Court Opinion

ID: 9965881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 17:09:32.818195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:49.365549
License: Public Domain

J-S14007-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 ERIC M. LIVERING                      :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 1304 MDA 2023

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 5, 2020
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-38-CR-0001923-2018

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 ERIC M. LIVERING                      :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 1305 MDA 2023

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 5, 2020
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-38-CR-0002043-2018

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 ERIC M. LIVERING                      :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 1306 MDA 2023

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 5, 2020
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-38-CR-0002069-2018

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
J-S14007-24

                                                 :
                v.                               :
                                                 :
                                                 :
  ERIC M. LIVERING                               :
                                                 :
                       Appellant                 :    No. 1307 MDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 5, 2020
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-38-CR-0000121-2019

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.:                     FILED: MAY 3, 2024

       Eric M. Livering appeals1 from the judgment of sentence, entered in the

Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, after he entered a negotiated

guilty plea to 100 counts each of sexual abuse of children (manufacturing child

pornography)2        and   sexual    abuse     of    children   (possession   of   child

pornography),3 77 counts of invasion of privacy,4 four counts of involuntary

deviate sexual intercourse (“IDSI”) with a child,5 two counts each of indecent

assault of a person less than 13 years of age6 and indecent assault of an
____________________________________________

1 Livering has complied with the dictates of Commonwealth v. Walker, 185

A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), by filing four separate notices of appeal, one at each
docket number. By per curiam order dated November 2, 2023, this Court,
sua sponte, consolidated Livering’s appeals. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6312(b).

3 Id. at § 6312(d)(1).

4 Id. at § 7507.1(a)(1).

5 Id. at § 3123(b).

6 Id. at § 3126(a)(7).

                                           -2-
J-S14007-24

unconscious person,7 and one count each of IDSI with a person less than 16

years of age8 and indecent assault of a person less than 16 years of age.9

After careful review, we affirm.

       The charges to which Livering pled guilty arose from his sexual abuse of

four minor girls, which he captured on video cameras hidden throughout his

home. The abuse was uncovered when one of Livering’s victims, his 12-year-

old step-granddaughter, found naked pictures of herself while using Livering’s

Amazon Fire tablet. In addition to images of the victims in various states of

undress, the videos also showed Livering committing various sexual acts upon

two of the victims while they were unconscious.10 See generally Affidavit of

Probable Cause (No. CR-1923-2018), 11/20/18; id. (No. CR-2043-2018),

12/5/18; id. (No. CR-2069-2018), 12/6/18; id. (No. CR-121-2019), 1/3/19.

On November 8, 2019, Livering entered a global guilty plea, pleading guilty to

all charges at all four docket numbers in exchange for an aggregate sentence

____________________________________________

7 Id. at § 3126(a)(4).

8 Id. at § 3123(a)(7).

9 Id. at § 3126(a)(8).

10 The acts committed by Livering included, inter alia, touching a victim’s anus

and vagina with his fingers; touching his penis to a victim’s lips; ejaculating
on a victim’s lips; touching his penis to a victim’s buttocks, lips, hand, face,
and forehead; touching a victim’s buttocks and masturbating; placing his
tongue on a victim’s vagina; and masturbating next to a victim’s face while
touching her clothed buttocks. See Affidavit of Probable Cause (No. CR-1923-
2018), 11/20/18, at 2-3. All of these acts were committed while the victims
were unconscious.

                                           -3-
J-S14007-24

with a minimum term of 15 years, with the aggregate maximum term to be

set by the court.   Livering signed four written plea colloquy forms, each

specifying the maximum aggregate sentence for each docket number and

stating that the trial court would determine the maximum sentence.         The

aggregate maximum possible sentence at all docket numbers if served

consecutively was 2,073 years. Following the preparation of a presentence

investigation report (“PSI”), on February 5, 2020, the trial court sentenced

Livering to an aggregate term of 15 to 40 years’ incarceration.

