Court Opinion

ID: 9889857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 17:10:50.426091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:01.891776
License: Public Domain

J-S25043-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    RYAN DENNIS                                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2943 EDA 2022

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 3, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-51-CR-0003339-2021

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.:                          FILED OCTOBER 11, 2023

       Ryan Dennis (Appellant) appeals from the October 3, 2022, judgment

of sentence1 entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas after

a jury convicted him of one count of robbery (inflicts or threatens to inflict

immediate bodily injury).2 The court sentenced him to a term of 41 to 82

months’ incarceration, followed by two years of probation.             On appeal,

Appellant argues that the trial court erred and abused its discretion by: (1)

____________________________________________

1 Appellant purports to appeal “from the Final Order of Defense Motion for
Reconsideration of Sentence dated 11/22/2022[.]” See Notice of Appeal,
11/28/22. However, the appeal properly lies from the judgment of sentence
imposed on October 3, 2022. See Commonwealth v. Shamberger, 788
A.2d 408, 410 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2001) (en banc). We have corrected the
caption accordingly.

2 See 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(iv).
J-S25043-23

failing to present a “Spencer Charge”3 to the jury; and (2) imposing an

“excessive sentence” by improperly using Appellant’s juvenile adjudications in

calculating his prior record score. Based on the following, we affirm.

                   I.     Facts and Procedural History

       Appellant’s conviction stems from a robbery that took place on July 13,

2020, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.             The trial court summarized the

underlying facts as follows:

       [The victim,] Kaieem Webster[,] was driving his car down Pratt
       Street near Frankford Terminal in Philadelphia. At the time, Mr.
       Webster was 18 years old. With him in the passenger seat was
       his friend, Imani Green. As they continued down Pratt Street, Mr.
       Webster’s car struck the open door of a car belonging to
       [Appellant]. After the collision, Mr. Webster pulled over and exited
       his car, and [Appellant] walked over to him.

              Initially, Mr. Webster and [Appellant] spoke amicably, and
       they agreed to exchange information and call the police.
       However, when [Appellant] realized that his car door was no
       longer able to close, Mr. Webster could see that [Appellant] had
       started to become angry. Mr. Webster tried to call 911, but
       [Appellant] smacked the phone out of Mr. Webster’s hand. Mr.
       Webster and Ms. Green tried to pick up the phone from the
       ground, but [Appellant] grabbed their hands and said, “Don’t call
       the cops.” [Appellant] then picked up Mr. Webster’s phone and
       put it [in his] pocket.

             [Appellant] next demanded that Mr. Webster go withdraw
       $3,000 from an [automated teller machine (ATM)] in a nearby
       convenience store as compensation for the damage to
       [Appellant]’s car. [Appellant] pushed Mr. Webster towards the
       store. A group of men also gathered around the area, and

____________________________________________

3 See Commonwealth v. Spencer, 275 A.2d 299 (Pa. 1971) (instructions

given to a deadlocked jury).

                                           -2-
J-S25043-23

       [Appellant] began threatening Mr. Webster, telling him that the
       men were going to send Mr. Webster to the hospital.

             Mr. Webster proceeded into the store, and the group of men
       followed him in while [Appellant] stayed outside. The ATM’s
       withdrawal limit was $100, and Mr. Webster began withdrawing
       funds as the men yelled at him to give money to [Appellant]. Men
       from the group grabbed the first $200 withdrawn by Mr. Webster
       as he stood at the ATM. Soon after, [Appellant] entered the store
       and began yelling that Mr. Webster gave away [Appellant]’s
       money. Mr. Webster attempted to take out another $100, but the
       ATM indicated that the machine’s withdrawal limit had been
       reached. At that point, [Appellant] held Mr. Webster up against a
       wall, yelled at him about the money, and pulled out a knife.
       [Appellant] stated that they should go to a Wawa convenience
       store to continue withdrawing funds from Mr. Webster’s account.

