J-A03038-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.R., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

APPEAL OF: J.R., A MINOR : No. 2684 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Dispositional Order August 15, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County

Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-39-JV-0000318-2014

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY J., and DUBOW, J.

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MARCH 30, 2016

Appellant, J.R., appeals from the dispositional order entered in the 

Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, following his adjudication of 

delinquency for three counts of indecent assault.1 We affirm. 

In its opinion, the juvenile court fully and correctly sets forth the 

relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no 

reason to restate them. We add only that the court denied Appellant’s 

suppression motion on July 22, 2014, and adjudicated Appellant delinquent 

on three counts of indecent assault. The court imposed juvenile probation 

on August 15, 2014, until further notice of the court. On September 11, 

2014, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. The court ordered Appellant 

on September 16, 2014, to file a concise statement of errors complained of 

on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The court granted Appellant’s 

 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126. 
J-A03038-16

- 2 -

request for an extension of time, and Appellant timely filed his Rule 1925(b) 

statement on October 31, 2014. 

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

WHETHER THE [JUVENILE] COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO 

GRANT APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS 

WHERE APPELLANT’S WAIVER OF HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS 

WAS INVOLUNTARY, UNKNOWING, AND/OR 

UNINTELLIGENT IN THAT IT WAS MADE WITHOUT A FULL 

AWARENESS OF THE RIGHTS BEING ABANDONED AND/OR 

CONSEQUENCES OF GIVING UP THOSE RIGHTS? 

(Appellant’s Brief at 5). 

We review the denial of a suppression motion as follows:

Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a 

[juvenile] court’s denial of a suppression motion is limited 

to determining whether the factual findings are supported 

by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn 

from those facts are correct.

[W]e may consider only the evidence of the 

prosecution and so much of the evidence for the 

defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the 

context of the record as a whole. Where the record 

supports the findings of the suppression court, we 

are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the 

court erred in reaching its legal conclusions based 

upon the facts.

Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14, 26-27 (Pa.Super. 2008) (en 

banc) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “It is within the 

suppression court’s sole province as factfinder to pass on the credibility of 

witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony.” Commonwealth v. 

Clemens, 66 A.3d 373, 378 (Pa.Super. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. 

Gallagher, 896 A.2d 583, 585 (Pa.Super. 2006)). 
J-A03038-16

- 3 -

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

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Kelly L. 

Banach, we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The juvenile court’s 

opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question 

presented. (See Juvenile Court Opinion, filed July 22, 2014, at 7-9) 

(finding: Detective contacted Appellant’s stepmother, who confirmed 

Appellant’s uncle and family friend could act as interested adults on 

Appellant’s behalf; stepmother permitted detective to speak with Appellant 

in presence of uncle and family friend; prior to Appellant’s interview, 

Detective spoke with uncle and family friend outside interview room and 

discussed nature of incidents that led to Appellant’s questioning; Detective 

showed uncle and family friend photo of Appellant on city surveillance 

system; tone of interview was conversational, as Appellant requested to 

speak with Detective outside presence of uncle and family friend, and 

disclosed information unknown to police; Detective gave Appellant Miranda

waiver form, explained that form was given to all juveniles to read and 

consider, and that form contained Appellant’s rights; Detective told Appellant 

to discuss waiver form with his uncle and family friend, and indicated where 

to sign; court reviewed audio/videotape of interview, which showed 

Appellant’s family friend holding waiver form and reading it aloud in 

Spanish; court also observed Appellant’s uncle sign waiver form; Appellant’s 

uncle gave Detective permission to speak with Appellant alone, as 
J-A03038-16

- 4 -

Appellant’s stepmother authorized Appellant’s uncle to act as “parent”; 

Detective told Appellant he could stop talking to Detective and speak with 

his uncle at any time; Appellant’s uncle and family friend were interested 

and informed adults; Appellant’s uncle read and voluntarily signed Miranda

waiver form; audio/videotape of police interview and Detective’s testimony 

at suppression hearing showed Appellant understood and comprehended 

questions posed to him in interview, and appropriately responded to 

questions). The record supports the court’s decision; therefore, we have no 

reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the juvenile 

court’s opinion. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/30/2016
2 

June 17, 2014 Hearing, the parties were permitted to submit Briefs relevant to the 

Suppress, including testimony and arguments of counsel. At the conclusion of the 

On June 12 and June 17, 2014, the Court heard the Juvenile's Motion to 

Mot. to Suppress, June 10, 2014, ,r10. 

