Court Opinion

ID: 9838882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-08 16:09:06.300275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:25.643683
License: Public Domain

J-S24045-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  LUIS ANGEL MARTINEZ                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1693 MDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 18, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-06-CR-0005327-2019

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  LUIS ANGEL MARTINEZ                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1701 MDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 18, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-06-CR-0005328-2019

BEFORE:      BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                     FILED: SEPTEMBER 8, 2023

       Appellant, Luis Angel Martinez, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County after a jury convicted

him of multiple sexual offenses committed against two children. Sentenced

to mandatory and standard-range guideline sentences, run consecutively,

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S24045-23

Appellant raises challenges to the discretionary aspects of his sentence and to

the trial court’s order denying his double-jeopardy based motion to bar re-

prosecution after a Commonwealth witness’s testimony required the trial court

to declare a mistrial. We affirm.

      We reproduce those portions of the trial court opinion pertinent to the

issues Appellant has raised in the present appeal:

      Appellant, Luis Martinez, was charged at docket number CP-06-
      CR-0005327-2019 (“5327-19”) with Corruption of Minors and
      Indecent Assault, and at docket number CP-06-CR-0005328-2019
      (“5328-19”) with two counts of Aggravated Indecent Assault of a
      Child, two counts of Indecent Assault, and Corruption of Minors.
      The charges stem from incidents of sexual abuse against two
      minor females over the course of three years. Appellant was
      represented throughout the pretrial and trial phases by Jacob
      Gurwitz, Esq. (“Trial Counsel”).

      The matters first proceeded to trial on July 12, 2021. At that trial,
      the Commonwealth had presented four witnesses’ testimonies,
      and during cross-examination of the Commonwealth’s affiant,
      there was improper reference made to attempts to interview
      Appellant. [N.T. Mistrial, at 94].

      Trial Counsel requested a sidebar where he presented an oral
      motion for mistrial, upon which the court declared a mistrial. See
      July 12, 2021, Order Granting Def.’s Mot. For Mistrial.

      After several requested continuances, [in] which Trial Counsel
      indicated that Appellant waived his Rule 600 speedy trial rights,
      the matters proceeded to trial on March 21, 2022.

      At trial, the Commonwealth first called [Victim L.R.-R.’s Mother],
      who was originally from the Dominican Republic, [and she]
      testified that she has three children, including fourteen-year-old
      L.R.-R., who was born in 2007. [Trial N.T. 3/21/22 – 3/23/22],
      at 84-85. After living at several locations in Reading, Mother and
      her family moved [to a new residence] in Reading. . . . Mother
      knew Appellant because he lived on the same block . . . .

                                      -2-
J-S24045-23

     Appellant lived with his girlfriend . . . and her [children]. N.T. at
     89. Mother testified that L.R.-R would go over to Appellant’s
     home, and [Appellant’s girlfriend] and her kids would visit
     [Mother’s] home. When Mother began working for the Reading
     School District, she and her husband would have Appellant and
     [Appellant’s girlfriend] watch her kids, including L.R.-R. N.T. at
     91. Mother and her family would go on trips with Appellant and
     his family and would have them over for holidays. N.T. at 92.
     Appellant and his girlfriend had keys to Mother’s house and were
     allowed to pick Mother’s children up from school. Id.

     On October 23, 2018, Mother’s husband called her at work and
     told [her] that he found pornography on L.R.-R.’s cell phone, and
     her husband questioned L.R.-R. about the pornography. N.T. at
     94. When Mother finished work at 10:00 p.m., she proceeded
     home where she and her husband spoke with L.R.-R. N.T. at 94-
     95. L.R.-R., who was ten years old at the time, told Mother and
     her husband that Appellant had showed her how to look for
     pornography, that Appellant had shown L.R.-R. his penis, [and]
     that Appellant had touched himself and inappropriately touched
     L.R.-R. N.T. at 96-97. L.R.-R. told Mother that these incidents
     would occur both at Appellant’s home and at Mother’s home when
     Mother was not around. N.T. at 97. Moreover, L.R.-R. told Mother
     that Appellant had threatened that if she told her family about
     these incidents Appellant would kill either L.R.-R. or her family.
     N.T. at 96.

