Court Opinion

ID: 9960584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 16:13:13.207682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:38.412516
License: Public Domain

J-A02013-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 ANTONIO JAMES HAWLEY                     :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 604 MDA 2023

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 7, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Sullivan County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-57-CR-0000036-2021

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., KING, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:               FILED: APRIL 16, 2024

      Appellant Antonio James Hawley appeals nunc pro tunc from the

judgment of sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of strangulation and

related offenses. Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by

granting the Commonwealth’s motion to amend the information and denying

his motion for judgment of acquittal. We affirm.

      The trial court summarized the facts of this case as follows:

      On or about December 16, 2021, a criminal complaint was filed
      against [Appellant] charging [him] with the following:

         Count 1: Strangulation — Applying Pressure to Throat or
         Neck, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2718(a)(2)(i) [sic], a felony of the
         second degree[.]

         Count 2: Simple Assault, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1), a
         misdemeanor of the second degree[.]

         Count 3: Harassment — Strike, Shove, Kick, 18 Pa.C.S. §
         2709(a)(1), a summary offense.
J-A02013-24

       More specifically, [Appellant] was charged with knowingly or
       intentionally impeding the breathing or circulation of the blood of
       another person by applying pressure to the throat or neck of his
       father, Gerard Hawley [(the victim)] on or about October 2, 2021.
       ...

Trial Ct. Op., 4/24/23, at 1 (some formatting altered).

       On March 28, 2022, Appellant proceeded to a jury trial.                 The

Commonwealth presented testimony from the victim and Trooper Eric Whited

of the Pennsylvania State Police.

       The trial court summarized the ensuing procedural history of this case

as follows:

       Following the close of the Commonwealth’s case, counsel for
       [Appellant] made a motion for judgment of acquittal on all three
       (3) counts. [For count one, strangulation, Appellant] was charged
       under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2718(a)(2)(i). As was pointed out during oral
       argument by counsel for [Appellant], said subsection does not
       exist. In response, counsel for the Commonwealth conceded that
       there was a typographical error and that it should have been 18
       Pa.C.S. § 2718(a)(1). This court further noted that a review of
       the magisterial district [court] docket transcript that the charge of
       strangulation was noted as (a)(1).

Id. at 2-3 (citations omitted).

       The trial court denied Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal and

granted the Commonwealth’s motion to amend the information to change the

statutory citation. Ultimately, the jury found Appellant guilty of strangulation

and simple assault, and the trial court found Appellant guilty of the summary

offense of harassment.1 On June 7, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant
____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2718(a)(1), 2701(a)(1), and 2709(a)(1), respectively.

                                           -2-
J-A02013-24

to an aggregate term of 59½ to 120 months’ incarceration and imposed

$1,300 in fines. Appellant did not file any post-sentence motions nor a direct

appeal.

       On December 5, 2022, Appellant filed a timely pro se Post Conviction

Relief Act2 (PCRA) petition requesting the reinstatement of his direct appeal

rights. On December 19, 2022,3 the trial court reinstated Appellant’s direct

appeal rights nunc pro tunc. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. 4 Both

the trial court and Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

       On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue:

       Whether the trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth to
       substantively amend the criminal information from 18 Pa.C.S.[] §
____________________________________________

2 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.

3 We note that although the PCRA court’s order granting Appellant’s PCRA
petition was dated December 13, 2022 and time-stamped on December 16,
2022, the docket entries reflect that the PCRA court served Appellant with a
copy of this order on December 19, 2022. See Commonwealth v. Jerman,
762 A.2d 366, 368 (Pa. Super. 2000) (stating that “[i]n a criminal case, the
date of entry of an order is the date the clerk of courts enters the order on
the docket, furnishes a copy of the order to the parties, and records the time
and manner of notice on the docket” (citations omitted)); see also
Pa.R.Crim.P. 114(C)(2)(c); Pa.R.A.P. 108(a)(1), (d)(1).

4 Appellant filed his notice of appeal nunc pro tunc on December 15, 2022.As
stated above, the PCRA court did not enter its order reinstating Appellant’s
direct appeal rights until December 19, 2022. Pa.R.A.P. 905 provides that
“[a] notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a determination but
before the entry of an appealable order shall be treated as filed after such
entry and on the day thereof.” Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5). Therefore, Appellant’s
notice of appeal relates forward to the PCRA court’s December 19, 2022 order
reinstating Appellant’s direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc.         See id.
Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over this appeal.

                                           -3-
J-A02013-24

      2718(a)(2) as originally filed to 18 Pa.C.S.[] § 2718(a)(1) after
      defense counsel’s motion for judgement of acquittal following the
      close of the Commonwealth’s case in chief when granting the
      same substantively changed the evidence required for conviction?

Appellant’s Brief at 7 (some formatting altered).