Fifth Amendment rights, or the consequences of waiving those rights." Juv. Amend. 

have a "substantive understanding of the warnings given to him, the nature of his 

totality of the circumstances surrounding the interview demonstrates that he did not 

was not informed of the nature of the charges prior to being interviewed; and b) the 

not voluntary inasmuch as it was not knowingly and intelligently given because a) he 

sought to suppress the statement made to Detective Buckwalter, alleging that it was 

for the Juvenile filed an Amended Motion to Suppress. In said Motion, the Juvenile 

heard and the matter was rescheduled to June 12, 2014. On June 10, 2014, counsel 

May 9, 2014. On June 6, 2014, the Court schedule did not permit the Motion to be 

John Buckwalter of the Allentown Police Department during a custodial interview on 

·=) 

.·- ,\·'' ~'·}," 

\....-r·. ~ -· 

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above-captioned matter on J·;t1, :ZS14 . 

.. ·~ .... 

In said Motion, the Juvenile sought to suppress the statement he gave to Dffi:;~tiv~ 

KELLY L. BANACH, J.: 

OPINION 

No. 2014-423 

CP-39-JV-318-2014 

In Re: J.M.R. 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

JUVENILE DIVISION 

Circulated 03/09/2016 03:40 PM
3 

Motion to Suppress by July 1, 2014 and the Court took the matter under advisement. 

Briefs were timely submitted and this Opinion follows. 

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS 

On April 30, May 5, and May 8, 2014, the Allentown Police Department received 

reports of a juvenile actor wearing a school uniform (blue blazer with an emblem) 

attacking women in Center City Allentown. Investigation led the police to determine 

that the school uniform was that of the Roberto Clemente Charter School, located in 

Allentown. Police city camera footage was obtained and the Juvenile, J.M.R., was 

identified as the juvenile actor on the video. 

On May 9, 2014, Detective John Buckwalter of the Allentown Police Special 

Victims Unit called J.M.R.'s residence. An individual identified himself as J.M.R.'s 

uncle and told the detective that J.M.R.'s parents were in New York. Detective 

Buckwalter asked the uncle to have the parents call him. J.M.R.'s stepmother, Maria 

Peralta, called Detective Buckwalter. He told her that he wished to speak to J.M.R. 

about a crime and that he may be in trouble, although he did not explain the specific 

allegations. Detective Buckwalter asked her to have a biological family member bring 

J.M.R. to police headquarters. Their conversation lasted approximately 5 minutes and 

Detective Buckwalter was able to ascertain that J.M.R.'s stepmother was not a native 

English speaker. 

J.M.R.'s stepmother called Detective Buckwalter back and told him that 

J. M .R. 's uncle would bring him to headquarters to speak with the detective. A short 

time later, J.M.R.'s uncle, Miguel Tineo, and Mr. Tineo's employee/friend, Elvido 

Delacruz, responded to headquarters with J.M.R. Upon their arrival, the Juvenile was 

placed in an interview room and the two adults remained in a hallway near the 

interview room. Detective Buckwalter telephoned J.M.R.'s stepmother and obtained 
4 

consent to speak with J.M.R. with his uncle present. Detective Buckwalter 

determined that the uncle's command of the English language was poor, but that Mr. 

Delacruz's English was better. Detective Buckwalter explained to Mr. Tineo and Mr. 

Delacruz that he wanted to ask J.M.R. a few questions, that J.M.R. was doing 

something bad and that the behavior had to stop, and that J.M.R. would go home that 

day. The detective showed the men a picture obtained from the camera surveillance, 

which showed the actor in question. Mr. Tineo and Mr. Delacruz conceded that the 

T. /v1. "R. was the juvenile in the picture. Detective Buckwalter also 

recalled explaining J.M.R.'s Miranda rights to the adults. Because there was no 

Spanish-speaking detective available at the time and because Mr. Delacruz appeared 

to understand Detective Buckwalter, he permitted both Mr. Tineo and Mr. Delacruz to 

be present during the interview with J.M.R. 

The interview with J.M.R. was audio and videotaped. At the beginning of the 

interview, Detective Buckwalter explained that it was his desire to get the incidents in 

Allentown to stop. He further explained that he would be leaving the room so that 

J.M.R., his uncle, and Mr. Delacruz could discuss his Miranda rights. J.M.R. 

requested that he be permitted to speak with Detective Buckwalter outside the 

presence of his uncle and Mr. Delacruz. Detective Buckwalter told J.M.R. that was 

possible, but to discuss that with his uncle to be sure that all were in agreement. 