             [Appellant] then escorted Mr. Webster back out to the
       street, and Mr. Webster eventually got back into the driver’s seat
       of his car. Ms. Green was still in the passenger seat, and an
       unknown man was sitting in the back. When the unknown man
       exited, Mr. Webster took the opportunity to lock the doors.
       [Appellant] began trying to open the locked driver’s side door, but
       Mr. Webster started the car and fled the area. Mr. Webster
       stopped when he saw a police car, and he then explained what
       had happened to Officer Joseph Nocito. Officer Nocito later
       confronted [Appellant], recovered [Appellant]’s knife, and after
       gathering more information about the incident, arrested
       [Appellant].    Although [Appellant] had denied having Mr.
       Webster’s phone, Officer Nocito recovered the phone from
       [Appellant]’s pocket in a search incident to arrest.

Trial Ct. Op., 1/26/23, at 2-3 (record citations omitted).

       Appellant was charged with robbery, attempted kidnapping, conspiracy

to commit robbery and/or kidnapping, possessing a criminal instrument,

terroristic threats, and false imprisonment.4 The matter proceeded to two-

____________________________________________

4 See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2901, 903, 907, 2706, and 2903, respectively.

                                           -3-
J-S25043-23

day jury trial that began on July 21, 2022. The jury found Appellant guilty of

robbery and not guilty as to the remaining charges. On October 3, 2022, the

court sentenced Appellant to a term of 41 to 82 months’ incarceration,

followed by two years of probation. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence

motion for reconsideration of sentence, which was denied by the trial court on

November 22, 2022. This timely appeal followed.5

                        II.    Statement of Questions Involved

       [1.] Whether the [trial c]ourt should have presented a “Spencer
       charge” to the jury rather than state that they will come back on
       the following Monday if [they were] not able to reach a verdict?

       [2.] Whether the trial court erred by imposing an “excessive
       sentence” violating the Pennsylvania Sentencing Code[6] . . . by
       not following the general principle that the sentence imposed
       should call for 1) confinement consistent with the protection of the
       public, 2) the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on
       the life of the victim; and 3) the rehabilitative needs of the
       [Appellant], and amounted to a[n] abuse of discretion.

Appellant’s Brief at 3 (citations & emphasis omitted).

                                III. Spencer Charge

       Appellant first argues the trial court abused its discretion by failing to

present a “Spencer Charge” to the jury.          See Appellant’s Brief at 6.   A

Spencer charge is an instruction “to a deadlocked jury to continue to

____________________________________________

5 Appellant complied with the trial court’s directive to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. The trial court issued a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion on January 26, 2023.

6 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9701 et. seq.

                                           -4-
J-S25043-23

deliberate, with an open mind to reconsideration of views, without giving up

firmly held convictions[.]” Commonwealth v. Greer, 951 A.2d 346, 348 (Pa.

2008).7

____________________________________________

7 The Spencer Court cited with approval the American Bar Association (ABA)

guidelines governing a jury deadlock. The ABA guidelines provide:

          STANDARD   15-5.4            LENGTH    OF   DELIBERATIONS;
          DEADLOCKED JURY

          (a) Before the jury retires for deliberation, the court may
          give an instruction which informs the jury:

              (1) that in order to return a verdict, each juror must
              agree thereto;

              (2) that jurors have a duty to consult with one another
              and to deliberate with a view to reaching an
              agreement, if it can be done without violence to
              individual judgment;

              (3) that each juror must decide the case for himself,
              but only after an impartial consideration of the
              evidence with his fellow jurors;

              (4) that in the course of deliberations, a juror should
              not hesitate to re-examine his own views and change
              his opinion if convinced it is erroneous; and

              (5) that no juror should surrender his honest
              conviction as to the weight or effect of the evidence
              solely because of the opinion of his fellow jurors, or
              for the mere purpose of returning a verdict.

          (b) If it appears to the court that the jury has been unable
          to agree, the court may require the jury to continue their
          deliberations and may give or repeat an instruction as
          provided in subsection (a). The court shall not require or
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -5-
J-S25043-23

       By way of background, the following exchange took place at Appellant’s

trial. After four-and-a-half hours of deliberation, the jury sent a note to the

court stating it was “hung on all counts.” N.T. 7/22/22, at 86. Upon learning

that the jury was deadlocked, the trial court stated to the parties:

              It is now 3:30 p.m. It seems to me that although the trial
       wasn’t long, the jury has not been deliberating very long either.
       And it’s my inclination to simply instruct them to continue their
       deliberations at this time without . . . giving them a Spencer
       charge. That may be appropriate at some point. But my
       inclination at this point, at least, is to simply say that they received
       the case late this morning. And I’m going to direct [the jury] to
       just continue [their] deliberations to see if [they] can work
       together to reach a unanimous verdict.