     The next morning, Mother did not go to work, but L.R.-R. went to
     school. N.T. at 97. While at school, L.R.-R. spoke with a neighbor
     and close friend, [G.R.-F.], who is around the same age as L.R.-
     R. and who lived next door to Appellant. N.T. at 97-98. L.R.-R.
     was encouraging G.R.-F. to speak up if Appellant had done
     anything to her, too. Id. Another student overheard the girls
     conversing and told a school official. N.T. at 98. The school called
     Mother and she went tin to speak with them and told the school
     that they were trying to figure out what to do. N.T. at 98. Mother
     then reached out to G.R.-F. through Facebook and suggested that
     they go to the police station and make a report, which they then
     did. N.T. at 99.

     After making the report, Mother had to bring L.R.-R in for an
     interview and then over to the Children’s Health Center for a
     medical examination. N.T. at 102-03. The examination found no
     injuries requiring treatment. N.T. at 103.

                                     -3-
J-S24045-23

     Mother testified that when L.R.-R. was in second grade, she wrote
     a note in school indicating that she wanted to kill herself and the
     school notified Mother and gave her the note. N.T. at 103-04.
     Likewise, L.R.-R. was not performing well in school. N.T. at 104.
     Mother further testified that L.R.-R. had become confused about
     her sexuality. Id.

     At the time that the incidents came to light, [Mother’s] property
     had been paid off. Id. A few months after she learned of the
     incidents, Mother testified, . . . her family sold the house and
     moved away. N.T. at 104, 108.

     ...

     [G.R.-F.’s mother testified] that she came to Reading from Puerto
     Rico in 2015 along with her partner and three children, including
     [her daughter, G.R.-F.], who was seven at the time. N.T.at 137.
     [After a short while], G.R.-F.’s mother and family moved into a
     house [they rented from Appellant]. [G.R.-F.’s mother] indicated
     that her family became close with Appellant’s family, who lived in
     the house next door. N.T. at 139.

     [She recounted that] [o]n October 24, 2019, after [her
     daughter’s] conversation with L.R.-R., [her daughter] spoke to her
     and told her that Appellant had been touching L.R.-R.
     inappropriately, and that he had touched [her daughter] too. N.T.
     at 141. [Her daughter] disclosed [to her] that Appellant would
     kiss [her daughter] on the neck and rub her buttocks. N.T. at
     142. [G.R.-F.’s mother] did not press [her daughter] for more
     details at the time because [her daughter] seemed worried and
     nervous. Id. When L.R.-R.’s Mother reached out to G.R.-F.’s
     mother on Facebook, the two women went to the school first and
     then to file a complaint. N.T. at 143-44. G.R.-F.’s mother later
     took [her daughter] in for an interview. N.T. at 144.

     Prior to learning of the incidents of sexual abuse, G.R.-F.’s mother
     testified that they had no issues with Appellant as a landlord. Id.
     After learning of the incidents of sexual abuse, G.R.-F.’s mother
     and her family moved out of the city. N.T. at 145.

     [Mother’s] fiancée, and father to the three children, including L.R.-
     R., testified that he knew Appellant [for some time before] living
     on the same block [Appellant]. N.T. at 153-54. [Mother’s fiancé]

                                     -4-
J-S24045-23

     was not initially close with Appellant, but they grew closer over
     time. N.T. at 156. [Mother’s fiancé] knew that Appellant owned
     other properties [on their block] and would help Appellant with
     those properties from time to time. N.T. at 155. There were times
     when [Mother’s fiancé] would be stuck financially, and he went to
     Appellant for small loans that were paid back quickly. N.T. at 157.

     [Mother’s fiancé] stated that he looked at his relationship with
     Appellant as one of father and son, and that his kids looked at
     Appellant as a grandfather. Id. Appellant would visit the house,
     and [Mother’s fiancé] would visit Appellant’s home frequently. Id.
     Because of their work schedules, the children, including L.R.-R.
     would go over to Appellant’s home after school. Id. at 158-59.

     On October 24, 2019, [Mother’s fiancé] got home and found L.R.-
     R’s iPod and went through it and initially did not find anything
     alarming until he went through her web search history. N.T. at
     160-61. In the web search history, [Mother’s fiancé] found sexual
     content, and confronted L.R.-R. about what he had found. N.T. at
     161. L.R.-R. initially denied that she had performed the searches,
     but later reengaged with [Mother’s fiancé] and told him that
     Appellant had been telling her to look for sexual content on the
     Internet. Id. L.R.-R. then told [Mother’s fiancé] that once when
     she was over at Appellant’s home, while [Appellant’s wife was out
     smoking a cigarette, Appellant emerged from the bathroom and
     had exposed his genitals in front of L.R.-R. N.T. at 161 ,169. L.R.-
     R. noted to [Mother’s fiancé] that Appellant would often make
     comments about L.R.-R. and caress her both at his house and at
     her house. N.T. at 161-62. L.R.-R. also informed [Mother’s
     fiancé] that while they were all on vacation in Wildwood, Appellant
     “said some stuff to her.” N.T. at 162. L.R.-R. told [Mother’s fiancé]
     that she had not mentioned the incidents before because she was
     afraid. N.T. at 164. After [Mother] came home that night, she
     had a conversation with L.R.-R. that [Mother’s fiancé] was not
     involved in. N.T. at 164. The next day, [Mother] took L.R.-R. to
     City Hall.