Detective Buckwalter left the room, giving Mr. Tineo the Allentown Police Department 

Miranda Rights form, which is in both English and Spanish, before he left so that the 

three could discuss the Miranda rights and J.M.R.'s willingness to give up those 

rights. Detective Buckwalter stopped the audio and video recorder at that point, but 

not before the camera recorded Mr. Tineo reading the Miranda form aloud, in Spanish, 

to J.M.R. 
5 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

In his Letter Brief and Motion to Suppress, the Juvenile argues that his 

constitutional rights pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United 

When Detective Buckwalter returned to the room, J.M.R. was signing the 

Miranda form and passing it to his uncle to sign. Again, J.M.R. requested that he be 

able to speak to Detective Buckwalter alone. With Mr. Tineo's consent, Mr. Tineo and 

Mr. Delacruz left the room. Detective Buckwalter first obtained some biographical 

information from J.M.R. The Juvenile began by speaking about an incident involving 

him throwing a rock at a police car and then began to tell Detective Buckwalter that 

he began to "grab people's butt." J.M.R. stated that he would see a girl walk into an 

alley and would go grab the girl's "butt." J.M.R. indicated that he first began to 

engage in this type of behavior a short time prior and that he had done this to about 

10 girls. He indicated that the last one was an adult woman. He explained that he 

would grab his victims from behind, placing their arms behind their backs so that they 

would not hit him and would touch them "in their butt." J.M.R. also indicated that he 

would touch his victims in the vagina and around their breasts. J.M.R. indicated that 

he would sometimes whisper in their ear, at one time telling a victim not to move 

because he had a gun and used a toy gun on his victims three times. J.M.R. indicated 

that he attempted to get a hand down one of the victim's pants, but was unsuccessful.' 

The interview with J.M.R. was conducted in English and J.M.R.'s responses to 

Detective Buckwalter's questions were appropriate, with the Juvenile offering more 

information than the police knew at the time. The tone of the interview was 

conversational and there was no force or threats made by the police during the 

interview. The entire interview process took approximately 35 minutes and the 

Juvenile was released to his uncle after it concluded. 
6 

1 Although a factor in evaluating the totality of the circumstances giving rise to the waiver of 

Miranda rights, there is no longer a per se requirement that an interested adult be present 

during the interview with law enforcement. See Knox at · 7 'fh';. 47. 

Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732.., 746-747 (Pa.Super.2012)). 

drain a person's ability to withstand suggestion and coercion." In re V.C. at 351 (citing 

detention[,] the attitude of the interrogator[,] and "any and all other factors that could 

[juvenile's] physical and psychological state[,] the conditions attendant to the 

absence of an interested adult! .... the duration and means of an interrogation[,] the 

consideration of the juvenile's age, experience, comprehension, and the presence or 

The totality of the circumstances is evaluated based on factors, including "a 

Miranda holds that "[t]he [juvenile] may waive effectuation" 

of the rights conveyed in the warnings "provided the waiver 

is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently." The 

inquiry has two distinct dimensions. First, the 

relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the 

sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice 

rather than intimidation, coercion or deception. Second, the 

waiver must have been made with a full awareness both of 

the nature of the right being abandoned and the 

consequences of the decision to abandon it. Only if the 

"totality of the circumstances surrounding the 

interrogation" reveals both an uncoerced choice and the 

requisite level of comprehension may a court properly 

conclude that Miranda rights have been waived. 

In re T.B., 11 A.3d 500, 505-506 

(Pa. Super. 2010)(citing Commonwealth v. Cephas, 361 Pa. 

Super. 160, 522 A.2d 63, 65 (1987)). 

knowing and intelligent." In re V.C., 66 A.3d 341, 351 (Pa.Super. 2013). 

Commonwealth must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the waiver is also 

a juvenile, "[r]egardless of whether a waiver of Miranda is voluntary, the 

First, we note that when a challenge is made to the waiver of Miranda rights by 

of his Miranda rights was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made. 

violated when he spoke to Detective Buckwalter. Specifically he argues that his waiver 

States Constitution, and Article I, section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution were 
7 

In the instant case, the Juvenile, in his Case Law Summary attached to his 

Letter Brief, concedes that the issue of coercion, intimidation and/ or deception on the 

part of law enforcement is not in issue in this matter. However, the Juvenile does 

argue that his waiver of his Miranda rights was involuntary, unknowing, and/ or 

unintelligent in that it was made without a full awareness of the rights being 

abandoned and/ or the consequences of giving up those rights. After examining the 

totality of the circumstances, the Court disagrees. 

