Court Opinion

ID: 9915161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 18:07:20.874556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:42.788640
License: Public Domain

J-S44007-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    IN THE INT. OF: S.W., A MINOR              :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: S.W., A MINOR                   :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 403 EDA 2023

         Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered January 13, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at
                       No(s): CP-51-JV-0000347-2022

BEFORE:      OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                              FILED JANUARY 04, 2024

       Appellant, S.W., appeals from the dispositional order1 entered on

January 13, 2023, placing him in a residential facility following his adjudication
____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1  Appellant, a male born on October 11, 2004, was seventeen years old at
the time of the incident at issue. From our cursory review of the record,
Appellant was not automatically charged as an adult because he was not
accused of murder, was not alleged to have committed the crimes at issue
with a deadly weapon, and/or did not have prior adjudications of delinquency.
See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6302, 6322, and 6355. Moreover, as will be discussed
below, we note that the juvenile court entered an order of disposition on
December 9, 2022. On January 13, 2023, however, the juvenile court entered
a second dispositional order, modifying the original order and committing
Appellant to a residential facility. When a dispositional review order changes
the status quo, such as changing the place of commitment, the review order
rather than the initial order of disposition, is appealable. See, e.g., In re
M.D., 839 A.2d 1116, 1121 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“[A] committed Juvenile does
not have the right to appeal from a review order that continues his
commitment in the same manner and place and that maintains the status
quo”); compare Matter of K.G., 2018 WL 4907809 at *5 (Pa. Super. 2018)
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S44007-23

of delinquency for receiving stolen property, unauthorized use of a motor

vehicle, robbery – threat of serious bodily injury, robbery of a motor vehicle,

theft by unlawful taking – moveable property, and conspiracy2 entered on

December 9, 2022.        We affirm.

        We briefly summarize the facts of this case as follows. On March 12,

2022, the victim in this matter was sitting in her vehicle outside of the Acme

Markets on South Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. While waiting for her

adult daughter who was shopping, the victim fell asleep and awoke to

Appellant and others opening the vehicle doors and telling her to get out of

the car. Initially, the victim refused and told them to leave. Appellant and

his accomplices told the victim to get out of the car and someone threatened

to shoot her.    An individual positioned near the passenger side seat grabbed

the victim by her arm.        Eventually, the victim relented, alighted from her

vehicle, and Appellant and the other individuals entered her vehicle and drove

away.     On March 13, 2022, the police responded to a single car accident on

West Olney Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. When the police arrived on
____________________________________________

(unpublished memorandum) (“[W]e agree with [K.G.] that the [review order]
is appealable because ‘it modifies a previously entered final [o]rder of
disposition’ … While it did continue his commitment in the same manner, it did
not continue his commitment in the same place, and thus the juvenile court
did not maintain the status quo”) (internal citation omitted). Here, the
January 13, 2023 order modified the December 9, 2022 order and changed
the status quo by committing Appellant to a residential facility. As such, we
conclude that Appellant’s appeal properly lies from the January 13, 2023
order, as reflected in the caption.

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3925(a), 3928(a), 3701(a)(1)(ii), 3702(a), 3921(a), and
903, respectively.

                                           -2-
J-S44007-23

scene, they observed the victim’s car completely destroyed from a collision

with a traffic pole and apprehended Appellant, the only occupant, from the

front seat of the vehicle.

      Initially, on March 15, 2022, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with

receiving stolen property, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and

conspiracy. On June 16, 2022, after the completion of discovery, a juvenile

court hearing officer held a pre-trial hearing and Appellant was given in-home

detention. On July 5, 2022, Appellant appeared for an adjudicatory hearing.

The Commonwealth requested the case be continued, but agreed with the trial

court that Appellant be discharged from in-home detention and placed on

Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring with home restrictions. On July

20, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a motion to amend the juvenile petition to

include robbery – threat of serious bodily injury, robbery of a motor vehicle,

and theft by unlawful taking – moveable property. The Commonwealth also

sought to change the grading of the conspiracy charge from a third-degree

felony offense to a first-degree felony offense.

      Thereafter, as the trial court recounts:

      On August 4, 2022, [Appellant] appeared before [the trial court]
      for an adjudicatory and dispositional hearing.        The juvenile
      petition was amended [as requested by the Commonwealth].
      [Appellant] tendered an open admission to all charges. The trial
      court conducted a full colloquy on the record and found
      [Appellant] had tendered his admission knowingly, voluntarily,
      and intelligently and accepted the admission. [Appellant] was
      placed on deferred adjudication. [Appellant] was ordered to pay
      restitution to the [victim] and hand-write an apology letter, attend
      anger management, and attend school with no unexcused

                                     -3-
J-S44007-23

     absences, lateness or suspensions. [Appellant] was placed on
     interim probation and remained subject to GPS monitoring with
     [home] restrictions, with permission to work, but [Appellant
     agreed] to be held in custody [for] the first violation [of these
     terms].

