Court Opinion

ID: 9408110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 16:08:20.555732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:41.825401
License: Public Domain

J-A09029-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                   :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                :          PENNSYLVANIA
                                                :
                v.                              :
                                                :
                                                :
 SHANE EDWARD WRIGHT                            :
                                                :
                        Appellant               :     No. 399 MDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 4, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Perry County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-50-CR-0000227-2020

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                                     FILED JUNE 11, 2023

     Appellant, Shane Edward Wright, appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered February 4, 2022. We affirm.

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

      [The offenses in this matter were based upon Appellant’s
      conduct, over a period of several years, with] a young girl many
      years his junior. [In particular, t]he incidents began when the
      victim was [four] or [five] years old and continued until she was
      [eight] or [nine]. [Appellant] was in his teens at the time [of
      the offenses]. … The acts consisted of touching her breast[s]
      and vagina. At one point, [the victim] indicated that there was
      penetration by [Appellant’s] penis of her vagina. At least one
      incident . . . occurred while [Appellant] was an adult. [The
      victim in this matter did not come forward to the police until
      approximately 2020, when she was in her early twenties and
      Appellant was in his mid-thirties].

Trial Court Opinion, 6/6/22, at 1.                  Based upon the foregoing, the

Commonwealth charged Appellant with rape – complainant less than

13-years-old;        aggravated     indecent   assault   –   complainant   less   than
J-A09029-23

16-years-old; 59 counts of aggravated indecent assault – complainant less

than 13-years-old; and 59 counts of indecent assault – complainant less than

13-years-old.

        On August 25, 2021, the day before trial was set to commence,

Appellant’s counsel realized that the Commonwealth failed to produce a

videotape of a recorded interview of the victim, which was requested in formal

discovery.      N.T. Trial, 8/26/22, at 3.            Counsel then contacted the

Commonwealth, which produced the recorded interview at 4:00 p.m. that day.

Id.    When Appellant’s counsel attempted to watch the recorded interview,

however, he discovered it was inaudible. Id. at 4. Accordingly, on August

26, 2021, the day of trial, Appellant requested a continuance. Id. Ultimately,

the trial court denied Appellant’s request based upon the Commonwealth’s

representation that the recorded interview was consistent with the police

report, as well as the victim’s testimony during the preliminary hearing, and

that the Commonwealth would not seek to admit the recorded interview into

evidence during trial. Id. at 4-6. The matter therefore proceeded to a jury

trial, wherein the jury found Appellant guilty of rape – complainant less than

13-years-old;1     aggravated       indecent     assault   – complainant   less   than

16-years-old;2 and, 10 counts of indecent assault – complainant less than

____________________________________________

1   18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3121(c).

2   18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3125(a)(8).

                                           -2-
J-A09029-23

13-years-old.3 On February 4, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an

aggregate sentence of three to six years’ incarceration.4 This timely appeal

followed.5

____________________________________________

3   18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3126(a)(8).

4 The trial court entered an order on February 4, 2022, reflecting that the
Sexual Offenders Assessment Board determined that Appellant did not meet
the criteria for a Sexually Violent Predator. See Trial Court Order, 2/4/22, at
1.

5 The trial court entered an order on March 3, 2022, directing Appellant to file
a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) within 25 days of entry of the order. See Trial Court Order, 3/3/22,
at 1. Then, on March 25, 2022, the trial court entered another order, again,
directing Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) within 21 days of the second order. See
Trial Court Order, 3/25/22, at 1. Appellant filed a 1925(b) statement on March
28, 2022, in which he stated:

         Counsel has planned all along to challenge the sentence of adult
         incarceration to the extent that it was for offenses committed
         as a juvenile, under the guidance of Miller v. Alabama, 567
         U.S. 460 (2012)[.]

Appellant’s 1925(b) Statement, 3/28/22, at 1. Counsel, however, also
requested the court to “extend the deadline for filing a final [1925(b)
statement] until [10] days after receipt of the [trial] transcripts” or until May
23, 2022. Id. The trial court apparently granted Appellant’s request,
although a record of such an order does not appear within the certified record
or on the trial court docket. See Trial Court’s Opinion, 6/6/22, at *1
(unpaginated) (“We granted the extension and now, belatedly, file this opinion
in support of our earlier orders.”). On May 16, 2022, Appellant filed a
supplemental Rule 1925(b) statement, in which he raised an additional issue
that he also presents on appeal. Because Appellant filed his initial concise
statement within 25 days of the trial court’s March 3, 2022 order, and because
the trial court stated in its Rule 1925(a) opinion that it granted Appellant’s
request for an extension to file a final concise statement, we conclude that
Appellant and the trial court have complied with the requirements of Pa.R.A.P.
1925.

