J-S56028-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

BRIAN SANCHEZ-PADILLA, 

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1737 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, October 4, 2017,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0000413-2014, 

CP-36-CR-0000522-2014, CP-36-CR-0000534-2014, 

CP-36-CR-0003363-2015, CP-36-CR-0003671-2015, 

CP-36-CR-0005530-2015.

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 12, 2018

Brian Sanchez-Padilla appeals from the judgment of sentence the trial 

court imposed after finding him guilty of violating probation and parole.

1

 

Sanchez-Padilla challenges the trial court’s determination that he was 

competent to be sentenced on his probation/parole violations. We affirm.

Sanchez-Padilla was charged with probation violations following events 

which transpired on April 16, 2017. While officers were citing Sanchez-Padilla 

for sleeping in a public park in violation of a city ordinance, Sanchez-Padilla 

became belligerent. When the officers attempted to arrest Sanchez-Padilla 

____________________________________________

1 Sanchez-Padilla was serving probation for previous convictions of identity 

theft and forgery, and simultaneously serving parole for aggravated 

harassment by a prisoner and reckless burning or exploding and criminal 

mischief.
J-S56028-18

- 2 -

for disorderly conduct, he attacked the officers, punching one in the head, 

repeatedly slamming another officer’s head into the concrete ground, and 

stabbing an officer multiple times in the face and thighs with a pen. SanchezPadilla left a mental health clinic against medical advice several days prior to 

the filing of these charges.

Sanchez-Padilla appeared for a hearing on a parole/probation violation 

after the new criminal charges were filed against him. The court found 

Sanchez-Padilla violated parole/probation and revoked them. The court 

ordered a pre-sentence investigation report and deferred sentencing pending 

disposition of the new criminal charges.

Sanchez-Padilla moved for a competency determination. After a 

competency hearing, the trial court determined that Sanchez-Padilla was 

competent to stand trial, and a jury trial was scheduled. 

On September 27, 2017, the jury convicted Sanchez-Padilla of two 

counts of aggravated assault and one count of resisting arrest. On October 4, 

2017, the court sentenced Sanchez-Padilla on his parole/probation violations. 

On the probation violation for forgery, the court reinstated probation. On the 

parole violation for aggravated harassment by a prisoner, the court sentenced 

Sanchez-Padilla to serve the unexpired term. On the parole violation for 

reckless burning or exploding and criminal mischief, the court terminated 

parole effective immediately and sentenced Sanchez-Padilla to imprisonment 

in the state correctional institution for a period of 11⁄2 - 5 years. All sentences 

were made concurrent to one another. Trial Court Opinion, 1/2/2018, at 4. 
J-S56028-18

- 3 -

This timely appeal followed. Both Sanchez-Padilla and the trial court 

have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Sanchez-Padilla presents the following single issue for our review:

Did the trial court err in finding Mr. Sanchez-Padilla 

competent to be sentenced for probation/parole violations 

on the above-captioned information numbers, where 

defense counsel proved by a preponderance of the evidence 

that Mr. Sanchez-Padilla was substantially unable to 

understand the nature or object of the proceedings against 

him or to participate and assist in his defense?

Sanchez-Padilla’s Brief at 5. 

Our standard of review for a trial court ruling on competency is abuse 

of discretion. Commonwealth v. Delbridge, 859 A.2d 1254, 1257 (Pa. 

2004). Our scope of our review is plenary as this Court may review the entire 

record in making its decision. Id.

When reviewing a competency claim, we are guided by the following 

principles:

A defendant is presumed competent and it is his burden to show 

otherwise, the determination of which is within the sound 

discretion of the trial court. When a competency hearing takes 

place, incompetency may be established by a preponderance of 

the evidence. 50 P.S. § 7402(d). The sensitive nature of 

competency determinations requires the appellate courts to afford 

great deference to the conclusions of the trial court, which has 

had the opportunity to observe the defendant personally. When 

the record supports the trial court's determination, we will not 

disturb it. 

Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 64 A.3d 715, 720 (Pa. Super. 2013) (some 

citations omitted). 
J-S56028-18

- 4 -

Our Supreme Court has further stated that:

[w]here there is reason to doubt a defendant’s competency, 

the trial court is required to conduct a competency hearing. 

Competency is measured according to whether the 

defendant has sufficient ability at the pertinent time to 

consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational as 

well as factual understanding of the proceedings.

Commonwealth v. Davido, 106 A.3d 611, 639 (Pa. 2014) (per curiam) 

(internal citations omitted).

Incompetency, is defined by statute which states that a person is 

“incompetent to be tried, convicted or sentenced” if he is “substantially unable 

to understand the nature or object of the proceedings against him or to 

participate and assist in his defense.” 50 Pa.C.S.A. §7402(a). 