     On September 6, 2022, [Appellant] appeared before [the trial
     court] for a deferred adjudicatory hearing. [Appellant] remained
     subject to GPS monitoring, but with a curfew rather than [home]
     restrictions. He was also ordered to continue attending anger
     management and continue with interim probation, and pay the
     outstanding restitution.

     On October 25, 2022, [Appellant] appeared before a [hearing
     officer] for a deferred adjudicatory review hearing. [Appellant]
     remained on GPS monitoring with a curfew and remained on
     interim probation. [Appellant’s] [p]robation [o]fficer was ordered
     to investigate [alleged] GPS violations and appear at the next
     [hearing].

     [Thereafter, o]n November 3, 2022, [] a motion to amend or
     review [Appellant’s delinquency] order [was filed] due to GPS
     violations.

     On November 4, 2022, a hearing was held before a [hearing
     officer]. [Appellant] failed to appear, and a bench warrant was
     issued against him.

     On November 22, 2022, [Appellant] appeared before a [hearing
     officer]. The bench warrant was lifted, and [Appellant] was
     [ordered] to continue on interim probation. [Appellant] was also
     to remain held in secure detention at the Philadelphia Juvenile
     Justice Services Center (PJJSC).

     On November 30, 2022, a hearing was held before [the trial
     court]. [Appellant] was not brought to court due to [a] COVID-19
     quarantine at PJJSC. The trial court ordered [Appellant] be
     brought down for the next [hearing]. [Appellant] remained on
     interim probation and remained in secure detention at the PJJSC.
     The case was continued.

     On December 9, 2022, [Appellant] appeared before [the trial
     court]. [Appellant] was adjudicated delinquent and in need of
     treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation. [Appellant] was ordered
     to remain in secure detention at the PJJSC, with [the p]robation
     [department] to plan for all alternatives. [Appellant] was ordered

                                   -4-
J-S44007-23

       to complete a Behavioral Health Evaluation (BHE). [Appellant]
       was ordered to pay court costs. The PJJSC was ordered to enroll
       [Appellant] in Hall Mercer Therapeutic Services, and ensure
       [Appellant] was transported to the Criminal Justice Center when
       needed. The Philadelphia School District was ordered to enroll
       [Appellant] in an on-grounds school at the PJJSC.

       On December 29, 2022, [Appellant] appeared before the [trial
       court court] for a dispositional hearing. The previously ordered
       BHE had not been completed and was re-ordered. [Appellant] was
       ordered to receive therapy from Hall Mercer and be enrolled in
       on-ground school forthwith, while remaining in secure detention
       at the PJJSC. The disposition was continued awaiting the BHE and
       the outcome of [an unrelated criminal charge allegedly committed
       after Appellant reached the age of majority.]

       On January 13, 2023, [Appellant] appeared before the [trial court]
       for a dispositional hearing. [The trial court entered an order]
       plac[ing Appellant] in a residential facility through the
       [Pennsylvania] Department of Human Services.             Awaiting
       transport to state placement, [Appellant was to] remain at the
       PJJSC and continue therapy through Mercer Hall.

Trial Court Opinion, 4/11/2023, at 3-4. This timely appeal resulted.3

       On appeal, Appellant presents the following issue for our review:

       1. Did the lower court commit reversible error when the court
          ordered [Appellant] to be placed in a residential treatment
          facility?

Appellant’s Brief at 7.

       In sum, Appellant argues:

       The record reflects that the trial court abused its discretion. The
       juvenile was placed in a state residential facility as immediate
       sanction upon adjudication. There was no consideration given to
____________________________________________

3 Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and corresponding concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b),
on February 10, 2023, or as explained above, within 30 days of the entry of
the January 13, 2023 order. The trial court issued an opinion pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on April 11, 2023.

                                           -5-
J-S44007-23

      any graduated sanctions. The trial court did not take into
      consideration any other less restrictive options for placement. The
      juvenile was not given an opportunity to remain in the community
      after being adjudicated delinquent. The record is [devoid] of any
      rational as to why a period of probation, upon adjudication, would
      not serve the juvenile’s rehabilitative needs.

Id. at 15. Appellant admits, however, he “was placed on interim probation

while on deferred adjudication” but asserts that “the next lesser restrictive

step should have been to place the juvenile on actual probation upon a finding

of adjudication and impose appropriate conditions of probation.” Id. at 16.