              Would counsel like to be heard on that?

Id.

       Appellant’s counsel responded:

             Yes, I believe that since they started at 11:00 [a.m.] and
       now it’s 3:30 [p.m.], that would be at least four hours . . .
       approximately. So, a Spencer would kick in . . . around seven
       hours if my understanding is correct, your honor. So, I defer to
       the court at this time. . . . Or we come back on Monday for a
       Spencer charge.

____________________________________________

          threaten to require the jury to deliberate for an
          unreasonable length of time or for unreasonable intervals.

          (c) The jury may be discharged without having agreed upon
          a verdict if it appears that there is no reasonable probability
          of agreement.

       ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 15-5.4[.]

Commonwealth v. Marion, 981 A.2d 230, 235-36 (Pa. Super. 2009)
(emphasis omitted).

                                           -6-
J-S25043-23

N.T. 7/22/22, at 86-87. The trial court stated:

           I don’t intend to keep the jury past 4:00 [p.m.] today. It’s
     my intention to excuse them at 4:00 [p.m.] and have them return
     to continue their deliberations on Monday. Given that, I know
     they have potential travel issues and whatnot. It’s still only 3:30
     [p.m.] So I don’t think I’m going to dismiss them quite yet. Let’s
     say maybe around 4:10 [p.m.] we can all plan to be here. And if
     they don’t have any verdict before then, we’ll excuse them for the
     weekend and direct that they come back on Monday.

           Are all parties agreeable to that?

Id. at 87. Both Appellant’s counsel and the Commonwealth responded in the

affirmative. Id.

     The trial court then instructed the jury:

            So the case was submitted to you to begin your
     deliberations late this morning. And at this time I’m simply going
     to direct you to continue your deliberations. Continue discussing
     the case and deliberating. And I know that it’s about 3:35 [p.m.]
     I don’t intend to keep you past about 4:10 [p.m.] today.

           We will continue your deliberations. We would continue
     them on Monday morning at 9:15 [a.m.] But before we reach that
     point, I’ll bring you back here. My intent is to bring you back here
     at about 4:10 [p.m.] . . . But for now I’m simply going to direct
     you to continue your deliberations.

N.T. 7/22/22, at 88-89. Defense counsel did not object to the trial court’s

instruction. Upon reconvening, the jury reached a verdict of guilty only on

the count of robbery later that afternoon. Id. at 89.

     Appellant now claims:

           In the instant case, the jury had been assembled to
     deliberate on a series of difficult and serious charges. The jury
     had not deliberated very long, not even five hours, before claiming
     deadlock. When the Court instructed the jury on a Friday
     afternoon that they would have to return on Monday unless they

                                    -7-
J-S25043-23

      returned a verdict, the Court’s instruction was tantamount to
      coercion. No jury wants to retire for a weekend to return to Court
      on a Monday. Upon being told, on a Friday afternoon, that if they
      did not reach a verdict, they would have to return on Monday to
      continue deliberations, they rushed to a verdict so as to conclude
      the deliberations. Under the circumstances, the jury should have
      been given a Spencer Charge in accordance with ABA Trial by
      Jury Standard 15-5.4. The Court’s failure to do so constituted an
      abuse of discretion.

Appellant’s Brief at 8-9 (citation omitted).

      Our standard of review regarding a jury instruction challenge is as

follows:

             We review jury charges, including supplemental jury
      charges, for an abuse of discretion.            Commonwealth v.
      Santiago, 424 A.2d 870, 873 (Pa. 1981) (“Whether to give a
      Spencer charge is a matter for the exercise of the trial court’s
      sound discretion.”). Further, the question of the proper duration
      of jury deliberations is one that rests within the sound discretion
      of the trial court, whose decision will not be disturbed unless there
      is a showing that the court abused its discretion or that the jury’s
      verdict was the product of coercion or fatigue. An abuse of
      discretion may not be found merely because an appellate court
      might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of
      manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-
      will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly erroneous.

            The use of supplemental charges to the jury has long been
      sanctioned. Moreover, this Court in Spencer recognized that,
      “[d]eadlocked juries are a matter of concern to both the bench
      and the bar.” [Spencer,] 275 A.2d at 304. On the other hand,
      Spencer also emphasized that a conviction will be reversed if it
      was coerced by the court’s charge.