                                           -3-
J-A09029-23

      Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

       1. When the Commonwealth produced a recorded statement of
          the [complainant] on the evening before trial and the
          recording was inaudible and the defense asked for a
          continuance to listen to the recording, did the trial court
          abuse its discretion and deny [Appellant] a fair trial by
          refusing to grant a continuance?

       2. Does the [Supreme Court of the United States’] decision in
          Miller v. Alabama[, 567 U.S. 460 (2012)] mandate a
          different treatment of juvenile offenses that do not
          materialize until after [Appellant was] an adult?

Appellant’s Brief at 3.

      In his first issue, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying

his motion for a continuance after the Commonwealth failed to produce the

recorded videotape interview of the victim until the day before trial.

Appellant’s Brief at 7.   Appellant claims he was subjected to a “trial by

ambush” because the recorded interview was inaudible and the late disclosure

prevented him from fully reviewing the recording before trial. Id. at 8. We

disagree.

      “We note that questions involving discovery in criminal cases lie within

the discretion of the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Rucci, 670 A.2d 1129,

1140 (Pa. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1121 (1997). Pennsylvania Rule 573

of Criminal Procedure provides, in relevant part, as follows:

       (B) Disclosure by the Commonwealth.

            (1) Mandatory. In all court cases, on request by the
            defendant, and subject to any protective order which the
            Commonwealth might obtain under this rule, the
            Commonwealth shall disclose to the defendant's attorney
            all of the following requested items or information,

                                     -4-
J-A09029-23

             provided they are material to the instant case. The
             Commonwealth shall, when applicable, permit the
             defendant's attorney to inspect and copy or photograph
             such items.

                                     ***

                   (g) any tangible objects,      including documents,
                   photographs,  fingerprints      or   other  tangible
                   evidence[.]

Pa.R.Crim P. 573(B)(1)(g). If a party fails to comply with Rule 573(B), the

court may

        grant a continuance, or may prohibit such a party from
        introducing evidence not disclosed, other than testimony of the
        defendant, or it may enter such other order it deems just under
        the circumstances.

Pa.R.Crim P. 573(E).

      In this instance, a year before trial, Appellant asked the Commonwealth

to produce a recorded interview with the victim, which was referenced in the

police report. See N.T. Trial, 8/26/21, at 3. Yet, the Commonwealth failed

to produce the recorded interview to Appellant until approximately 4:00 p.m.,

the day before trial.     Id.   Delayed production of materials subject to

mandatory disclosure “‘does not[, however,] automatically entitle [A]ppellant

[to relief].’”   Commonwealth v. Causey, 833 A.2d 165, 171 (Pa. Super.

2003) (citation omitted). To obtain relief, Appellant must show prejudice. Id.

To establish prejudice, Appellant “must demonstrate how a more timely

disclosure would have affected his trial strategy or how he was otherwise

prejudiced by the alleged late disclosure.” Id.

                                     -5-
J-A09029-23

      Herein, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth’s disclosure, the

afternoon before trial, of the inaudible recorded interview resulted in “trial by

ambush” because he did not have enough time to review its contents.

Appellant’s Brief at 8.    Appellant claims that the recorded interview was a

“potential gold mind” because the way the victim “expressed herself a couple

of years earlier might be crucial” and “might be helpful to the defense.” Id.

at 8-9 (emphasis added). In so doing, however, Appellant demonstrates the

speculative nature of his current argument because he fails to articulate,

concretely and in tangible terms, “how a more timely disclosure would have

affected his trial strategy.” Causey, 833 A.2d at 171. Moreover, as admitted

by Appellant, the Commonwealth represented that the recorded interview was

“generally consistent with the police report and her testimony at the

preliminary hearing (of which both counsel had a copy).” Appellant’s Brief at

8; see also N.T. Trial, 8/26/21, at 5 (the court inquiring if the Commonwealth

“made a representation to counsel that the tape is fair and accurate, as an

officer of the court,” to which the prosecutor answered in the affirmative).

Appellant did not contest the Commonwealth’s representation and specifically

stated:

          I understand that the [Commonwealth] represented that he
          heard it better and it does not contradict anything in the police
          report. I trust him on that. I would be shocked if there was
          anything dynamite in there.

