Court Opinion

ID: 9906994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-05 17:25:30.73859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:09.819586
License: Public Domain

J-S39042-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  DONALD J. BOUTON                             :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 206 MDA 2023

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 5, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-36-CR-0000847-2021

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.:                   FILED: DECEMBER 5, 2023

       Donald J. Bouton (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered on January 5, 2023, in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas,

after a jury convicted him of two counts of strangulation (applying pressure

to the throat or neck) and one count of aggravated assault (attempts to cause

serious bodily injury (SBI) or causes injury with extreme indifference).1 The

trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of eight to 16 years’ incarceration.

On appeal, Appellant claims the trial court erred, under Pa.R.Crim.P. 5642, in

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2718(a)(1) and 2702(a)(1), respectively.

2 See Pa.R.Crim.P. 564 (“The court may allow an information to be amended,

provided that the information as amended does not charge offenses arising
from a different set of events and that the amended charges are not so
materially different from the original charge that the defendant would be
unfairly prejudiced. . . . ”).
J-S39042-23

denying his motion to strike the amended information. Based on the following,

we affirm.

     The trial court summarized the underlying facts taken from the trial

testimony and relevant procedural history as follows:

           Just before midnight on March 2, 2021, Officers from the
     Elizabethtown Borough Police Department were dispatched in
     response to an alleged assault by Appellant against his girlfriend,
     [R.G. (the Victim)]. The dispatcher explained that [the Victim]
     was waiting in her car at the Elizabethtown Borough Police
     Department and the responding Officers made contact with her in
     the station parking lot. [The Victim] had her son with her in the
     car and the responding Officers noticed that both [she] and her
     son were not wearing shoes or socks. After [the Victim] and her
     son were invited into the station, [she] described to the Officers
     two episodes of physical violence — the first on February 28,
     2021, and the second just before she arrived at the police station
     on March 2, 2021 — that Appellant had inflicted upon her.

             On March 3, 2021, a Criminal Complaint was filed against
     Appellant, charging him with one count of Strangulation, one
     count of Simple Assault, and one count of Harassment.1 On March
     18, 2021, Appellant appeared for his preliminary hearing and the
     charges were waived to the Court of Common Pleas. At the time
     of the waiver, the Commonwealth indicated that another count of
     Strangulation and counts of Aggravated Assault and Stalking
     would be added should Appellant elect to exercise his right to
     trial.2
     ____________________________

        1 In violation of 18 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 2718(a)(1), 18 Pa.C.S.[ ] §

        2701(a)(1), and 18 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 2709(a)(1).        [The
        harassment charge was subsequently nolle prossed.]

        2 This information is lifted from Paragraph 3 of Appellant’s

        pre-trial “Motion to Strike Amended information Pursuant to
        Criminal Rule of Procedure 564,” filed on July 25, 2021.
        After inquiring with the Lancaster County Court of Common
        Pleas Office of the Official Court Reporter, the [trial court]
        was informed that no transcript was made of the
        proceedings on March 18, 2021.

                                    -2-
J-S39042-23

     ____________________________

           On April 7, 2021, a Criminal Information was filed. On Count
     1, Strangulation, the Information alleged that on or about March
     2, 2021, [ ] Appellant placed [the Victim] in a headlock and held
     constant pressure on her neck. On Count 2, Simple Assault, the
     Information alleged that Appellant struck [the Victim] in the face
     with a closed fist and proceeded to continue with multiple strikes
     to her person. The Information also included a single count of
     Harassment.

            On July 12, 2022, prior to the matter being listed for trial,
     the Commonwealth filed an Amended Criminal Information. The
     Amended Information added a second count of Strangulation,
     alleging that Appellant had placed his arm around [the Victim]’s
     neck and applied constant pressure, causing her to lose
     consciousness. The Amended Information also changed the
     Simple Assault charge to a charge of Aggravated Assault but did
     not alter the description of Appellant’s alleged actions. Finally,
     the Amended Information added one count of Stalking[, 18
     Pa.C.S. § 2709.1(a)(1)], alleging that Appellant assaulted [the
     Victim] multiple times between February 28, 2021, and March 2,
     2021, without letting her leave.

           On July 25, 2022, Appellant’s trial counsel filed a Motion to
     Strike Amended Information Pursuant to Criminal Rule of Civil
     Procedure 564 [; the trial court] denied Appellant’s Motion to
     Strike on August 8, 2022.