     ...

     G.R.-F., who was thirteen years old at the time of trial, testified
     that she knew Appellant as the owner of the house that her family
     lived in . . ., and that she knew him as El Viejo, which she stated
     meant “[k]ind of like old man.” N.T. at 222. G.R.-F. stated that
     she would visit Appellant’s home, first when [Appellant] lived next

                                     -5-
J-S24045-23

     door to her family, and then later when he moved a few houses
     away. N.T. at 224-26. Along with Appellant, his wife, teenage
     daughter, and her baby would be there too. N.T. at 226. G.R.-F.
     indicated eventually that, while she was over at Appellant’s home
     and his wife had left the house, he began to touch her. N.T. at
     227-28. Likewise, when Appellant would visit her family’s house,
     and they were in another room, Appellant would touch G.R.-F. in
     the living room. N.T. at 228. G.R.-F. stated that it would happen
     every time that she was alone with Appellant and that It began
     with kissing her neck or Appellant asking her to sit on his lap. Id.
     Appellant would also touch G.R.-F. on her thigh and buttocks over
     her clothing. N.T. at 229-30. G.R.-F. stated that the touching
     began when she was seven years old. N.T. at 230.

     G.R.-F. explained that she had been talking to L.R.-R. on recess
     one day at school when L.R.-R. told [her] that [L.R.-R.] did not
     feel comfortable with Appellant. N.T. at 231. G.R.-F. told L.R.-R.
     that she also did not feel comfortable with Appellant. N.T. at 231.
     Another student overheard the two talking and notified teacher.
     N.T. at 232. The school principal then told the girls to tell their
     parents about the conversation. N.T. at 232. [G.R.-F. expressed
     to her mother] that she was scared to tell her because of the close
     bond that [G.R.-F.’s mother] had with Appellant. N.T. at 233.
     After telling her mother about Appellant’s actions, G.R.-F. related
     [to the jury] that she attended an interview and that she had
     participated in counseling to deal with the abuse. N.T. at 234.

     On cross-examination, [G.R.-F.] confirmed that the inappropriate
     touching by Appellant occurred for about three to four years, but
     that she only notified her parents about the touching after
     speaking with L.R.-R. and the school principal. N.T. at 243-44.
     G.R.-F. further acknowledged that she continued to visit
     Appellant’s home after the described inappropriate touching
     occurred. N.T. at 245-46.

     L.R.-R., who was fourteen years old at the time of trial, testified
     that she first was introduced to Appellant through her father, with
     whom Appellant was friends. N.T. at 249. L.R.-R. further noted
     that sometimes Appellant would visit her family’s home and then
     sometimes, when her parents were working, she would go to
     Appellant’s home after school. N.T. at 249-50. Along with
     Appellant, Appellant’s wife, daughter, and her child lived at
     Appellant’s home. N.T. at 250-51.

                                    -6-
J-S24045-23

     L.R.-R. explained that when she first met Appellant, she did not
     have any issues with him, but after approximately two months,
     when L.R.-R. was seven years old, Appellant would “sit there and
     touch [L.R.-R.] . . . and try to bribe [her] with things.” N.T. at
     252. L.R.-R. described Appellant touching her buttocks over her
     clothing with his hand and would give her candy or something else
     in exchange. N.T. at 252. L.R.-R. further testified that Appellant
     showed her pornography on his phone and on her iPod while they
     were sitting on the couch in Appellant’s living room. N.T. at 254.
     L.R.-R. then stated that when she was at Appellant’s home,
     Appellant “came out the bathroom with his private part out,” and
     that Appellant said, “Look what I have for you.” N.T. at 256-57.
     L.R.-R. stated that Appellant told her to touch his private part but
     that she refused. N.T. at 268.