Sanchez-Padilla argues that he demonstrated by a preponderance of the 

evidence that he was neither substantially able to understand the proceeding 

nor able to meaningfully participate and assist in his defense. In support of 

his argument, Sanchez-Padilla primarily relies on his witness, Dr. Stein, a 

licensed psychologist, who the trial court accepted as an expert in determining 

competency. Ultimately, “Dr. Stein concluded to a reasonable degree of 

psychological certainty that Mr. Sanchez was not competent to stand trial, 

because he [did not] understand the role of the various members of the court, 

and was unable to constructively consult with counsel for his benefit.” 

Sanchez-Padilla’s Brief at 12.

In forming this conclusion, after multiple observations of SanchezPadilla, Dr. Stein observed that Sanchez-Padilla did not know his attorney’s 
J-S56028-18

- 5 -

name, and did not understand the discrepancy in his desire to plead guilty 

while consistently maintaining he had done nothing wrong and was only acting 

in self-defense. Id. at 13. Additionally, Sanchez-Padilla did not know what 

the role of the jury was, and also believed God was in charge of the court, 

Jesus was in charge of sentencing, and justice was responsible for prosecuting 

the case. Id.

Sanchez-Padilla challenges the trial court’s interpretation of the 

evidence, arguing that:

The trial court took some of Dr. Stein’s testimony 

completely out of context, as Dr. Stein explained that Mr. 

Sanchez-Padilla’s belief that he should plead guilty and 

accept a maximum sentence was inconsistent with his belief 

that he was justified in his actions, and was acting to defend 

himself because the police were trying to kidnap him, and 

that this showed an inability to assist his counsel in his 

defense. The court ignored the fact that Mr. Sanchez-Padilla 

gave only one-word answers to questions, and was unable 

to elaborate, making meaningful communication with his 

attorney impossible. Further, the trial court ignored the 

uncontradicted evidence that Mr. Sanchez-Padilla suffered 

from a psychotic disorder and had been having auditory 

hallucinations since childhood.

Id. at 14. We disagree.

Sanchez-Padilla’s premise implies that Dr. Stein’s testimony and 

examination are conclusive. However, as factfinder, the trial court is within 

its province to weigh the evidence in determining a defendant’s competency.

Stevenson, supra. This includes balancing the evidence Dr. Stein offered, 

against the trial court’s own account and observation of Sanchez-Padilla, his 

demeanor, and testimony. In its opinion, the trial court engaged in a thorough 
J-S56028-18

- 6 -

analysis of the evidence; it cited at length the notes of testimony and provided 

a detailed discussion of its observation of Sanchez-Padilla at the probation 

violation hearing and trial, in support of its determination that Sanchez-Padilla 

was competent to be sentenced. 

In weighing Dr. Stein’s opinion, the trial court reasoned, in part, that:

On cross examination, Stein acknowledged that 

[Sanchez-Padilla] was cooperative, lucid, and oriented 

during the interview. Moreover, [Sanchez-Padilla] was able 

to understand and answer all of Stein’s questions through 

the use of an interpreter. In terms of the medical records 

he relied upon, Stein admitted they were “sketchy.” 

According to Stein, “there’s a little bit there but not a lot. 

But yes, there was not a lot to rely on here.”

Trial Court Opinion, 1/2/2018, at 9.

The trial court further noted that Sanchez-Padilla correctly 

acknowledged that his “aggression” was the basis for the charges against him, 

and accurately stated the possible sentencing range applicable to him. Id. at 

10. Additionally, Sanchez-Padilla communicated effectively with the trial court 

and his attorney, and responded appropriately to all questions. Moreover, the 

trial court stated that Sanchez-Padilla “had a clear understanding of the legal 

proceedings at sentencing, when he apologized for everything that happened 

and asked for ‘the lowest possible sentence.’” Id. at 13.

Furthermore, defense counsel submitted a report prepared by Dr. 

Jerome Gottlieb, a licensed psychiatrist who evaluated Sanchez-Padilla on 
J-S56028-18

- 7 -

September 29, 2017.2 In his report, Dr. Gottlieb noted that “during the time 

that [Sanchez-Padilla] refused to take his medication during his current 

incarceration, there was concern that he was so ill that he may not have been 

competent to proceed. By the time his evaluator saw him, he was back on 

medication and apparently had improved.” Trial Court Opinion, 1/2/18, at 13. 

Further, the report noted that Sanchez-Padilla’s competence to proceed was 

not an issue as of September 18, 2017. Id.

We have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion by the 

trial court. The record substantiates the trial court’s conclusions that SanchezPadilla was sufficiently able to understand the nature and object of the 

proceedings against him, and was also sufficiently able to participate and 

assist his attorney in his defense. Thus, we will not disturb the trial court’s 

exercise of discretion. See Stevenson, 64 A.3d at 720. We therefore affirm 

Sanchez-Padilla’s judgment of sentence.

____________________________________________

2 Notably, defense counsel introduced Dr. Gottlieb’s report as mitigating 

evidence in an effort to procure a reduced sentence by showing SanchezPadilla could be rehabilitated with proper medication. However, defense 

counsel would not concede the report simultaneously demonstrated SanchezPadilla’s competence. Trial Court Opinion, 1/2/18, at 13 n.11. 
J-S56028-18

- 8 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/12/2018