            On October 17, 2022, a jury trial commenced. At trial, [the
     Victim] testified that as of March 2, 2021, she and Appellant had
     been dating for approximately nine months and that Appellant had
     been living with her in her home for the majority of their
     relationship. [The Victim] testified that on the day of the March
     2nd assault, Appellant returned from work and appeared to be
     intoxicated. Later in the evening, Appellant took [the Victim]’s
     car to go to purchase cigarettes and gas. When he returned to
     [the Victim]’s home, he was “way more drunk than he was when
     he left and admitted that he went to the bar.” Appellant and [the
     Victim] had a conversation that “wasn’t pleasant,” after which [the
     Victim] went to bed. Appellant later came to [the Victim]’s room
     and asked if he could sleep with her in her bed. Because she
     “didn’t want to fight about it or anything,” she agreed.

                                    -3-
J-S39042-23

            [The Victim] testified that after she had been asleep for
     approximately one hour, Appellant was “sleeping almost on top of
     [her].” When [the Victim] nudged him to move over, Appellant
     started punching her repeatedly with a closed fist in the back, the
     side of her head, and her chest. [The Victim] attempted to make
     her way out of the room. [The Victim] could not recall if she fell
     or if Appellant grabbed her, but she testified that she ended up on
     the floor and that Appellant started kicking her and then lifted her
     up from behind and put her in a stranglehold as she tried to get
     away. [The Victim] testified that when Appellant’s arms were
     around her neck, she could not breathe well. Appellant then
     “dropped her,” and she ran out of the room and into her son’s
     room and locked the door.

            [The Victim] testified that she eventually left her son’s
     room, quietly grabbed her purse out of her bedroom, and went
     with her son to the Elizabethtown police station. When [the
     Victim] arrived at the police station, she called 911 because it was
     the middle of the night and she did not see anyone at the station.
     When responding Officers arrived at her vehicle, she went with
     them into the police station told them about the assault. [The
     Victim] testified that when she spoke with the Officers, she also
     told them about the incident that occurred on February 28, 2021.

           [The Victim] explained that on February 28, 2021, Appellant
     had been drinking and was “in this mood where he likes to pester.”
     [She] testified that she was downstairs in her home and that she
     heard Appellant “pestering” her son upstairs. [The Victim] went
     upstairs and told Appellant to leave her son alone and then went
     into the bathroom. Appellant proceeded to block [the Victim],
     preventing her from leaving. [The Victim] testified that Appellant
     then entered the bathroom and put her in a “stranglehold,”
     causing her to lose consciousness. [She also] stated that she
     thought that she had a seizure because when she regained
     consciousness, her leg was shaking.

            During the trial, the jury observed photographs taken at the
     police station that depicted the injuries that Appellant inflicted on
     [the Victim]. The photographs showed markings and bruising on
     her neck, arm, back, and ear. [The Victim] also testified about
     injuries depicted in photographs taken a day or two later, showing
     lingering markings on her neck, bruising to her chest and back,
     and increased bruising on her arms. Because of the pain from her
     injuries, [the Victim] sought medical treatment the day after the

                                     -4-
J-S39042-23

       incident. She was diagnosed with a transverse process fracture
       at L3 and L4 vertebral levels. [The Victim] testified that she had
       a “deep pain in [her] lower back” that radiated down her hip and
       leg and persisted for approximately one month.

              On October 18, 2022, the second day of trial, the
       Commonwealth rested its case and Appellant’s trial counsel moved
       for a judgment of acquittal on the charge of Stalking. Finding that
       the Commonwealth failed to introduce sufficient evidence of
       Stalking, [the trial court] granted Appellant’s request.

Trial Ct. Op., 3/29/23, at 1-6 (record citations & some footnotes omitted;

paragraph break added).

       At the conclusion of the trial, the jury was provided with a verdict slip

listing four counts — two counts of strangulation (for the February 28th and

March 2nd incidents), one count of aggravated assault (attempted SBI) and

one count of aggravated assault (causing SBI). The jury convicted Appellant

of all counts.