     L.R.-R. told of another incident when she was at another house
     with Appellant where there was a swimming pool, and while she
     was in the pool Appellant touched her vagina and buttocks over
     her clothing. N.T. at 257-59. L.R.-R. further testified of an
     incident when she and Appellant were in the living room of her
     family’s home and Appellant touched her vagina over her clothing.
     N.T. at 260-61.

     L.R.-R. continued that on another occasion, she was on the couch
     with Appellant in her family’s home when Appellant moved her
     pants and touched her butt inside of her body. N.T. at 261-64.
     L.R.-R. recounted an incident when she was at Appellant’s home
     and Appellant “pulled down [her] pants and just touched” her
     vagina, indicating that Appellant touched the inside of her vagina.
     N.T. at 265.

     When L.R.-R. and her family were on vacation with Appellant and
     his family, Appellant was alone with L.R.-R. and told her that “he
     wanted to go to the water with [her] naked.” N.T. at 267-68.

     [L.R.-R. recounted asking G.R.-F. in school if Appellant had ever
     done anything to G.R.-F., described how her father found
     pornography on her iPod but proved unable to cope with
     allegations of inappropriate touching by Appellant and directed her
     to tell her mother, explained how she now feels uneasy when
     alone in a room with another person, even a family member. N.T.
     at 269-273. On cross-examination, she asserted that Appellant
     put the pornography on her iPod, but she admitted that
     classmates had been downloading pornography at the time. She

                                    -7-
J-S24045-23

      admitted that she could not specify dates when the alleged sexual
      abuse occurred, and that she never disclosed inappropriate
      touching even when her father would ask generally if anyone had
      ever touched her inappropriately. N.T. at 274-283].

      ...

      At the conclusion of the trial, Appellant was found guilty on all
      charges. Sentencing was deferred for receipt of a report from the
      Pennsylvania Sexual Offender’s Assessment Board (“SOAB”). On
      August 18, 2022, after receiving the report from the SOAB, and
      upon testimony of Dr. Veronique Valliere, the [trial] court found
      Appellant to be a sexually violent predator. The [trial] court
      proceeded to sentence Appellant on both dockets to an aggregate
      term of twenty-two to forty-eight years of incarceration in a State
      Correctional Institute.

      Trial counsel filed a motion to withdraw immediately following
      sentencing, which was granted by [the trial] court the same day.
      [New counsel] filed post-sentence motions challenging both the
      weight and sufficiency of the evidence in all charges, alleging
      prejudice as to holding trial after the first mistrial was declared,
      and contending that the sentences imposed were excessive and
      an abuse of discretion. On November 1, 2022, the [trial] court
      denied the post-sentence motions.

      On December 1, 2022, Appellant , through Appellate Counsel, filed
      a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court. The [trial] court, by
      order dated December 13, 2022, directed that Appellant file a
      concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to
      Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1). Appellant filed a concise statement on
      December     20, 2022,      alleging[, inter   alia,   that   the
      Commonwealth’s witness intentionally and in bad faith caused a
      mistrial because he knew his testimony was failing to incriminate
      Appellant and the prosecution’s case was falling apart, and that
      the trial court erred and abused its discretion in imposing
      sentence.]

Trial Court Opinion, 2/3/23, at 1-11.

      Appellant presents two issues for this Court’s consideration:

                                     -8-
J-S24045-23

      1. Whether the lower court abused its discretion by imposing an
         aggregate sentence of 22-48 years in state prison on a 64-
         year-old defendant thus making it a de facto life sentence.

      2. Should a second trial in this matter have been precluded by the
         mistrial at the first which was caused by the prosecuting
         officer’s unprovoked reference to [Appellant’s] refusal to be
         interviewed by him?

Brief for Appellant, at 9.

      Appellant first contends the trial court abused its discretion by imposing

an aggregate prison sentence of 22 to 48 years, comprising mandatory

minimum sentences of ten to twenty years on each of two counts of

Aggravated Indecent Assault, a one-to-four-year sentence for Corruption of

Minors, and a one-to-four-year sentence for Indecent Assault. The court also

sentenced Appellant to a concurrent sentence of one to four years for a

separate count of Corruption of Minors.

      An appeal raising the discretionary aspects of sentencing is not

guaranteed as of right; rather, it is considered a petition for permission to

appeal. 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.

      The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must
      be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. A substantial question
      exists only when the appellant advances a colorable argument
      that the sentencing judge's actions were either: (1) inconsistent

                                        -9-
J-S24045-23

      with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary
      to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.

