Court Opinion

ID: 9939572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-10 17:11:09.484464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:25.120075
License: Public Domain

J-A14040-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  JUSTICE JULIO MORALES, III                   :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2956 EDA 2022

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 27, 2022
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-CR-0002928-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:                         FILED FEBRUARY 08, 2024

       Justice Julio Morales, III (“Morales”) appeals from the judgment of

sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of strangulation—blocking the

nose and mouth of the person (“Strangulation”), recklessly endangering

another person (“REAP”), and endangering the welfare of a child (“EWOC”).1

We affirm.

       Morales and A.C. (“Mother”) are the parents of a daughter, born in 2021

(“Child”). In September 2021, Mother reported to police that Morales had

physically abused Child. Mother gave police a recording from a baby monitor

(“the recording”) showing Morales alone with Child, then three-and-one-half

months old. We summarize the recording as follows.2 The recording begins
____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2718(a)(2), 2705, 4304(a)(1).

2 The trial court admitted the recording as Commonwealth’s Exhibit 1 pursuant

to a stipulation of the parties, and the Commonwealth played the recording
during trial. See N.T., 7/13/22, at 33-36.
J-A14040-23

with Child lying in a changing table next to her crib and Morales standing over

her. See Recording at 00:01.3 Morales’s back is turned to the camera. See

id. Child is not fully visible through the rails of the crib and changing table,

but the recording shows Child moving her arms, hands, legs, and feet. See

id. at 00:01 to 00:24. Child is crying loudly and continues to cry through

most of the video. See id. at 00:01 to 2:06.

       Morales moves to one side of the room, gets a “onesie,” and returns to

the changing table. See id. at 00:05 to 00:29. He stands at the side of the

changing table, and the recording captures the front of his body and a profile

of his face. See id. at 00:38-00:51. He hushes Child, and appears to arrange

objects above and around the location of Child’s head. See id. Child’s crying

intensifies. See id. Morales holds the onesie with both of his hands. See id.

at 00:51. Morales then puts his right hand, palm side down, into the changing

table in the location of Child’s head. See id. at 00:51 to 00:52. Although

neither his hand nor Child’s face is visible, Child’s loud cries suddenly stop,

and she kicks her legs up into the air. See id. at 00:52 to 00:58. Child cannot

be heard for a period of nearly six seconds on the recording, and during this

time, she flails her legs. See id. When Morales removes his hand from the

changing table, the Child’s cries are again immediately audible. See id. at

00:58 to 00:59.

____________________________________________

3 The recording contains a date-hour-minute-second time stamp indicating
that the incident occurred in the afternoon of July 2021. We cite the recording
using the elapsed time shown on the application used to view the recording.

                                           -2-
J-A14040-23

      Morales then begins putting the onesie on Child as she continues crying.

Morales tells her to, “Stop it.” See id. at 01:13 to 01:14. He pulls roughly

on the onesie and Child’s arms as he puts the sleeves on her arms. See id.

at 01:14 to 01:17. Morales pulls the onesie forcefully down Child’s back and,

while pulling on the onesie, lifts her bottom into the air over the rails of the

crib and changing table. See id. at 01:23 to 01:25. Once Child is again lying

on the changing table, Morales appears to adjust the onesie around Child’s

bottom and then around her head and shoulders. See id. at 01:24 to 01:40.

Child continues to cry, and Morales makes a slapping motion into the changing

table around the location of Child’s head. See id. at 01:40 to 01:43.

      After putting the onesie on Child, Morales abruptly pulls Child up out of

the changing table by her shoulders and moves his hands to her chest and

back while Child is in midair. See id. at 01:53 to 01:54. He pulls Child head-

first toward his shoulder. See id. at 01:54 to 01:55. It appears he almost

drops Child but lifts his leg as he brings her closer to his body to cradle and

secure her to his chest. See id. at 01:54 to 01:56. After securing Child, he

repeatedly presses Child’s face against his arm or chest, muffling Child’s cries.

See id. at 01:58 to 02:01. He then leaves the room with Child.

