Court Opinion

ID: 4154063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-03-20 19:15:23.12557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:34:26.410034
License: Public Domain

J   -S19013-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                     :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                                PENNSYLVANIA
                            Appellee
                 v.

    CHARLES ROBERT LEWIS

                            Appellant                          No. 1177 MDA 2016

               Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 16, 2016
                  In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
               Criminal Division at No(s): CP-14-CR-0001403-2015

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

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:                                    FILED MARCH 20, 2017

        Appellant, Charles Robert Lewis, appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas, following his

jury trial convictions of one count each of possession of                        a    controlled

substance with              the   intent   to   deliver   ("PWID"),   criminal       conspiracy,

possession of         a   controlled substance by an inmate, knowing or intentional

possession of     a       controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia.'

We affirm.

        The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.

Appellant, an inmate at the Benner Township State Correctional Institution,

received   a   visit from his sister and co-defendant, Michilean Lewis on August

' 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30); 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903, 5123(a.2); 35 P.S. §§
780-113(a)16, (a)(32), respectively.

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J   -S19013-17

16, 2015.         Ms.    Lewis smuggled 33 balloons containing marijuana and 3

balloons containing Suboxone strips inside the prison.                     Matthew Kissel,   a

prison corrections officer, observed Appellant's and Ms. Lewis' interaction

through video surveillance.              Mr. Kissel watched Ms. Lewis hand an object to

Appellant and then saw several clear balloons inside Appellant's bag of

Dorito's.    Mr.        Kissel searched Appellant and recovered the contraband.

Nicole Blascovich,        a   forensic scientist, analyzed the contraband and prepared

a   lab report based on her findings.

        The Commonwealth charged Appellant with various related offenses on

August 27, 2015.              On February 29, 2016, the Commonwealth filed and

served Appellant with             a    "Notice of Intent to Admit Laboratory Report

Pursuant     to     Pennsylvania          Rule   of     Criminal    Procedure   574.2   The

Commonwealth gave the correct lab report to Appellant through discovery

on February 5, 2016, but it inadvertently attached an incorrect, unrelated

lab report to its Notice of           Intent on February 29, 2016. Appellant did not file

a   written demand for         Ms. Blascovich's       testimony pursuant to Rule 574(C)(1).

        On March 22, 2016, before Appellant's                      jury trial commenced, the
Commonwealth presented the correct lab report to the court.                        Appellant

2 Rule 574 of the rules of criminal procedure refers to a procedure where the
Commonwealth introduces a forensic lab report into evidence in place of live
testimony by the expert who performed the analysis or examination,
provided the defendant does not make a written demand for the expert's live
testimony.

                                                 -2
J   -S19013-17

objected to the report on the basis that it was not the same report as the

one attached to the Notice of Intent.         Appellant conceded he had received

the correct lab report during discovery and the Notice of Intent referenced

the correct report, which prompted               the court to overrule Appellant's

objection.

        A   jury convicted Appellant of all charges     on March 22, 2016.    On June

16, 2016, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of three (3) to

six (6) years' imprisonment, followed by          a   consecutive term of twelve (12)

months' probation.        The court imposed the sentence consecutive to an

unrelated sentence Appellant was already serving.               Appellant timely filed

post -sentence motions on June 22, 2016.              On July 7, 2016, the court held

argument on Appellant's post -sentence motions, and denied the motions on

July 13, 2016.      Appellant timely filed   a   notice of appeal on July 18, 2016.

On July 19, 2016, the court ordered Appellant to file a Rule                  1925(b)

statement, which Appellant timely filed on August 8, 2016.

        Appellant raises one issue for our review:

            [WHETHER]   THE...COURT VIOLATED    [APPELLANT'S]
            CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT
            TO CONFRONT WITNESSES AGAINST HIM BY PERMITTING
            THE LAB REPORT TO BE ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE
            WITHOUT THE AUTHOR BEING CALLED TO TESTIFY[?]

(Appellant's Brief at 9).      The Commonwealth claims Appellant waived his

issue on appeal due to vagueness in his statement of questions presented

section of his brief. What Appellant    is   challenging on appeal is evident so we

                                        -3
J   -S19013-17

decline to deem his issue waived.

        After   a   thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the

applicable law, and the well -reasoned opinion of the Honorable Jonathan D.

Grine, we conclude Appellant's issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion

comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented.

(See Trial Court Opinion, filed July 13, 2016, at 2-4) (finding: Appellant

premised alleged violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confront witness

on fact   that Commonwealth attached incorrect lab report to its Notice of

Intent; Appellant insinuated he would have filed written demand for                     Ms.

Blascovich's testimony at trial if Commonwealth had attached correct lab

report    to    Notice    of   Intent, and    he   was        not   obligated   to   correct

Commonwealth's mistake; Appellant's position             is   tenuous because Appellant

knew he had correct lab report even before Commonwealth filed and served

him with its Notice of Intent, which properly referenced correct lab report;

Appellant knew Ms. Blascovich performed lab study, and Appellant failed to

make written demand for Ms. Blascovich's testimony at trial; per totality of

circumstances Appellant possessed relevant materials to make informed

decision regarding demand for Ms. Blascovich's live testimony, but Appellant

chose not to make that request). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the

trial court's opinion.

        Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                         -4
J   -S19013-17

Judgment Entered.

J seph D. Seletyn,   Es   .

Prothonotary

Date: 3/20/2017

                              -5
                                                                                         Circulated 03/10/2017 10:59 AM
Lathrop
settgast                                                                                            I llllll lllll lllll lllll lllllll lllll llll 11111111111111111
                                                                                                                                       OOOOTKF'(           CCGPRO 201803

               IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                                  CRIMINAL ACTION - LAW

                   COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                            )
                                                                           )
                           v.                                              )   CP-14-CR-1403-2015
                                                                           )
                   CHARLES ROBERT LEWIS,                                   )
                             Defendant.                                    )

                   Attorney for Commonwealth:                          Jessica H Lathrop, Esquire
                   Attorney for Defendant:                             Richard G Settgast, Esquire

                                              OPINION AND ORDER

                   Presently before the Court is a Post-Sentence Motion filed by Charles Robert Lewis

           ("Defendant"), on June 22, 2016. For the following reasons, Defendant's Post-Sentence Motion
                                                                                          C)
                                                                                          !Tl              ·-o r-,
                                                                                                                                     =
                                                                                                                                     -··
                                                                                          ;z:_;o;_:;:l                               CT•
           is DENIED.                                                                    :-JOC~:
                                                                                           ,..                                       c_
                                                                                                                                     c::
                                                                                         ;.~--i ;r~:~                                r---
                                                                                          . •1::c:::,c.
                                                  BACKGROUND                             ··3~ ~i
                                                                                              . -
                                                                                                 ~~ ·                                (.,j
                                                                                         _.
                                                                                              ·-~.. . .~"'·. . ,......
                                                                                              ...                              ..
                                                                                                                         -·.~·:,-;   ~
                  On September 4, 2015, Defendant was charged with Manufacture, Del~§~i%gr ~                                                       "' .:
                                                                                    .... ·