       On December 22, 2022, the court originally imposed the following

sentence: (1) terms of three to six years’ incarceration each for the two

strangulation convictions and the aggravated assault (attempted SBI) offense,

to be served concurrently; and (2) a term of five to ten years’ imprisonment

for   the   aggravated   assault   (causing   SBI)   conviction,   to   be   served

consecutively to the other offenses. See N.T., 12/22/22, at 11-12. Seven

days later, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion, arguing, in part, that the

two counts of aggravated assault should merge for sentencing purposes. On

January 5, 2023, the court entered an order, modifying Appellant’s sentence

as follows: (1) two terms of three to six years’ incarceration for the two

                                      -5-
J-S39042-23

strangulation convictions, to be served concurrently; and (2) a consecutive

term of five to ten years’ imprisonment for one count of aggravated assault,

to be served consecutively. Appellant’s aggregate sentence thus remained

the same. This appeal followed.3, 4

       Appellant raises one issue on appeal:

       1. Did the trial court err in denying the Motion to Strike Amended
       Information, in violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal
       Procedure 564?

Appellant’s Brief at 6.

       In his sole issue on appeal, Appellant claims the trial court erred in

denying his motion to strike the amended information. See Appellant’s Brief

at 11. As mentioned above, Appellant was originally charged, in relevant part,

____________________________________________

3 Appellant’s counsel filed a notice of appeal purportedly from the “judgment

of sentence imposed December 22, 2022, as finalized by the denial of
[Appellant]’s Post Sentence Motion on the Fifth Day of January, 2023.”
Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, 2/3/23. Counsel erroneously stated the appeal
was from the December 22, 2022, sentencing order and that the post-
sentence motion had been denied. It is well-settled that when the trial court
amends the judgment of sentence while it maintains jurisdiction pursuant to
42 Pa.C.S. § 5505, the direct appeal lies from the amended judgment of
sentence. See Commonwealth v. Garzone, 993 A.2d 1245, 1254 n.6 (Pa.
Super. 2010). Accordingly, the caption has been amended to reflect that the
appeal properly lies from the January 5, 2023, judgment of sentence. See
Commonwealth v. Shamberger, 788 A.2d 408, 410 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2001)
(en banc) (citation omitted) (correcting caption when appellant misstates from
where appeal lies).

4  On February 7, 2023, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
within 30 days. Appellant filed a timely concise statement on March 8th. The
trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion on March 29th.

                                           -6-
J-S39042-23

with one count of strangulation and one count of simple assault — both crimes

concerned with the March 2, 2021, incident. On July 12, 2022, prior to the

matter being listed for trial, the Commonwealth filed an amended criminal

information, which, in pertinent part, added a second count of strangulation

and changed the simple assault charge to a charge of aggravated assault.

Appellant filed a motion to strike the amended information, which the trial

court denied on August 8, 2022. Appellant’s trial was subsequently conducted

in October of 2022.

      With respect to the new count of strangulation, Appellant highlights a

comment made by the trial court that the amended information was

“inarticulately drafted” and appeared to allege that the new strangulation

count also stemmed from the March 2, 2021, incident. Appellant’s Brief at 14

(citation omitted). He asserts “the new count of strangulation arose out of a

completely separate incident which occurred February 28, 2021, and the court

should have not permitted the Commonwealth to add this charge to the

[original i]nformation, which related to a separate event on March 2, 2021.”

Id. at 14-15 (record citation omitted).     Appellant acknowledges that the

February 28th incident was mentioned in the affidavit of probable cause, but

claims the addition of the new strangulation charge violated Rule 564, “which

states that the offense cannot arise from a different set of events.” Id. at 15.

      As for the aggravated assault charge, Appellant contends that “although

the charge arose from the same set of events as those in the April 7, 2021

                                     -7-
J-S39042-23

information, the charge did not involve the same basic elements as the charge

of simple assault[.]” Appellant’s Brief at 15. He states, “There is no mention,

in the complaint or the affidavit of probable cause, that [the Victim] had

suffered [SBI], and no mention that [Appellant] had tried to cause [SBI].” Id.

at 16. Appellant further suggests that there was no mention in the amended

information of SBI and because there was no preliminary hearing, “the factual

scenario was not developed during the preliminary hearing.”             Id.   He

maintains he “was not on notice that he would be defending against a claim

that [the Victim] had been seriously injured, requiring him to defend against

different elements than the elements of the simple assault charge[.]” Id.

