J

- S33024

- 18

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

v.

PAUL MITCHELL

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2787 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 2, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0008193

- 2015

BEFORE: OTT, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED JULY 1 7 , 2018 Appellant Paul Mitchell appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following his convictions for Unlawful Contact with a Minor, Criminal Trespass, and Simple Assault. 1 Mitchel l contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Unlawful Contact with a Minor . We affirm. Mitchell’s non

- jury trial took place on February 23, 2016. The evidence established the following :

On June 16, 2015 at approximately 9 :45 [] pm, sixteen

- year old [S.T.] was at home with her brother on the block of 3100 Rorer Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The two were waiting for thei r parents, who left the home to pick up pizza.
At that same time, Paul Mitchell (“Defendant” ) was w alking to his friend Erika's house, which is located at the intersection of

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6318 (a)(1) , 3505(a)(1), and 2701, respectively.J

- S33024

- 18

- 2

-

Broad and Allegheny. Defendant testified that when he reached the 3100 block of Rorer Street, he saw [S.T.] and mistakenly believed that she was his friend Erika. Defendant approac hed the h ouse, then knocked on the door. Upon hearing a knock on the door, [S.T.] beli eved that it was her parents in need of assistance while they were carrying food; however, the person at the door was not h er parents , but the Defendant. When she opened the door and saw Defendant, [S.T.] greeted him with “God Bless You,” which she says, as a Christian , she does all the time. Defendant re ciprocated the greeting saying ‘God Bless You” a s well. At this point, the Defendant was one step into the doorwa y leading into the home. [S.T.] noticed Defendant was o n something, or possibly drunk. The contact was made immediately after greeting each other at th e door. [S.T.] testified that Defendant, at that moment, tried to enter the house, but she pu shed him bac k by the shoulders, after which Defendant began to rub her breasts. The push from [S.T.] knocked Defendant back a step, and Defendant, then, made a second attem pt to enter the home, and began to touch her butt with his hand, but again [S.T.] rejected his a dvance. [S.T.] , at that point, began knocking on the screen door, while remaining in the doorway, in order to get her neighbor's attention so that her neigh bor could come help her. Her neighbor then approached, pulled and talked [sic] the Defe ndant away f rom the door, after which [S.T.] quickly shut the door behind her and called her parents. Once off the porch, Defendant stood on the northeast comer of the 3100 bloc k of Rorer Street in front of a corner store u ntil police arrived. Defendant alleged h e sto od there to avoid making a scene or making people think he had done something wrong be cause he understood there could hav e been an issue. He said if someone thought “ [he] w as trying to touch her . . . in the wrong way [it] could have basically got way seri ous.” One of the officers at the scene, Officer Patrick Quinn (“Quinn” ), testified that Defendant was standing on the corner, and was just “looking at the store.” Quinn approached t he Defendant, but Defendant was “spacey” and not really articulate or commu nicating with the offic ers. Quinn asked for identification, and Def endant gave it to him. Officer Quinn and his partner then got a squad car in order to transport Defendant to the Special Victims Unit for questioning.J

- S33024

- 18

- 3

-

Trial Court Opinion, filed December 1 8, 2017, at 1

- 3 (unpaginated) ( some alterations in original; citations to Notes of Testimony omitted). The trial court found Mitchell guilty of the above

- listed crimes, but found
him not guilty of Indecent A ssault or B urglary. 2 The court sentenced him to

serve and aggregate of 17

- 40 months’ incarceration and seven years’ consecutive probation. Mitchell filed a timely notice of appeal, and raises a single issue: Was not the evidence insufficient to support the verdict of guilty of Unlawful Contact [w] ith a Minor? Mitchell’s Br. at 3.
“Be cause evidentiary sufficiency is a question of law, our standard of
review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary .” Commonwealth v.
Ballard , 80 A.3d 380, 390 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted). Specifically, we must determine whether, when viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict winner, the evidence at trial and all reasonable inferences therefrom are sufficient for the trier of fact to find that the Commonwealth proved each
el ement beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Dale , 836 A.2d 150, 152 (Pa.Super. 2003). Further, “[a]s an appellate court, we do not assess credibility nor do we assign weight to any of the testimony of record.” Commonwealth v. Kinney , 863 A.2d 581, 584 (Pa.Super. 2004) (citation omitted). Therefore, we will not disturb the verdict “unless the evidence is so

