348, 353 (Pa. Super. 2012).
J-S59014-14

-2-

delinquent on May 29, 2007, for simple assault and theft, and the remaining 

charges were withdrawn. The juvenile court summarized the ensuing facts 

and history as follows:

[Appellant] was previously adjudicated delinquent and 

placed at two different delinquent institutions. N.T., pp. 2-3. 

After his latest discharge from placement, [Appellant] was 

placed on probation by this Court. [Appellant’s] adjustment to 

probation was “unsatisfactory.” Id. [Appellant] failed to meet 

with his probation officer on several occasions. Id. [Appellant] 

also tested positive for the illegal use of drugs while on 

probation. Id. [Appellant] has an unpaid restitution balance of 

$2,715.99. Also while on probation (but following his eighteenth 

birthday), [Appellant] was arrested. Id. As a result of that 

arrest, [Appellant] was convicted of theft (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921 

graded as a felony), criminal conspiracy (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903 

graded as a felony), possession of a firearm without a license 

(18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106 graded as a felony), and possession of a 

firearm with an altered serial number (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6110.2 

graded as a felony). N.T., pp. 2-3; see also Docket for CP-51-

CR-0001838-2012. [Appellant] was incarcerated in adult prison 

for 18 months as a result of his theft and firearm conviction. 

N.T., pp. 2-4; see also Docket for CP-51-CR-0001838-2012.

At the disposition hearing, even counsel for [Appellant] 

conceded “obviously there are the underlying violations that he 

[Appellant] wasn’t complying with probation.” N.T., p. 4.

Accordingly, this Court entered a dispositional order 

committing [Appellant] to the State . . . .

Juvenile Court Opinion, 12/10/13, at 2–3.

Appellant filed a post-dispositional motion, titled Motion for 

Reconsideration of Commit,3on August 23, 2013, which was denied on 

 

3

 A post-dispositional motion must be filed within ten days of the juvenile 

court’s dispositional order. See Pa.R.J.C.P. 620(B)(1) (“[I]f a post-
J-S59014-14

-3-

August 26, 2013. Appellant thereafter filed a notice of appeal, and both the 

juvenile court and Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises the following single issue in this appeal:4

Did not the lower court abuse its discretion and violate the 

purposes of the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(b), by 

committing appellant, a juvenile, to secure placement with the 

State, which was not the least restrictive alternative needed to 

rehabilitate, supervise, and treat him?

Appellant’s Brief at 3.

Appellant concedes that it is undisputed that he violated the terms of 

his juvenile probation by failing to comply with its terms when he incurred 

new criminal convictions. Appellant’s Brief at 8. Indeed, his probation 

officer, Nicole Marchiano, testified as follows:

Your Honor, on August 2nd, 2013, ordered [the] Probation 

Officer to plan for placement. [Appellant] is currently held in the 

Juvenile Justice Service Center. He recently was released from 

the House of Corrections, after serving 18 to 23 months. He was 

also sentenced to eight years of adult probation on VUFA 

charges. His adjustment to probation has been unsatisfactory. 

He missed several visits. His last drug screen before being 

placed for the 18 to 23 months was positive. He owes a total of 

$2,715.99. . . . [H]e has already been to Saint Gabe’s, Abraxis 

with the State twice . . . .

N.T., 8/13/13, at 2–3.

 

dispositional motion is filed, it shall be filed no later than ten days after the 

imposition of disposition.”). In re C.A.G., 89 A.3d 704, 706 (Pa. Super. 

2014).

4

 Appellant has abandoned a second issue set forth in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

statement that asserted there was no evidence Appellant had failed to make 

restitution payments and that such failure was willful.
J-S59014-14

-4-

Appellant maintains that the juvenile court failed to provide reasons 

for the dispositional order and failed to provide rationale explaining why 

confinement in a youth development center5 was the least restrictive 

intervention consistent with the rehabilitation, supervision, and treatment 

needs of Appellant. Appellant’s Brief at 9–10, 11. He further contends that 

the juvenile court’s disposition was “not imposed to rehabilitate [A]ppellant, 

but rather to punish him for failing to pay restitution.” Id. at 16.6

Our standard of review of dispositional orders in juvenile proceedings 

is well settled. The Juvenile Act grants juvenile courts broad discretion when 

determining an appropriate disposition. In re C.A.G., 89 A.3d 704, 709 (Pa. 