Greer, 951 A.2d at 354-55 (some citations & quotation marks omitted).

      Moreover, we note “[t]he trial court is not required to give every charge

that is requested by the parties and its refusal to give a requested charge does

not require reversal unless the [a]ppellant was prejudiced by that refusal.”

                                      -8-
J-S25043-23

Commonwealth v. Thomas, 904 A.2d 964, 970 (Pa. Super. 2006). Further,

“[a] specific and timely objection must be made to preserve a challenge to a

particular   jury     instruction.      Failure   to   do   so   results   in   waiver.”

Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 178 (Pa. Super. 2010). See also

Commonwealth v. Olsen, 82 A.3d 1041, 1050 (Pa. Super. 2013).

      Here, the trial court found that Appellant failed to properly preserve his

claim, stating:

      [N]ot only did defense counsel fail to lodge an objection to the
      [trial c]ourt’s decision to refrain from providing a Spencer charge
      to the jurors after less than five hours of deliberations, but defense
      counsel explicitly agreed with the [c]ourt’s stated course of action
      and further suggested that the provision of a Spencer charge
      would be improper before the jury had been permitted to
      deliberate for at least seven hours. Defense counsel further failed
      to object after the [c]ourt finished instructing the jury with regard
      to the jury’s note that it was deadlocked. Accordingly, the claim
      is waived.

Trial Ct. Op. at 5.

      Appellant complains that his counsel “did raise the issue of and suggest

a Spencer charge[, but counsel’s] suggestion effectively [was] overruled [and

he] had no choice except to go along with the [trial c]ourt’s suggestion.”

Appellant’s Brief at 7. A review of the record contradicts Appellant’s assertion.

Counsel for Appellant was not the first one to mention a Spencer charge;

rather, it was the trial court that first raised the notion of a Spencer charge.

See N.T., 7/22/22, at 86.            Moreover, counsel did not request a Spencer

charge be given and never expressly objected to the court’s rationale for

declining to provide a Spencer charge. Instead, counsel “defer[red]” to the

                                           -9-
J-S25043-23

trial court on the proper timing of the charge and even stated they could “come

back on Monday for a Spencer charge.” Id. at 87. Furthermore, counsel

never objected to the trial court’s instruction to the jury to continue their

deliberations. Id. at 88-89. As mentioned above, a failure to lodge a specific

and timely objection a particular jury instruction results in waiver of that

challenge on appeal.       See Moury, 992 A.2d at 178.       See also Pa.R.A.P.

302(a) (“Issues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised

for the first time on appeal.”). Accordingly, Appellant’s first issue is waived.8

              IV.     Discretionary Aspects of Sentencing

       Appellant next argues the trial court imposed an “excessive sentence”

by improperly using Appellant’s juvenile adjudications when calculating his

prior record score, thereby, violating the Pennsylvania Sentencing Code. See

____________________________________________

8 Even if Appellant had properly preserved the claim, he failed to demonstrate

the trial court abused its discretion in declining to provide the charge. See
Greer, 951 A.2d at 354. As the court properly pointed out:

       [T]he jury had been deliberating for only four and a half hours
       when it advised the [c]ourt for the first time in the middle of the
       afternoon that it was deadlocked. The [c]ourt’s instruction to the
       jury to continue deliberating under these circumstances did not
       result in a verdict that was the product of coercion or an
       overworked jury.

Trial Ct. Op. at 6. Accordingly, Appellant’s claim would be unavailing. See
Marion, 981 A.2d at 236 (“Unless the record indicates that the verdict was
reached because of the jurors’ desire for rest and sleep or fatigue, this Court
will not reverse a trial court’s decision to extend jury deliberations.” (citations
omitted)).

                                          - 10 -
J-S25043-23

Appellant’s Brief at 9. Appellant’s claim implicates the discretionary aspects

of his sentence. See Commonwealth v. Shreffler, 249 A.3d 575, 583 (Pa.

Super. 2021) (stating it is “well-settled that a challenge to the calculation of

a prior record score goes to the discretionary aspects, not legality, of

sentencing” (citation omitted)).