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3126(a)(2), and 3502(a)(1), respectively.J

- S33024

- 18

- 4

-

weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be
drawn from the combined circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Bruce , 916 A.2d 657, 661 (Pa.Super. 2007) ( citation omitted). A person may be found guilty of Unlawful Contact with a Minor if the Commonwealth establishes that the person was “intentionally in contact with a minor . . . for the purpose of engaging in an act ivity pro hibited under . . . Any of the offenses enumerated in Chapter 31 (relating to sexual offenses) .”
18 Pa .C.S.A. § 6318(a)(1). The statute defines “Contacts” as “ Direct or indirect contact or communication by any means . . . .” Id. at (c). Here, the
Commonwea lth argued, and the trial court accepted, that Mitchell was guilty
of Unlawful Contact with a Minor “on the basis that he was in contact with [S.T.] for the purpose of committing Indecent Assault, ” Trial Ct. Op. at 6 (unpaginated ). Indecent Assault is an o ffense enumerated in Chapter 31. See
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126

. Mitchell argues that beca use he was found not guilty of Indecent Assault, the evidence is insufficient to prove that he contacted S.T. for the purpose of committing Indecent Assault

. See Mitchell’s Br. at 9

- 11. However, our Supreme Court has established that “ the Chapter 31 offenses are not predicate offenses for 18 Pa.C.S. [A.] § 6318” and that “ a defendant need not be successful in completing the purpose of his communication with a minor in
order t o be found guilty of § 6318(a). ” Commonwealth v. Reed , 9 A.3d 1138, 1146 ( Pa. 2010) . “ [R] ather [,] a defendant is guilty if he contacts aJ

- S33024

- 18

- 5

-

minor for the purpose of engaging in that prohibited behavior. ” Id. ; see also Commonwealth v. Morgan , 913 A.2d 906, 910 (Pa.Super. 2006) ; Commonwealth v. Evans , 90 1 A.2d 528, 537 (Pa.Super. 2006). Mitchell’s acquittal for Indecent Assault does not render the evidence insufficient to
prove that he made contact with S.T

. for the purpose of committing Indecent
Assault. 3 Mitchell argues that the “legal reasoning” in two cases dealing with the Corruption of M inors , 4 “extends to the instant case.” Mitchell’s Br. at 11 (citing
Commonwealth v. Lambert , 313 A.2d 300 (Pa. Super. 1973) and
Commonwealth v. March , 551 A.2d 232 (Pa.S uper. 1988)) . We find these cases inapposite, as they state only that if the prosecution charges that a defendant is guilty of corruption of minors because the defendant committed a particular act, the prosecution cannot obtain a conviction by proving that
the defendant committed some other act

. See March , 551 A.2d at 236 (“[W] here an accused is charged with corruption by one act, and the Commonwealth does not prove that act, but proves some other act, a conviction for corruption based upon the other act ca nnot stand”); Lambert ,

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 3 In Reed , the Court determined that where a defendant had been acquitted of attempted Chapter 31 offenses, those offenses could not be the basis under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6318(b) for grading Unlawful Contact. Reed , 9 A.3d at 1148. Here, however, Mitchell is not challenging the grading of his offense and moreover, he was not charged with, and th erefore not acquitted of, A ttempted Indecent Assault

.
4 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301.J

- S33024

- 18

- 6

-

313 A.2d at 301 (where Commonwealth charged corru pting the morals of a
minor on the basis of defendant’s furnishing minors with drugs, defendant could not be found guilty of corrupting the morals of a minor if he was found not guilty of corresponding drug charges).
I n contrast , the crime of Unlawful Contact with a Minor requires only proof of intentional contact with a minor for the purpose of committing activity prohibited under a Chapter 31 offense. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6318(a)(1 ); Reed , 9
A.3d at 1146. The evidence here was sufficient under that sta ndard to prove
each element of Unlawful C ontact beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore
hold that Mitchell’s a rgument lacks merit and affirm the trial court’s judgment
of sentence. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 7/17/18