Several of the factors evaluated by the Court are without dispute. The Juvenile 

was 13 years old at the time of the interview with Detective Buckwalter and had no 

prior contact with the police. During his interview, both on the audio/videotape and 

as presented by Detective Buckwalter's testimony during the suppression hearing, the 

Juvenile appeared to understand and comprehend the questions posed to him and 

answered appropriately in response to the questions. Testimony was presented by the 

Commonwealth and the Juvenile that Detective Buckwalter contacted the Juvenile's 

stepmother, who in turn contacted the Juvenile's uncle and a family friend, to act as 

interested adults. After the Juvenile was brought to police headquarters, Detective 

Buckwalter confirmed with the Juvenile's stepmother that he was able to speak to the 

Juvenile with the uncle and family friend present. The tone of the interview was 

conversational and the Juvenile and Detective Buckwalter appeared to have a good 

rapport, demonstrated by the Juvenile's request to speak with the detective outside 

the presence of his uncle and family friend and the fact that he made revelations at 

that point unknown to the police. 

In consideration of the factors above, the Juvenile suggests that neither Mr. 

Tineo (Juvenile's uncle) nor Mr. Delacruz can be deemed to be "interested and 

informed adults" given their limited understanding of English, lack of experience with 
8 

the legal system, their belief that it was the "parents" duty to sign the Miranda form, 

and because they did not know the specific crimes for which the Juvenile was been 

questioned. Testimony presented at the suppression hearing established that prior to 

the commencement of the interview, Detective Buckwalter, Mr. Tineo, and Mr. 

Delacruz met outside of the interview room to discuss the nature of the events leading 

up to the request for the Juvenile to be brought into headquarters. At that time, 

Detective Buckwalter believed that he told them about the nature of the incidents and 

that he showed them a photograph taken from the city video surveillance system 

depicting the Juvenile. By slight contrast, Mr. Tineo and Mr. Delacruz did not recall 

being told the specifics of the crimes about which Detective Buckwalter wished to 

speak to the Juvenile, but only that the detective stated that the Juvenile was "doing 

something bad" and that he "needed to stop." Mr. Tineo and Mr. Delacruz were 

assured that the Juvenile would be going home with them that evening'. 

Upon entry to the interview room, Detective Buckwalter spoke with the 

Juvenile, in the presence of Mr. Tineo and Mr. Delacruz, and stated that he wanted to 

speak to the Juvenile about things that were going on and that it was his goal to get 

the Juvenile's behavior to stop. Detective Buckwalter explained that giving the 

Juvenile a Miranda form was something that every child interviewed gets to read and 

to consider. He further explained that it contained his rights. Mr. Tineo, in Spanish 

and translated for Detective Buckwalter by Mr. Delacruz, told the Juvenile that he was 

to tell the truth to the detective. At that point in the conversation, the Juvenile 

requested that Mr. Tineo and Mr. Delacruz not be present in the interview. Detective 

Buckwalter explained that it was possible, but that he wished for the Juvenile and his 

family to discuss it. He again explained that the Juvenile, Mr. Tineo and Mr. Delacruz 

needed to read and discuss the Miranda form and showed each where to sign the 
9 

statements given to Detective B\}~~4-\t!r~i 

·~ ) -~ ' .. ' ........... , . 

knowing and intelligent, as well i.'Jl$' volumtarily, Theljefg,~et(WJN~iL:7:R.\'.,suppress the 

;...) b(~t,; :··;',__ : ;.,1 · ' : .. e 

factors, the Court believes that th~ '·Juv~iiile's .waiver of his Miranda rights was 

. ., :. ~· . : ·, - 'I\. 

Given the totality of the circumstances and the consideration of the relevant 

! i.i t :.· 

CONCLUSION 

Tineo read the form containing the Miranda warnings and signed it voluntarily. 

interested and informed adults. It is clear that, although he may not recall it, that Mr. 

the circumstances, the Court does believe that Mr. Tineo and Mr. Delacruz were 

Although it is only a factor for the Court to consider in evaluating the totality of 

go out and speak with his uncle at any time. 

detective explained that if the Juvenile wished to stop talking to the detective, he could 

Mr. Tineo agreed to allow the Juvenile to speak to Detective Buckwalter alone, the 

Juvenile's stepmother and that she authorized Mr. Tineo to act as a "parent." After 

wished to speak alone with him. He then informed Mr. Tineo that he spoke to the 

Tineo sign the Miranda form, Detective Buckwalter again asked the Juvenile if he 

Court was able to observe Detective Buckwalter reenter the interview room and Mr. 

speak to the Juvenile privately. A few minutes later, the videotape resumed and the 

aloud, in Spanish. The videotape then shut off to allow Mr. Tineo and Mr. Delacruz to 

Court was able to view Mr. Tineo holding the Miranda form and beginning to read it 

exchange between the Juvenile, Mr. Tineo and Mr. Delacruz was not recorded, the 

review the audio/videotape interview with the Juvenile. Although the entire private 

form. Despite their testimony that they did not read the form, the Court was able to