      Since Appellant presents a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his

sentence, we note:

      An appeal raising the discretionary aspects of sentencing is not
      guaranteed as of right; rather, it is considered a petition for
      permission to appeal.     In order to reach the merits of a
      discretionary aspects claim, we must engage in a four-part
      analysis to determine:

         (1) Whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal,
         see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was
         properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to
         reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. [720];
         (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P.
         2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that
         the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the
         Sentencing Code.

Commonwealth v. Mulkin, 228 A.3d 913, 916 (Pa. Super. 2020) (some

citations omitted). While Appellant satisfied the first requirement — he filed

a timely notice of appeal — we observe that several of the other prongs have

not been met.

      Regarding the second prong — whether the issue was properly

preserved at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion — a review of the record

reveals that he raises for the first time on appeal the question of whether the

trial court erred by imposing an excessive sentence based on a miscalculated

                                     - 11 -
J-S25043-23

prior record score.     Although Appellant filed a post-sentence motion

challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence, he asserted that his

sentence should be reconsidered based on numerous mitigating factors,

including, inter alia, that he is gainfully employed, cares for his mother, and

has a son.     See Appellant’s Motion for Re-Consideration of Sentence,

10/10/22, at 3-4. He did not argue that his two juvenile adjudications should

not have been factored into his prior record score as he does now on appeal.

See Appellant’s Brief at 9. “To preserve an attack on the discretionary aspects

of sentence, an appellant must raise his issues at sentencing or in a post-

sentence motion. Issues not presented to the sentencing court are waived

and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”       Commonwealth v.

Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations omitted); see

also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Therefore, we conclude Appellant failed to properly

preserve this claim based on waiver.

      Additionally, with respect to the third prong, we are precluded from

reaching the merits of Appellant’s discretionary aspects of sentencing

argument because he did not properly set forth a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement

in his brief and the Commonwealth lodged an objection to the statement.

      Rule 2119 provides, in relevant part:

      An appellant who challenges the discretionary aspects of a
      sentence in a criminal matter shall set forth in his brief a concise
      statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with
      respect to the discretionary aspects of a sentence.             The
      statement shall immediately precede the argument on the

                                     - 12 -
J-S25043-23

       merits with respect            to the discretionary aspects of
       sentence.

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) (emphasis added). Nevertheless, we are mindful that “[a]

failure to include the Rule 2119(f) statement does not automatically waive an

appellant's argument; however, we are precluded from reaching the

merits of the claim when the Commonwealth lodges an objection to the

omission of the statement.” Commonwealth v. Roser, 914 A.2d 447, 457

(Pa. Super. 2006) (citation & quotation marks omitted; emphases added).

See also Commonwealth v. Farmer, 758 A.2d 173, 182 (Pa. Super. 2000)

(observing that we may not reach the merits of discretionary aspects of

sentencing claims where the Commonwealth has objected to the omission of

a Rule 2119(f) statement and finding the issue to be waived).9

       Here, Appellant included a statement resembling a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f)

statement in the table of contents section of his brief under the subheading,

“Determination in Question.”          See Appellant’s Brief, “Table of Contents.”

However, he failed to include a separate concise statement “immediately

preced[ing] the argument” section. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f).10 The Commonwealth

____________________________________________

9 Cf. Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d 949, 964 (Pa. Super. 2002)
(holding that if the appellant fails to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), this Court
may entertain discretionary sentencing claim if Commonwealth does not
object to the appellant’s failure to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f)).

10 See Commonwealth v. Huckleberry, 631 A.2d 1329, 1331 (Pa. Super.

1993) (concluding that although the table of contents referred to the Rule
2119(f) statement, the statement did not appear anywhere within defendant’s
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 13 -
J-S25043-23

pointed out the omission and objected by stating that Appellant’s claim is

waived for failure to include a proper Rule 2119(f) statement.                See

Commonwealth’s Brief at 10.               We agree, and therefore, Appellant’s

discretionary aspects of sentencing issue would be waived for this reason as

well.   See Roser, 914 A.2d at 457.            Accordingly, we need not address it

further.

        Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: October 11, 2023

____________________________________________

brief, the Commonwealth objected, and therefore, the issue was waived
because defendant had not complied the directives of Rule 2119(f)),
superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Commonwealth v.
Allen, 24 A.3d 158 (Pa. Super. 2011).

                                          - 14 -