      In reviewing a challenge to an amended information, we are guided by

the following:

             “[T]he purpose of Rule 564 is to ensure that a defendant is
      fully apprised of the charges, and to avoid prejudice by prohibiting
      the last minute addition of alleged criminal acts of which the
      defendant is uninformed.” Commonwealth v. Sinclair, 897
      A.2d 1218, 1221 (Pa. Super. 2006). “[O]ur courts apply the rule
      with an eye toward its underlying purposes and with a
      commitment to do justice rather than be bound by a literal or
      narrow reading of the procedural rules.” Commonwealth v.
      Grekis, 411 Pa. Super. 513, 601 A.2d 1284, 1288 ([Pa. Super.]
      1992).

           As stated in Sinclair, when presented with a question
      concerning the propriety of an amendment, we consider:

         [w]hether the crimes specified in the original indictment or
         information involve the same basic elements and evolved
         out of the same factual situation as the crimes specified in
         the amended indictment or information. If so, then the
         defendant is deemed to have been placed on notice
         regarding his alleged criminal conduct. If, however, the

                                     -8-
J-S39042-23

       amended provision alleges a different set of events, or the
       elements or defenses to the amended crime are materially
       different from the elements or defenses to the crime
       originally charged, such that the defendant would be
       prejudiced by the change, then the amended is not
       permitted.

     Sinclair, 897 A.2d at 1221 (quoting Commonwealth v.
     Davalos, 779 A.2d 1190, 1194 (Pa .Super. 2001), appeal
     denied, 567 Pa. 756, 790 A.2d 1013 ([Pa.] 2001) (citation
     omitted)). Additionally,

       [i]n reviewing a grant to amend an information, the Court
       will look to whether the appellant was fully apprised of the
       factual scenario which supports the charges against him.
       Where the crimes specified in the original information
       involved the same basis elements and arose out of the same
       factual situation as the crime added by the amendment, the
       appellant is deemed to have been placed on notice regarding
       his alleged criminal conduct and no prejudice to defendant
       results.

     Id., at 1222[.] Further, the factors which the trial court must
     consider in determining whether an amendment is prejudicial are:

       (1) whether the amendment changes the factual scenario
       supporting the charges; (2) whether the amendment adds
       new facts previously unknown to the defendant; (3) whether
       the entire factual scenario was developed during a
       preliminary hearing; (4) whether the description of the
       charges changed with the amendment; (5) whether a
       change in defense strategy was necessitated by the
       amendment; and (6) whether the timing of the
       Commonwealth's request for amendment allowed for ample
       notice and preparation.

     Id. (citation omitted). Most importantly, we emphasize that “the
     mere possibility amendment of information may result in a more
     severe penalty . . . is not, of itself, prejudice.” Commonwealth
     v. Picchianti, 410 Pa. Super. 563, 600 A.2d 597, 599 ([Pa.
     Super.] 1991), appeal denied, 530 Pa. 660, 609 A.2d 168 ([Pa.]
     1992).

                                  -9-
J-S39042-23

Commonwealth v. Mentzer, 18 A.3d 1200, 1202–03 (Pa. Super. 2011).5

See also Commonwealth v. Sandoval, 266 A.3d 1098, 1102 (Pa. Super.

2021).

       In explaining its rationale for granting the Commonwealths’ motion to

amend the information, the trial court stated:

       [A.] Strangulation

             The Amended Information added an additional count of
       Strangulation that, in contrast to the original count of
       Strangulation, alleged that [the Victim] lost consciousness.
       During the trial, it became evident that the additional count of
       Strangulation [concerned] the separate incident that occurred on
       February 28, 2021.       However, the face of the Amended
       Information was inarticulately drafted and appeared to allege that
       the additional count of Strangulation also occurred on or about
       March 2, 2021.

              Therefore, applying the first, second, and fourth Mentzer
       factors, at the time that [the trial court] ruled on Appellant’s pre-
       trial Motion to Strike, there was no indication that the additional
       count meaningfully changed the factual scenario supporting the
       charge or added facts previously unknown to Appellant. Although
       the new count alleged that [the Victim] lost consciousness, the
       additional allegation appeared inconsequential because injury to
       the victim is not an element of Strangulation. See 18 Pa.C.S.[ ]
       § 2718(a), (b). Therefore, these factors weighed in favor of
       finding that Appellant was not prejudiced by the amendment.