      Livering filed neither post-sentence motions nor a direct appeal.     On

December 8, 2020, the Commonwealth filed a motion asking the court to

determine whether Livering should be classified as a sexually violent predator

(“SVP”).   The trial court granted the motion and, following multiple

continuances, scheduled a hearing for November 5, 2021. Nine days prior to

that hearing, on October 27, 2021, Livering filed a pro se petition under the

Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.             On

November 5, 2021, the court proceeded with the SVP hearing, after which it

entered an order finding Livering to be an SVP. That same day, the court

entered an order appointing PCRA counsel, who filed an amended petition

alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Livering averred that

plea counsel failed to file requested post-sentence motions and an appeal or

properly communicate with him regarding his appellate rights, and that

counsel informed Livering his only option was to accept a plea because he had

                                     -4-
J-S14007-24

no defense to the charges levied against him. See Amended PCRA Petition,

1/27/22, at ¶ 13.

      On March 31, 2022, the court held a PCRA hearing, at which Livering

and his plea counsel testified. On April 1, 2022, the PCRA court issued an

order denying relief on the basis that Livering’s petition was untimely. Livering

filed a timely appeal. On July 10, 2023, this Court vacated the PCRA court’s

order, concluding that Livering’s judgment of sentence did not become final

until 30 days after November 8, 2021, when the court entered its SVP order.

Accordingly, Livering’s PCRA petition was a legal nullity. However, the Court

declined to quash the appeal, concluding:

      [W]e find that the trial court and trial counsel erred in failing to
      properly identify [Livering’s] final judgment, failing to advise
      [Livering] of his rule-based and constitutional rights, and,
      thereafter, compounded their errors by erroneously litigating and
      adjudicating a patently premature pro se PCRA petition. Since the
      trial court and trial counsel have essentially deprived [Livering] of
      his constitutional right to a direct appeal, we decline to quash this
      appeal despite the filing of a premature PCRA petition. Instead,
      we vacate the order entered on April 1, 2022. Consistent with this
      decision, we remand this matter to the trial court for the entry, on
      the record, of an explanation of [Livering’s] post-sentence and
      appellate rights pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 720, including an order
      granting [Livering] nunc pro tunc relief to file a post-sentence
      motion or a direct appeal.

Commonwealth v. Livering, 303 A.3d 745, *10 (Pa. Super. 2023) (Table).

      Following remand, on August 10, 2023, the trial court held a hearing to

comply with the directive of this Court, after which it entered an order

reinstating Livering’s post-sentence and direct appeal rights, nunc pro tunc.

On August 18, 2023, Livering filed a post-sentence motion, nunc pro tunc,

                                      -5-
J-S14007-24

challenging the trial court’s imposition of a 40-year maximum sentence and

alleging that the trial court failed to consider his age, medical condition, and

rehabilitative needs. See Post-Sentence Motion Nunc Pro Tunc, 8/18/23, at

4. He further asserted that the sentence was unreasonable and excessive

because it was, effectively, a life sentence. See id. On August 21, 2023, the

court denied the motion. Livering filed four timely notices of appeal, nunc pro

tunc, followed by court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statements of

errors complained of on appeal. Livering raises the following claim for our

review:

      Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion when it
      imposed a maximum sentence of forty (40) years, when such
      sentence is excessive and unreasonable in light of [Livering’s]
      rehabilitative need[s], age[,] and/or medical condition, which is a
      challenge [to the] discretionary aspect[s] of sentencing.

Brief of Appellant, at 18 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

      Livering’s claim raises a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his

sentence. Such a claim does not entitle an appellant to review as a matter of

right. Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 337 (Pa. Super. 2015).

Rather, before this Court can address such a discretionary challenge, an

appellant must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by: (1) filing a timely notice of

appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) properly preserving the issue at

sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P.

720; (3) including in his brief a concise statement of reasons relied upon for

allowance of appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) raising a

                                      -6-
J-S14007-24

substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under

the Sentencing Code. Swope, 123 A.3d at 337.

     Here, Livering filed a post-sentence motion, nunc pro tunc, for

reconsideration of his sentence, followed by a timely notice of appeal, nunc

pro tunc. He has also included in his brief a concise statement of reasons

relied upon for allowance of appeal pursuant to Rule 2119(f). Accordingly, we

must now determine whether Livering has raised a substantial question that

his sentence is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.