      The Commonwealth charged Morales with Strangulation, REAP, and

EWOC.    The REAP and EWOC counts alleged alternate factual bases: that

Morales covered Child’s nose and mouth “and/or” handled Child roughly

                                      -3-
J-A14040-23

without supporting her head and limbs. Information, 1/13/22, at 1.4 Morales

proceeded to a jury trial. The Commonwealth played the recording to the jury

and presented no other evidence. Morales did not testify. The jury found

Morales guilty of all charges.5          On September 27, 2022, the trial court

sentenced Morales to an aggregate term of eighteen to forty-eight months of

imprisonment followed by thirty-six months of probation.         Morales timely

appealed, and both he and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

       Morales raises the following issues for review:

       1. Whether, at trial, there was insufficient evidence to convict
          [Morales] of Strangulation . . . as the Commonwealth did not
____________________________________________

4 The Commonwealth initially charged separate counts of REAP for impeding

Child’s breathing and handling Child roughly without supporting her head and
limbs, respectively. See Information, 1/13/22, at 1. At trial, the court
consolidated the factual averments of the separate REAP counts into a single
count. See N.T., 7/13/22, at 12-14, 110.

5 The jury answered a special interrogatory and found Morales committed the

crime of strangulation against a family or household member. See Verdict
Slip, 7/13/22; see also 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2718(d)(2)(i) (grading strangulation
as a second-degree felony if committed against a family or household
member).

We note that the Commonwealth charged EWOC as a second-degree felony.
See Information, 1/13/22, at 1. At trial, the Commonwealth did not request
special jury instructions or a special interrogatory for the grading of EWOC,
and the trial court instructed the jury on EWOC generally. See N.T., 7/13/22,
at 13, 66-67. The trial court thereafter sentenced Morales on EWOC graded
as a first-degree misdemeanor, which did not require findings that Morales’s
conduct created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury and was
part of a course of conduct. See N.T., 9/27/22, at 34; see also 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 4304(b)(1)(i), (iv) (grading EWOC generally as a first-degree misdemeanor
or as a second-degree felony if in the commission of the offense, the
defendant’s conduct created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury
and his conduct was part of a course of conduct).

                                           -4-
J-A14040-23

         present evidence of the element that [Morales] blocked both
         the nose and mouth of [Child] in the singular piece of evidence
         in the case, Commonwealth’s Exhibit 1?

      2. Whether, at trial, there was insufficient evidence to convict
         [Morales] of [EWOC] and [REAP] as the Commonwealth did not
         present evidence of the element that [Morales] endangered
         [Child] by not supporting her head or limbs in the singular piece
         of evidence in the case, Commonwealth’s Exhibit 1?

      3. Whether, at trial, there was insufficient evidence to convict
         [Morales] of [EWOC] and [REAP] as the Commonwealth did not
         present evidence of the elements that [Morales] knowingly and
         recklessly engaged in the conduct in the singular piece of
         evidence in the case, Commonwealth’s Exhibit 1?

Morales’s Brief at 6-7 (internal citations omitted).

      Morales’s issues all implicate the sufficiency of the evidence. Because

evidentiary sufficiency is a question of law, our standard of review is de novo

and our scope of review is plenary. See Commonwealth v. Diamond, 83

A.3d 119, 126 (Pa. 2013). When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of

the evidence:

      [W]e evaluate the record in the light most favorable to the verdict
      winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable
      inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Evidence will be
      deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes each
      material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof
      by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the
      Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical
      certainty. Any doubt about the defendant's guilt is to be resolved
      by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive
      that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from
      the combined circumstances.

      The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of wholly
      circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, [t]he fact that the evidence
      establishing a defendant’s participation in a crime is circumstantial
      does not preclude a conviction where the evidence coupled with
      the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom overcomes the
      presumption of innocence. Significantly, we may not substitute

                                      -5-
J-A14040-23

       our judgment for that of the fact finder; thus, so long as the
       evidence adduced, accepted in the light most favorable to the
       Commonwealth, demonstrates the respective elements of a
       defendant’s crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant’s
       convictions will be upheld.

Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719, 722-23 (Pa. Super. 2013)

(internal quotations and citations omitted). Importantly, the trier of fact while

passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence

produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.             See

Commonwealth v. Orr, 38 A.3d 868, 873 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en banc).

       Section 2718 of the Crimes Code defines Strangulation as follows: “A

person commits the offense of strangulation if the person knowingly or

intentionally impedes the breathing . . . of another person by . . . blocking

the nose and mouth of the person.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2718(a)(2). To convict

an individual of REAP, the Commonwealth must prove the individual

“recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another person in

danger of death or serious bodily injury.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705. A conviction

for EWOC requires proof a parent knowingly endangers the welfare of a child

by violating a duty of care, protection, or support to the child’s physical or

moral well-being and the child was under eighteen years of age.          See 18

Pa.C.S.A. § 4304(a)(1) & comment; see also Commonwealth v. Barkman,

295 A.3d 721, 732 (Pa. Super. 2023).6 Neither REAP nor EWOC requires proof
____________________________________________

6 As to the mens rea requirements for REAP and EWOC, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 302

states:

(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -6-
J-A14040-23

that the victim suffered an injury. See Commonwealth v. Howard, 257

A.3d 1217, 1227 (Pa. 2021) (plurality) (noting that the mens rea requirement

of EWOC requires a knowing violation of a duty of care and the knowing

creation of a dangerous situation);7 Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d

720, 727-28 (Pa. Super. 2003) (noting that the offense of REAP requires the

creation of danger accompanied by the defendant’s actual present ability to

inflict harm).

____________________________________________

       (2) A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of
       an offense when:

          (i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the
          attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that
          nature or that such circumstances exist; and

          (ii) if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware
          that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a
          result.

       (3) A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of
       an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and
       unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result
       from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree
       that, considering the nature and intent of the actor’s conduct and
       the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross
       deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person
       would observe in the actor’s situation.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 302(b)(2)-(3).

7 In Howard, our Supreme Court concluded that allowing a child to ride in a

car-for-hire without a car seat, absent any other indicia of dangerousness, did
not establish a mother knowingly endangered her child’s welfare. See
Howard, 257 A.3d at 1228. The Court emphasized that the “knowing”
element of EWOC does not require a defendant to be aware that a particular
harm or injury is practically certain to occur. See id. at 1227. Rather, the
focus of EWOC is on the creation of a dangerous situation for a child. See id.

                                           -7-
J-A14040-23

      In his first issue, Morales argues the Commonwealth failed to prove he

committed the act necessary to sustain his conviction for Strangulation. He

contends that the recording did not show Child’s face and the jury could not

reasonably infer he blocked Child’s nose based only on the audio portion of

the recording. He also asserts the recording showed him holding a pacifier

and the trial evidence was equally consistent with him putting a pacifier in

Child’s mouth.

      The trial court concluded this issue lacked merit.           The court

acknowledged the recording did not show Morales putting his hand over Child’s

nose and mouth. The court explained the recording nevertheless established:

(1) Morales moved his hand toward the area of Child’s face; (2) Morales’s

hand was large enough to cover Child’s nose and mouth; (3) once Morales

placed his hand into the changing table, there was a distinct change in the

audio from the sounds of an infant crying to muffled noises; (4) the change in

the audio coincided with Child “thrashing her legs[;]” and (5) after Morales

removed his hand from the changing table, the audio changes again to

“immediate screaming and crying” from Child. Trial Court Opinion, 1/4/23, at

12. The court observed that the “muffled sounds and thrashing of legs [was]

consistent with a person whose breathing had been impeded.” Id.

      Having reviewed the recording in the light most favorable to the

Commonwealth, we discern no merit to Morales’s argument. The recording

does not directly show Morales covering Child’s nose and mouth. However,

the combined circumstances, as the trial court noted, established a reasoned

                                    -8-
J-A14040-23

basis to infer that he blocked Child’s nose and mouth. Those circumstances

included the positioning of Morales’s hand as he reached into the changing

table, the sudden quieting of Child’s cries, Child’s violent kicking of her legs

as Morales appears nearly motionless with his arm extended into the changing

table, and the almost immediate resumption of Child’s audible crying once

Morales removed his hand from the changing table. See Recording at 00:51-

00:58. These circumstances belie Morales’s suggestion that it was equally

probable that he was simply giving Child a pacifier rather than covering Child’s

nose and mouth. Compare Recording at 00:51 to 00:52 with Morales’s Brief

at 12.