             The third factor is inapplicable as Appellant waived his
       preliminary hearing.     Regarding the fifth factor, although
       Appellant baldly claimed that his defense strategy had to change
       due to the amendment, he provided no meaningful support for
____________________________________________

5 Rule 564 was amended effective December 21, 2017 “to more accurately

reflect the interpretation of th[e] rule that has developed since it was first
adopted in 1974.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 564, cmt. (citing, inter alia, Sinclair, supra).
In other words, the amendment was not intended to modify current practice,
including the application of the six Mentzer factors.

                                          - 10 -
J-S39042-23

     this claim. Finally, the Amended Information was filed on July 12,
     2022, and trial did not commence until October 17, 2022, allowing
     for ample notice and preparation.

           Most importantly, [the trial court’s] decision to allow the
     Commonwealth to proceed on the Amended Information did not
     violate [the] underlying purpose of Rule 564: to fully appraise
     Appellant of the factual scenario which supports the charges
     against him. Appellant admitted in his Motion to Strike that when
     he appeared for his preliminary hearing and the charges were
     waived to the Court of Common Pleas, the Commonwealth
     indicated that another count of Strangulation would be added
     should Appellant elect to exercise his right to trial. Therefore,
     Appellant was unquestionably aware of all of the charges that the
     Commonwealth intended to, and ultimately did, file against him.

     [B.] Aggravated Assault

            The Amended Information also changed the original count
     of Simple Assault to a single count of Aggravated Assault. Here,
     the first and second Mentzer factors weighed toward a finding
     that Appellant was not prejudiced by the amendment. The factual
     scenario supporting the charges did not change as both the
     original and Amended Information contained an identical
     recitation: that Appellant struck the [V]ictim in the face with a
     closed fist and proceeded to continue with multiple strikes to her
     person.

           The third factor is again inapplicable as Appellant waived his
     preliminary hearing.

           Regarding the fourth factor, the description of the charge
     did change with the amendment as Aggravated Assault requires a
     showing that Appellant caused or attempted to cause serious
     bodily injury rather than bodily injury.

            As set forth above, the fifth and sixth factors also supported
     [the trial court’s] decision to deny Appellant’s Motion to Strike.
     Although Appellant alleged that his defense strategy must change
     due to the amendment, he provided no support for his claim.
     Finally, the Amended Information was filed on July 12, 2022, and
     trial did not commence until October 17, 2022, allowing for ample
     notice and preparation.

                                    - 11 -
J-S39042-23

            Although the fourth factor marginally weighed in favor of
     striking the Amended Information, each of the remaining factors
     supported [the trial court’s] decision to allow the Commonwealth
     to proceed on the Amended Information. Here again, Appellant
     clearly had notice of the factual scenario that supported the
     charges against him. Whether he had to defend against claims of
     bodily injury or serious bodily injury, he was undoubtedly aware
     that he had repeatedly struck [the Victim] and caused some level
     of injury — and that the Commonwealth intended to prosecute
     him to the most serious extent possible if he chose to proceed to
     trial.

Trial Ct. Op. 9-12 (emphasis omitted).

     We agree with the trial court’s well-reasoned opinion that the pre-trial

amendment of the information was proper in light of the totality of the

circumstances. In reviewing the record and the court’s statements, it is clear

the court considered the mandates of Rule 564, relevant case law, and the

relevant Mentzer factors when it granted the Commonwealth’s motion to

amend   the   criminal   information.    Moreover,   contrary   to   Appellant’s

allegations, the record supports the notion that he was fully apprised of the

charges he was facing and was not prejudiced, where: (1) Appellant waived

his right to a preliminary hearing which negated the introduction of these

amended charges and the development of the factual scenario with which

Appellant now takes issue; (2) the Commonwealth filed the motion to amend

the information several months prior to trial; (3) Appellant admitted that the

affidavit of probable cause included the February 28th assault and

acknowledged that in his motion to strike, the Commonwealth had informed

him that another count of strangulation would be added if he elected to

                                    - 12 -
J-S39042-23

exercise his right to trial; and (4) Appellant was undeniably aware that he had

repeatedly struck the Victim and caused some level of injury that resulted in

hospitalization   and   therefore,   he   cannot   feign   ignorance   when   the

Commonwealth changed the degree of the assault from simple to aggravated

prior to trial. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not err in denying

Appellant’s motion to strike the amended information.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 12/5/2023

                                      - 13 -