      Appellant   argues    that   the    trial   court   erred   in    granting   the

Commonwealth’s request to amend the information.                       Id. at 11-15.

Specifically, Appellant contends that he suffered prejudice because the

amendment changed the factual scenario underlying the charge and modified

the description of the charge to an entirely separate and distinct offense. Id.

at 11-12. Appellant also argues that the amendment prejudiced him because

his defense strategy was based on the Commonwealth’s failure to prove that

Appellant blocked the nose and mouth of the victim. Id. at 12-14.

      We review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to amend

an information for an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Small,

741 A.2d 666, 681 (Pa. 1999). As we have explained,

      [a]n abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but is
      rather the overriding or misapplication of the law, or the exercise
      of judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of bias,
      prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as shown by the evidence of record.
      If in reaching a conclusion the trial court overrides or misapplies
      the law, discretion is then abused and it is the duty of the appellate
      court to correct the error.

Commonwealth v. Belknap, 105 A.3d 7, 10 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations

omitted and some formatting altered).

      Rule 564 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure provides as

follows:

                                         -4-
J-A02013-24

      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. Upon amendment, the court may
      grant such postponement of trial or other relief as is necessary in
      the interests of justice.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 564.

      “[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)

(citation omitted).      “[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, 601 A.2d 1284, 1289 (Pa. Super. 1992).

      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 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 amend[ment] is not permitted.

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

(citations omitted).

                                             -5-
J-A02013-24

      Since the purpose of the information is to apprise the defendant
      of the charges against him so that he may have a fair opportunity
      to prepare a defense, our Supreme Court has stated that following
      an amendment, relief is warranted only when the variance
      between the original and the new charges prejudices [a
      defendant] by, for example, rendering defenses which might have
      been raised against the original charges ineffective with respect
      to the substituted charges.

Sinclair, 897 A.2d at 1223 (citation omitted).

      In determining whether a defendant suffered prejudice, we consider the

following factors:

      (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.

Mentzer, 18 A.3d at 1203 (citation omitted).

      With respect to strangulation, Section 2718(a) of the Crimes Code

provides:

      (a) Offense defined.—A person commits the offense of
      strangulation if the person knowingly or intentionally impedes the
      breathing or circulation of the blood of another person by:

         (1) applying pressure to the throat or neck; or

         (2) blocking the nose and mouth of the person.

18 Pa.C.S. § 2718(a).

                                    -6-
J-A02013-24

      Here, the trial court explained:

      As was pointed out during oral argument by counsel for
      [Appellant, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2718(a)(2)(i)] does not exist.        In
      response, counsel for the Commonwealth conceded that there was
      a typographical error and that it should have been 18 Pa.C.S. §
      2718(a)(1).    This court further noted that a review of the
      magisterial district [court] docket transcript that the charge of
      strangulation was noted as (a)(1).

      Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 560(c) states that “[t]he
      information shall contain the official or customary citation of the
      statute and section thereof, or other provision of law that the
      defendant is alleged therein to have violated; but the omission of
      or error in such citation shall not affect the validity or sufficiency
      of the information.[”] Pa.R.Cr[im].P. 560(c). Based upon this and
      because [Appellant] was on notice as to what he was defending
      because the words of the statute were spelled out in count 1 of
      the criminal information, this court allowed the amendment.

      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. Upon amendment, the court may
      grant such postponement of trial or other relief as is necessary in
      the interests of justice. [Pa.R.Crim.P.] 564. . . . As such, this
      Court allowed the [amendment].

Trial Ct. Op. at 2-3 (some citations omitted and some formatting altered).

      Based on our review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion by

the trial court in granting the Commonwealth’s motion to amend the

information. See Small, 741 A.2d at 681; see also Belknap, 105 A.3d at

10. As the trial court explained, the information alleged that Appellant “did

knowingly or intentionally impede the breathing or circulation of the blood of

another person by applying pressure to the throat or neck.” See Criminal

Information, 12/16/21, at 1. The information cited 18 Pa.C.S. § 2718(a)(2)(i)

                                      -7-
J-A02013-24

for this offense. See id. However, as the trial court correctly observed, this

subsection does not exist. See Trial Ct. Op. at 2-3; see also 18 Pa.C.S. §

2718.      Although   the   Commonwealth      amended     the   citation    for   the

strangulation charge from Section 2718(a)(2)(i) to Section 2718(a)(1), that

did not change the factual scenario underlying the charges or add any facts

that were unknown to Appellant.        See 18 Pa.C.S. § 2718(a).           For these

reasons, we conclude that Appellant did not suffer prejudice as a result of the

amendment. See Mentzer, 18 A.3d at 1203; Sinclair, 897 A.2d at 1223.

Therefore, Appellant is not entitled to relief on this claim.

        Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 04/16/2024

                                      -8-