         Based on the totality of the foregoing evidence, we conclude there was

a sufficient circumstantial basis to support the jury’s finding that Morales

committed the requisite act of blocking Child’s nose and mouth. Cf. Franklin,

69 A.3d at 722 (noting that the Commonwealth may sustain a conviction

based on wholly circumstantial evidence).             Thus, Morales’s first issue

challenging his conviction for Strangulation fails.

         In his next two issues, Morales challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

of his convictions for REAP and EWOC. Morales incorporates by reference his

previous argument that the Commonwealth failed to establish he blocked

Child’s nose and mouth.         Morales then focuses on the Commonwealth’s

alternate allegation that he committed REAP and EWOC when he roughly

handled Child without supporting her head and limbs.             He contends the

recording showed only that he had “trouble picking up [Child]” and “fumble[d]

                                        -9-
J-A14040-23

slightly.” Morales’s Brief at 11, 13. He concedes his mistakes when picking

up Child, but maintains such parental mistakes alone are insufficient to prove

REAP and EWOC. He asserts he supported Child’s head when picking her up

and managed to hold her without dropping her or otherwise putting her in

danger. He claims the Commonwealth failed to establish the necessary mens

rea of recklessly or knowingly putting Child in danger.       See id. at 24-29

(discussing, among other decisions, Commonwealth v. Hutchins, 42 A.3d

302, 312 (Pa. Super. 2012), and Commonwealth v. Vela-Garrett, 251 A.3d

811 (Pa. Super. 2021)).

      The trial court rejected Morales’s challenges to his REAP and EWOC

convictions. Initially, the court observed that Morales’s act of covering Child’s

nose and mouth was alone sufficient to establish the requisite endangerment

and mens rea for REAP and EWOC. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/4/23, at 13.

The trial court added the recording showed Morales’s anger and deep

frustration and his “manhandling of [Child], including smacking her and

yanking her arms.” Id. The court described in greater detail how Morales

“abruptly grabb[ed Child] and fl[ung] her into the air to himself, [and] almost

dropp[ed] her.” Id. Upon its review, the court concluded the recording was

sufficient for the jury to conclude Morales: (1) created a dangerous situation

that placed Child at risk of serious bodily injury and acted with the

recklessness required to convict him of REAP and (2) knowingly endangered

Child by creating a dangerous situation as required to convict him of EWOC.

See id. at 13-14.

                                     - 10 -
J-A14040-23

      We initially reiterate the Commonwealth raised alternate factual bases

for the REAP and EWOC offenses, namely, the impairment of Child’s breathing

by covering her nose and mouth “and/or” handling Child roughly without

support of her head and limbs. Information, 1/13/22, at 1; see N.T., 7/13/22,

at 12-14, 110.     As discussed supra, we have concluded that there was

sufficient circumstantial evidence for the jury to determine Morales covered

Child’s nose and mouth and thereby impeded her breathing. Morales does not

separately argue the evidence he strangled Child by covering her nose and

mouth was insufficient to sustain his REAP and EWOC convictions. Therefore,

we could affirm Morales’s REAP and EWOC convictions due to Morales’s failure

to argue that the offense of Strangulation was insufficient to prove all of the

elements of REAP and EWOC. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); Commonwealth v.

Sexton, 222 A.3d 405, 415 (Pa. Super. 2019) (disapproving of, and finding

waiver due to, an appellant’s bare arguments incorporating by reference other

portions of his brief).

      In any event, we discern no merit to Morales’s argument that his alleged

parental mistake or trouble picking up Child rendered his REAP and EWOC

convictions infirm. Morales’s factual claim that he merely had trouble picking

Child up and only slightly fumbled her lacks support in the record.        The

recording demonstrated Morales’s growing anger and frustration with Child.