     The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis. See Commonwealth v. Paul, 925 A.2d

825 (Pa. Super. 2007). “A substantial question exits only when the appellant

advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were

either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or

(2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing

process.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa. Super. 2013)

(quotation and quotation marks omitted).

     In determining whether a substantial question exists, this Court
     does not examine the merits of whether the sentence is actually
     excessive.    Rather, we look to whether the appellant has
     forwarded a plausible argument that the sentence, when it is
     within the guideline ranges, is clearly unreasonable.
     Concomitantly, the substantial question determination does not
     require the court to decide the merits of whether the sentence is
     clearly unreasonable.

                                    -7-
J-S14007-24

Commonwealth v. Bankes, 286 A.3d 1302, 1306 (Pa. Super. 2022), quoting

Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 340 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation

omitted).

      In his Rule 2119(f) statement, Livering asserts that

      [t]he trial court improperly discounted [Livering’s] age, the fact
      the sentence was a de facto life sentence and that [Livering] would
      likely die in prison and his likelihood of rehabilitation, thereby
      violating a fundamental norm of sentencing and establishing a
      substantial question that the sentence imposed is not appropriate.

Brief of Appellant, at 25.

      This Court has held that a claim that a court imposed an excessive

sentence after not considering rehabilitative needs raises a substantial

question.   Commonwealth v. Bankes, 286 A.3d 1302, 1306 (Pa. Super.

2022) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we will review Livering’s claim.

      In considering a discretionary aspects of sentencing claim, we employ

the following standard of review:

      Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the
      sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal
      absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this context, an abuse
      of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather,
      the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the
      sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its
      judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias[,] or ill will, or
      arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.

Commonwealth v. Clemat, 218 A.3d 944, 959 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation

omitted).   “[W]hen imposing sentence, the trial court is granted broad

discretion, as it is in the best position to determine the proper penalty for a

                                      -8-
J-S14007-24

particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances

before it.” Commonwealth v. Mulkin, 228 A.3d 913, 917 (Pa. Super. 2020).

     This Court has also stated:

     [W]hen imposing a sentence, the sentencing court must consider
     the factors set out in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b), that is, the
     protection of the public, gravity of offense in relation to impact on
     the victim and community, and rehabilitative needs of the
     defendant[.]

     Furthermore, [a] trial court judge has wide discretion in
     sentencing and can, on the appropriate record and for the
     appropriate reasons, consider any legal factor in imposing a
     sentence[.] The sentencing court, however, must also consider
     the sentencing guidelines.

Clemat, 218 A.3d at 960 (citation omitted and paragraph break added).

     [T]he trial court is required to consider the particular
     circumstances of the offense and the character of the defendant.
     The trial court should refer to the defendant’s prior criminal
     record, age, personal characteristics, and potential for
     rehabilitation.

     However, where the sentencing judge had the benefit of a [PSI] .
     . . it will be presumed that he or she was aware of the relevant
     information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed
     those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors.

Id. at 959-60 (citations omitted and paragraph break added).         Finally, in

reviewing the record, we consider:

     (1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history
     and characteristics of the defendant.

     (2) The opportunity of the sentencing court to observe the
     defendant, including any [PSI].

     (3) The findings upon which the sentence was based.

     (4) The guidelines promulgated by the commission.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(d).

                                     -9-
J-S14007-24

       Livering argues that, given the fact that he was 58 years old at the time

of sentencing, the court’s maximum sentence of 40 years “guaranteed that

[he] would spend the entirety of his remaining life in prison or be perpetually

subject to the discretion of the Board of Probation and Parole.”         Brief of

Appellant, at 30.       Livering claims that the trial court “failed to properly

consider [his] rehabilitative need[s] . . . because imprisoning [him] for the

remainder of his life does not allow [him] to become rehabilitated and return

to society.” Id. at 30-31. Livering asserts that his “age, medical condition,

and rehabilitative need[s] were not fully appreciated or considered[,] thereby

violating the sentencing norms as set forth in Com[monwealth] v.

Coulverson, [] 34 A.3d 135 (Pa. Super. [] 2011).” Id. at 31.