Appellant also concedes that the trial court “heard recommendations and

argument from probation, the Commonwealth, and defense counsel” and

“asked questions and noted that it would consider the testimony with

appropriate weight in balancing [Appellant’s] rehabilitative needs against its

duties to hold [Appellant] accountable and protect the community.” Id. at

13. Instead, Appellant posits that while he “picked up an adult arrest, the

juvenile court failed to await the final disposition of that matter” and

“penalized the juvenile for the mere occurrence of an arrest.”      Id. at 16.

Moreover, Appellant argues that the trial court also failed “to follow []or

implement the recommendations of the court-ordered Behavioral Health

Evaluation.”   Id. at 16.   As such, Appellant argues that the trial court’s

disposition was “excessive punishment” that “does not serve the rehabilitative

needs of the juvenile or the community.” Id.

      This Court

      reviews a juvenile court's dispositional order            directing
      [out-of-home] placement for an abuse of discretion.      It is well

                                     -6-
J-S44007-23

     settled that, under Pennsylvania law, an abuse of discretion occurs
     when the court has overridden or misapplied the law, when its
     judgment is manifestly unreasonable, or when there is insufficient
     evidence of record to support the court's findings. [] In a juvenile
     proceeding, the hearing judge sits as the finder of fact. The
     weight to be assigned the testimony of the witnesses is within the
     exclusive province of the fact finder.

Interest of D.W., 220 A.3d 573, 576 (Pa. Super. 2019) (internal citations,

quotations and original brackets omitted).

     This Court has further stated:

     The purpose of the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(b)(2), is as
     follows:

        (2) Consistent with the protection of the public interest, to
        provide for children committing delinquent acts programs of
        supervision, care and rehabilitation which provide balanced
        attention to the protection of the community, the imposition
        of accountability for offenses committed and the
        development of competencies to enable children to become
        responsible and productive members of the community.

     (Emphasis added). This section evidences the Legislature's clear
     intent to protect the community while rehabilitating and reforming
     juvenile delinquents.

     [W]e [] elucidate a short list of guidelines to the trial courts and
     probation offices dealing with these cases.

        1) The facts should establish a purposeful and intentional
        perpetration of actual or feigned acts which, if carried out,
        would cause injury, disarray and/or psychological
        disturbance to the persons in the area encompassed by the
        threats or activity.

        2) Each individual, when apprehended, should be quickly
        but    thoroughly    evaluated      by   responsible    police
        investigators, mental health professionals and juvenile
        correctional experts to determine the appropriate cause of
        action, determine its potential for success, and evaluate any
        previous deviance, violent behavior, suicidal thoughts or
        tendencies and potential for future similar behavior.

                                      -7-
J-S44007-23

         3) The child's family relationships, stability, deviance,
         interaction with other children, peers and associates, must
         be evaluated in terms of their impact on the child's conduct
         and behavior.

         4) A thorough and accurate compilation of the actual or
         derivative effect of the behavior on other individuals, the
         school and community and the security and social service
         resources of the community must be assessed prior to
         ultimate disposition of the case.

In re J.C., 751 A.2d 1178, 1181–1182 (Pa. Super. 2000).

      When a court commits a juvenile to out-of-home placement, the court

is required to state on the record in open court,

      its findings and conclusions of law that form the basis of its
      decision [], including the reasons why commitment to that type or
      type of facility was determined to be the least restrictive
      placement that is consistent with the protection of the public and
      best suited to the child's treatment, supervision, rehabilitation and
      welfare.

Interest of D.W., 220 A.3d at 578, citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6352(c). The trial

court may also “file of record a brief statement of the reasons for the

determination or where in the record such reasons may be found[.]”            Id.,

citing Pa.R.A.P. 1770(f).

      At the dispositional hearing on January 13, 2023, the trial judge stated:

      I have an obligation to protect everybody, the 1.5 million
      [citizens] in the city of Philadelphia, from [Appellant]. Okay?

      And when he’s on probation, he should follow his probation. If he
      thinks his life is being threatened, there’s many ways to deal with
      it. You don’t go on the [lam], pick up a bench warrant, let your
      GPS [monitor] die, and, then, let alone, you get into a stolen car
      with someone else which is alleg[ed] right now.               Now,
      [Appellant’s] 18 years old.

                                      -8-
J-S44007-23

                           *           *            *

      Many people are in the wrong place and the wrong time. There’s
      accountability and responsibility.

                           *           *            *

      What I don’t understand is why you make – continue to make bad
      decisions, to get yourself arrested while you’re on probation.
      That’s what I don’t understand, because that’s not normal
      behavior.