Morales started by hushing Child, then blocked Child’s nose and mouth. See

Recording at 00:35, 00:51 to 00:58.      He then told Child to “stop it,” and

appeared to slap her.     See id. at 01:12 to 01:13, 01:40 to 01:43.       The

                                    - 11 -
J-A14040-23

recording then showed Morales picked up his three-and-a-half-month-old

Child by her shoulders and forcefully flung her out of the crib, at one point

holding her in the air by her chest and back and without supporting her head

or limbs. See Recording at 01:53 to 01:54. At another point, Child’s body

was nearly parallel to the ground as Morales brought her, head-first, closer to

him, and then attempted to cradle her before almost dropping her. See id.

at 01:54 to 01:55. Even after securing Child, he repeatedly pressed her face

into his arm or chest and briefly muffled her cries. See id. at 01:58 to 02:01.

      Morales’s legal arguments concerning his REAP and EWOC convictions

are also unpersuasive. The mere fact that Morales did not drop or injure Child

does not preclude a conviction for REAP or EWOC. See Howard, 257 A.3d at

1227; Reynolds, 835 A.2d at 727-28. Similarly, the absence of an accident

or injury does not support his argument that he did not place Child at risk of

serious bodily injury or other physical harm. Morales’s reliance on case law

holding that driving under the influence does not per se establish the mens

rea for REAP and EWOC merits no relief.       In those cases, this Court has

required additional   indicia of recklessness or unsafe driving beyond

intoxication, or even an accident, to establish the necessary mens rea for REAP

and EWOC. See Hutchins, 42 A.3d at 312; Vela-Garrett, 251 A.3d at 816-

19. Here, the recording of Morales roughly handling Child without supporting

her head and limbs while picking her up provided the additional indicia of

                                    - 12 -
J-A14040-23

unsafe conduct which this Court found lacking in Hutchins and Vela-

Garrett.8

       Having reviewed Morales’s factual and legal arguments in light of the

entire record and our standard of review, we conclude the jury had sufficient

bases to reject Morales’s arguments he engaged in a harmless parenting

mistake and instead convict him of REAP and EWOC for his rough handling of

Child without support her head and limbs. Cf. Orr, 38 A.3d at 873 (stating

that the trier of fact is free to pass upon the weight of the evidence produced

and believe all, part or none of the evidence). The recording provided the jury

with reasonable basis to find Morales’s rough handling of Child without

supporting her head and limbs recklessly created a risk of serious bodily

injury. Similarly, there was a sufficient basis to find that Morales knowingly

violated a duty of care to Child’s physical welfare and knowingly created a

____________________________________________

8 To the extent Morales relies on the unpublished 2021 memorandum decision

in Commonwealth v. Copney, 266 A.3d 627, 2021 WL 4739491 (Pa. Super.
2021) (unpublished memorandum), that decision is not binding on this panel
and may only be cited for its persuasive value. See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b)(2). In
Copney, this Court affirmed the dismissal of EWOC charges where the
defendant fell asleep on a couch while holding a child to his chest and awoke
to find the child’s face had slipped between his armpit and the couch. See
Copney, 2021 WL 4739491 at *2. The child was unresponsive and died, and
an autopsy listed the cause of death as sudden unexplained infant death
syndrome and the manner of death as undetermined. See id. at *1-2. The
Copney Court concluded that although the defendant was aware of the risks
of falling asleep with the child, he did not violate a duty of care and knowingly
place the child in danger. See id. at *9. Here, Morales’s rough handling of
Child without supporting her head and limbs created a far more obvious risk
of injuring Child than falling asleep with a child.             Thus, Copney is
distinguishable and not persuasive in this case.

                                          - 13 -
J-A14040-23

danger of injuring Child.   Accordingly, we discern no merit to Morales’s

challenges to his convictions for REAP and EWOC.

     Judgment of sentence affirmed.

     President Judge Panella joins this decision.

     Judge Dubow notes dissent.

Date: 2/8/2024

                                   - 14 -