Id. at 4-5.      In light of counsel’s admission, as well as the fact that the

Commonwealth did not seek to admit the recorded interview during trial, we

                                        -6-
J-A09029-23

conclude that Appellant is unable to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by

the untimely disclosure.6

       In his second issue, Appellant argues that the trial court’s decision to

sentence Appellant as an adult even though the crimes in question occurred,

for the most part, while he was a juvenile, “is inherently troubling” in light of

the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miller, which held that the

imposition of a life sentence without the possibility of parole upon a juvenile

homicide defendant violated the Eighth Amendment. See Appellant’s Brief at

13. While Appellant attempts to frame this issue as a constitutional claim,

upon review, it is apparent that he is raising a challenge to the discretionary

aspects of his sentence. Indeed, Appellant concedes that Miller’s “precise

holding . . . does not apply to this case” and that “Pennsylvania law prohibits

decertification to [j]uvenile [c]ourt once [a] defendant ‘ages out.’” Id. at 10

and 12; see Commonwealth v. Monaco, 869 A.2d 1026, 1030 (Pa. Super.

2005) (holding that the Juvenile Act was inapplicable because at the time the

appellant was tried and sentenced, he was above the age of 18). Appellant,

therefore, acknowledges that he is not entitled to constitutional relief and yet,

still argues that a trial court “can[] and should . . . take into account the age

at which [a] defendant commit[s] offenses” and that, in this case, a “more
____________________________________________

6 We also note that, by the time Appellant filed his appellate brief, he had
more than enough time to review the recorded interview and determine
whether the victim’s statement diverged, in any way, from that of the police
report and her testimony during the preliminary hearing. The fact that
Appellant does not include any such argument on appeal undercuts his current
claim.

                                           -7-
J-A09029-23

constructive sentence for the offenses committed as a juvenile was

warranted.” Appellant’s Brief at 13. Hence, Appellant is essentially alleging

that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider mitigating factors

i.e., Appellant’s age when the crimes occurred, in issuing his sentence. As

such, we conclude that Appellant’s remaining claim raises a challenge to the

discretionary aspects of his sentence and will address his claim on this basis.

      This Court previously explained:

       It is well-settled that “the right to appeal a discretionary aspect
       of sentence is not absolute.” Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20
       A.3d 1215, 1220 (Pa. Super. 2011). Rather, where an appellant
       challenges the discretionary aspects of a sentence, we should
       regard his[, or her,] appeal as a petition for allowance of appeal.
       Commonwealth v. W.H.M., 932 A.2d 155, 162 (Pa. Super.
       2007). As we stated in Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d
       162 (Pa. Super. 2010):

            An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of
            his sentence must invoke this Court's jurisdiction by
            satisfying a four-part test:

               We conduct a four-part analysis to determine:
               (1) whether appellant [] filed a timely notice of
               appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether
               the issue was properly preserved at sentencing
               or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence,
               see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether appellant's
               brief has a fatal defect, [see] Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f);
               and (4) whether there is a substantial question
               that the sentence appealed from is not
               appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42
               Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).

       [Moury, 992 A.2d] at 170 [(citation omitted)]. We evaluate on
       a case-by-case basis whether a particular issue constitutes a
       substantial question about the appropriateness of sentence.
       Commonwealth v. Kenner, 784 A.2d 808, 811 (Pa. Super.
       2001).

                                       -8-
J-A09029-23

Commonwealth v. Hill, 210 A.3d 1104, 1116 (Pa. Super. 2019) (original

brackets omitted). If an appellant fails to raise a challenge to the discretionary

aspects of a sentence either by presenting a claim to the trial court at the time

of sentencing or in a post-sentence motion, then the appellant's challenge is

considered waived. Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365, 371 (Pa.

Super. 2012) (en banc) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 75 A.3d 1281 (Pa.

2013). A substantial question exists when an appellant presents a colorable

argument that the sentence imposed is either (1) inconsistent with a specific

provision of the sentencing code or (2) is “contrary to the fundamental norms

which underlie the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Mastromarino,

2 A.3d 581, 585 (Pa. Super. 2010), appeal denied, 14 A.3d 825 (Pa. 2011).

      In this instance, Appellant failed to preserve, for appellate review, his

challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Indeed, following the

issuance of his sentence on February 4, 2022, Appellant did not file a

post-sentence motion. In addition, Appellant’s brief contains a “fatal defect,”

as it does not contain a Rule 2119(f) statement in his brief and the

Commonwealth objected.         See Commonwealth’s Brief at 6; see also

Commonwealth v. Karns, 50 A.3d 158, 166 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal

denied, 65 A.3d 413 (Pa. 2013) (“If a defendant fails to include an issue in a

Rule 2119(f) statement and the Commonwealth objects, the issue is waived

and this Court may not consider it.”). Based upon the foregoing, we deem

this issue to be waived.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                      -9-
J-A09029-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 07/11/2023

                          - 10 -