                           *           *            *

      That’s not normal behavior from a young man, an adult like you.
      People don’t hide because their lives are threatened but then get
      involved in making bad decisions and get[] arrested [] in alleged
      stolen cars. That’s the part I don’t get.

      And you’re still on my probation.

                           *           *            *

      I have sympathy for you. But I have no sympathy when people
      go around and make bad decisions and end up hurting people.

N.T., 1/13/2023, at 10-12; see also id. at 17 (“He’s been adjudicated on

unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, receiving stolen property, conspiracy,

robbery, theft, [and] robbery of a motor vehicle. And what does he do? He’s

caught in a stolen car.”). The trial court further noted it could have initially

ordered Appellant to be placed in a residential facility but that it “wanted

[Appellant] to be successful[,]” “gave him a second a chance” and “put him

on probation with GPS” monitoring with “plenty of notice that he was on

probation.” Id. at 16.

      In explaining its modification of Appellant’s commitment, from interim

probation to an out-of-home residential facility, the trial court further opined:

                                      -9-
J-S44007-23

     At his initial admission hearing, it was explained to Appellant that
     the first time he violated [the] conditions of [his ordered, interim
     probation], he would be adjudicated delinquent and placed [in a
     residential facility]. At the January 2023 hearing, the trial court
     heard from Appellant’s [p]robation [o]fficer, who testified that he
     has been in custody at the PJJSC since late-December after
     violating his GPS restrictions and picking up an adult arrest.
     Notably, at the admission hearing, Appellant said, “this is my first
     and last arrest.” The [p]robation [o]fficer also testified to the
     recommendations of Appellant’s BHE, which indicated traumatic
     incidents in his past and the need for outpatient trauma-informed
     psychotherapy. The [p]robation [o]fficer also indicated that
     Appellant had run away from his home, [] at the time he was
     arrested on his adult matter. She made referrals to two residential
     treatment facilities, but both rejected Appellant due to the open
     adult matter. While [on interim probation, Appellant ran away
     from home,] let his GPS monitor die and neither the [p]robation
     [o]fficer, his family, nor his program advocates could reach him.
     The [p]robation [o]fficer testified that Appellant was reportedly
     scared and was receiving threats in his community. The trial court
     heard     from     multiple   individuals,    including   Appellant’s
     grandmother, an advocate representative, and the [p]robation
     [o]fficer. The trial court noted that [Appellant] was [aware] of the
     consequences of his actions and had been previously informed of
     what would happen should [h]e violate the conditions of
     probation. The trial court sympathized with Appellant’s situation
     but noted the court’s duty to balance the protection of the
     community and the needs of Appellant. Appellant has mental
     health and supervision needs which were not being adequately
     met in the community. He was put on notice of not being
     compliant with his interim probation and given an opportunity to
     remain in the community, but he violated his GPS monitoring and
     [was arrested as an adult]. While it is commendable that
     Appellant entered an open admission and started on the road to
     taking responsibility for his actions at the hearing in August 2022,
     his subsequent actions and behavior did not indicate sincerity and
     truthfulness in his claimed intention to do better for himself and
     others. Appellant did not follow his own advice, “this is my first
     and last arrest.” The record reflects and [supports] the court’s
     disposition of an out-of-home placement as being the least
     restrictive option, at this time, consistent with the protection of
     the public and best suited to [] Appellant’s welfare, treatment,
     supervision, and rehabilitative needs as mandated by the Juvenile
     Act.

                                    - 10 -
J-S44007-23

Trial Court Opinion, 4/11/2023, at 7-8 (record citations omitted).

      Upon review, we agree with the trial court’s disposition and conclude

that there was no abuse of discretion. In this matter, before disposition, the

trial court heard testimony from Appellant’s family and probation officer in

order to evaluate Appellant’s community relationships and their impact on his

conduct and behavior. The trial court ultimately determined that Appellant

was not successful while on interim probation, having been arrested in a stolen

vehicle after being adjudicated delinquent for stealing a different vehicle.

Accordingly, the trial court found that the facts as presented showed

Appellant’s potential for future, similar behavior and also established

Appellant’s intentional purpose to cause injury and disarray to the public. The

trial court ultimately determined that less restrictive alternatives were not

effective, and that residential supervision was necessary to protect the public

and best suited to Appellant’s treatment, rehabilitation, and welfare. Based

upon our review of the certified record and applicable law, we discern no trial

court error and conclude that Appellant’s sole appellate claim lacks merit.

      Dispositional order affirmed.

Date: 1/4/2024

                                      - 11 -