Super. 2014). We will not disturb a disposition absent a manifest abuse of 

discretion. In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657, 664 (Pa. Super. 2012).

The purposes of the Juvenile Act include, inter alia:

(b) Purposes.--This chapter shall be interpreted and construed 

as to effectuate the following purposes:

* * *

 

5

 Appellant was committed to State Department of Public Welfare at YDC 

Cresson. Order, 8/26/13, at 1.

6

 To the extent Appellant makes a passing, one-sentence reference to the 

Fourteenth Amendment, Appellant’s Brief at 15, that contention is waived for 

failure to raise it below. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Krum, 533 A.2d 

134, 135–136 (Pa. Super. 1987) (en banc) (finding issues of constitutional 

dimension are waived where not preserved below); Commonwealth v. 

Haughwout, 837 A.2d 480, 486 (Pa. Super. 2003) (same).
J-S59014-14

-5-

(2) Consistent with the protection of the public interest, to 

provide for children committing delinquent acts programs 

of supervision, care and rehabilitation which provide 

balanced attention to the protection of the community, the 

imposition of accountability for offenses committed and the 

development of competencies to enable children to become 

responsible and productive members of the community.

(3) To achieve the foregoing purposes in a family 

environment whenever possible, separating the child from 

parents only when necessary for his welfare, safety or 

health or in the interests of public safety.

42 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(2), (3).

The juvenile court did not lose sight of the Juvenile Act’s purposes. In 

the words of the juvenile court judge, “[Appellant] and I have been doing 

this dance for a very long time[,] and for some reason he continues to 

navigate towards the Criminal Justice System.” N.T., 8/13/13, at 6. Thus, 

the judge, who was thoroughly familiar with Appellant’s case, was uniquely 

poised to rule regarding Appellant’s placement. Indeed, contrary to 

Appellant’s contention that the juvenile court failed to offer reasons for the 

commitment, the record reveals that it provided powerful reasons for its 

decision to finally commit Appellant to the Pennsylvania Department of 

Welfare.

[T]his Court entered a dispositional order committing [Appellant] 

to the State based upon, inter alia, the failed prior attempts to 

rehabilitate [Appellant] through probation and less restrictive 

placements, [Appellant’s] criminal conduct while on probation, 

[Appellant’s] illegal drug use while on probation, and 

[Appellant’s] failure to satisfy his restitution obligations.
J-S59014-14

-6-

Juvenile Court Opinion, 12/10/13, at 3. Appellant’s unsupportable focus on 

the fact that the juvenile court included Appellant’s nonpayment of 

restitution as a basis for its decision overstates the court’s reference to 

Appellant’s outstanding restitution while ignoring the many other reasons 

cited by the court that compelled placement.

As noted above, Appellant’s probation officer explained that Appellant’s 

adjustment to probation had been unsatisfactory. N.T., 8/13/13, at 3. She 

also testified that Appellant’s repeated experiences at other juvenile 

treatment facilities had failed to dissuade Appellant from further criminal 

conduct. Id. at 2–3. Moreover, Appellant tested positive for narcotics use 

and repeatedly failed to report for probation. Id. at 2. Finally, in addition to 

violating probation on six cases by committing new crimes including firearms 

offenses, Appellant failed to comply with the terms of his after-care 

probation. Id. at 3–4.

Upon review, we discern no basis to disrupt the juvenile court’s 

disposition, and we conclude the record supports the juvenile court’s 

analysis. Moreover, the record supports the juvenile court’s determination 

that Appellant’s claim that placement with the State is not the least 

restrictive alternative necessary to rehabilitate, supervise, and treat him is 

unavailing. The court stated:

[Appellant] has unequivocally demonstrated that he cannot be 

adequately or safely supervised in the community. This Court 
J-S59014-14

-7-

attempted to treat and rehabilitate [Appellant] through probation 

and placement in two delinquent facilities less restrictive than 

placement with the State. Unfortunately, these prior attempts to 

rehabilitate and treat [Appellant] via less restrictive alternatives 

did not achieve those goals. Accordingly, this Court was left with 

no less restrictive alternatives in its effort to rehabilitate, 

supervise, and treat [Appellant].

Juvenile Court Opinion, 12/10/13, at 4. The record simply does not reflect 

that the disposition imposed is a manifest abuse of discretion.

Dispositional order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/16/2014