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

omitted).

      Appellant preserved his sentencing challenge in a post-sentence motion,

filed a timely notice of appeal, and, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), included in

his appellate brief a concise statement of the reason relied upon for allowance

of appeal in which he claims that the trial court’s imposition of consecutive

sentences and failure to consider mitigating circumstances resulted in a

manifestly excessive sentence.

      It is well established that under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721, the trial court has

discretion to impose its sentences consecutively or concurrently to other

sentences being imposed at the same time or to sentences already imposed.

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(a). Although a bald claim of excessiveness due to

consecutive sentences does not raise a substantial question, a claim the

imposition is unreasonable, with explanation of the facts and circumstances,

raises a substantial question.   Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263,

1270-71 (Pa. Super. 2013).

      Assuming arguendo that Appellant adequately developed his claim in

this regard, we discern from the record that the trial court reasonably ran his

mandatory sentences and standard range sentences consecutively. The crux

of Appellant’s challenge is that the imposition of consecutive sentences under

the present sentencing scheme results in a manifestly excessive, de facto life

sentence on a 64-year-old man reputed for his superior work ethic and known

                                     - 10 -
J-S24045-23

in his neighborhood as “El Viejo”, meaning “the old man”, “for crimes which,

while despicable, are not violent.” Brief for Appellant at 18. We disagree.

      Initially, we observe that the Berks County Public Defender’s argument

that Aggravated Sexual Assault and Indecent Assault are not crimes of

violence is contrary to pertinent authority. For example, pursuant to section

9714 of the Judicial Code, Sentences for Second and Subsequent Offenses,

“the purpose of [which] is to deter violent criminal acts by imposing harsher

penalties on those who commit repeated crimes of violence,”           Aggravated

Indecent Assault is defined as a crime of violence.           See 42 Pa.C.S.A.

9714(a)(1)(g).   Similarly, Indecent Assault is included among the offenses

listed as acts of “sexual violence” under The Protection of Victims of Sexual

Violence or Intimidation Act (“PVSVIA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 62A01-62A20. Our

jurisprudence, moreover, has identified sexual assault as a violent offense.

See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Bey, 841 A.2d 562, 566 (Pa. Super. 2004)

(recognizing that “all sexual crimes are inherently violent as invasions of the

victim’s bodily integrity and differ only in the degree to which this is true.”)

      Furthermore, the court acted within its discretion to impose consecutive

sentences even if they amounted to a lengthy sentence imposed on a 64-year-

old defendant. See Commonwealth v. Clary, 226 A.3d 571, 581 (Pa. Super.

2020) (“[D]efendants convicted of multiple offenses are not entitled to a

‘volume discount’ on their aggregate sentence.”) (citation omitted).          The

Commonwealth established at trial that Appellant committed multiple crimes

of sexual violence against two children whose parents and guardians had

                                      - 11 -
J-S24045-23

entrusted the children to Appellant’s company and care in there small, shared

neighborhood.       The sentence imposed was not “grossly disparate” to

Appellant’s conduct, nor does it “viscerally appear as patently unreasonable.”

Commonwealth v. Bankes, 286 A.3d 1302, 1310 (Pa. Super. 2022)(quoting

Commonwealth v. Gonzalez-Dejusus, 994 A.2d 595, 599 (Pa. Super.

2010).     Moreover, the trial court had the benefit of the PSI and imposed

standard range and mandatory sentences. Under such circumstances, this

Court “will not consider the sentence excessive.” Bankes, supra. For these

reasons, Appellant’s challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence

fails.

         In Appellant’s remaining issue, he challenges the trial court’s denial of

his motion to bar re-prosecution on double jeopardy grounds after an

experienced law enforcement officer caused a mistrial at the first trial when

he referred to Appellant’s exercise of pre-arrest silence.      He sets forth no

argument or explanation, however, as to how he is entitled to relief. “Rule

2119 of Pennsylvania Appellate Procedure requires that an appellant's brief

identify the issue or issues to be reviewed by this Court, followed by citations

to legal authority supporting the claim.” Commonwealth v. Midgley, 289

A.3d 1111 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citation omitted). “Where the appellant fails to

develop an issue or cite legal authority, we will find waiver of that issue.” Id.

Moreover, “[t]his Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments

on behalf of an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa.

Super. 2010) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we find this issue waived.

                                       - 12 -
J-S24045-23

     Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/08/2023

                                 - 13 -