       We are unable to conclude that the court’s imposition of a 40-year

maximum sentence was manifestly unreasonable in light of the number of

counts to which Livering pled guilty, the disturbing facts of this case, the long-

term impact of Livering’s conduct on his victims, and the lack of any mitigating

evidence presented on Livering’s behalf at sentencing. First, we note that the

sentencing judge11 had the benefit of a PSI and, as such, we presume that he

was aware of the relevant information regarding Livering’s character and

weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors.        See
____________________________________________

11 We note that the sentencing judge in this matter, the Honorable Samuel A.

Kline, retired in 2022. Livering’s case was reassigned to the Honorable Charles
T. Jones, Jr., who has overseen the matter since the case was remanded by
this Court following the entry of the July 10, 2023 memorandum instructing
that Livering’s post-sentence and direct appeal rights be reinstated nunc pro
tunc. Judge Jones authored the trial court opinion in this matter.

                                          - 10 -
J-S14007-24

Clemat, supra.     Additionally, at the sentencing hearing, defense counsel

apprised the court of Livering’s age, his family, mental health and educational

background, and his lack of a prior record. See N.T. Sentencing, 2/5/20, at

4-5. The court acknowledged Livering’s age, as well as the likelihood that

“Livering isn’t seeing the outside of a state prison cell for at least 15 years,

probably longer.” Id. at 10. The court also considered Livering’s request for

psychological testing and urged the Department of Corrections to perform a

psychiatric evaluation of Livering.    See id. at 6 (defense counsel noting

Livering “is asking the court to urge the Department of Corrections in the long

term to help him understand the why” behind his offenses); id. at 36, 38 and

39 (court including special conditions of sentencing urging SCI to perform

psychiatric evaluation).

      In addition to relevant information regarding Livering’s background,

however, the court also heard devastating victim impact statements from one

of the victims and her mother, whose younger daughter was also one of

Livering’s victims. Livering was the step-grandfather of those two victims,

and they viewed him as a “father figure.” Id. at 18. The victim testified that,

as a result of Livering’s actions, she suffers from insomnia, nightmares, panic

attacks, migraines, and depression. Id. at 15-16. After becoming pregnant,

she suffered a miscarriage “due to [her] antidepressants . . . and the stress

[her] body and mind [were] under.” Id. at 16. The victim testified that she

will always have a fear of Livering being released from prison and coming after

her and her family. See id. at 21. She testified:

                                      - 11 -
J-S14007-24

      [Livering] has made me feel disgusting, powerless, damaged,
      angry, and guilty for not telling anyone about my childhood
      experiences. I also feel guilty sometimes for trying to be happy.

                                       ...

      He stole my mental recovery, my happiness, my trust in the world,
      and [my] trust in humanity. He has stolen the family I could have
      started, my positivity, my sobriety, and my fearlessness.

Id. at 17, 21.

      The victim’s mother offered similar testimony and concluded by stating

that she felt as if “the girls and I are serving a life sentence, even though []

Livering will be receiving the consequences of his actions today.       I feel as

though we will have to live with the ramifications of his actions for the rest of

our li[ves].” Id. at 31.

      As the Commonwealth aptly notes in its brief, in contrast to the

emotional and trauma-infused victim impact statements,

      [w]hat the court did not hear at sentencing . . . was any factor
      that could lead a reasonable person to believe that [Livering] was
      actually amenable to rehabilitation. . . . [D]espite his guilty plea,
      [Livering’s] posture at sentencing was one of disassociation with,
      rather than acknowledgment of, his conduct. He offered no insight
      or understanding as to what led to his exploitation of the four
      victims. . . . No witnesses testified on [Livering’s] behalf; no
      testimony established that he had a network of support. Indeed,
      [Livering] presented no evidence of mitigating circumstances
      consistent with the possibility of successful rehabilitation, other
      than his bald guilty plea in lieu of trial.

Brief of Appellee, at 49-51 (emphasis added).

      In light of the foregoing, our review of the record reveals no abuse of

discretion by the sentencing court. The trial court’s maximum sentence of 40

years is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offenses

                                     - 12 -
J-S14007-24

as they relate to the impact on the lives of the victims and the community,

and Livering’s rehabilitative needs. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b). Accordingly,

Livering is entitled to no relief.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/3/2024

                                     - 13 -