Court Opinion

ID: 9386208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-11 17:08:45.867086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:42.071541
License: Public Domain

J-S07029-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                v.                             :
                                               :
    JUSTIN MITCHELL                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1583 EDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 11, 2022,
           in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County,
           Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0004744-2019.

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                             FILED APRIL 11, 2023

       After a jury convicted him of felony murder, criminal conspiracy, and

related offenses,1 Justin Mitchell appeals from the judgment of sentence of

incarceration for life without the possibility of parole. We affirm.

       Around 9:10 p.m. on January 23, 2019, Mitchell, Henry Diaz-Ayala, and

Russel Montalvo-Fernandez broke into the home of David Pass and his father,

Ralph Williams. Carrying guns, the men planned “to rob [Mr.] Pass of money

he owed [Mitchell,] who in turn owed it to Diaz[-Ayala] and Montalvo[-

Fernandez].” Trial Court Opinion, 7/20/22, at 5.

       While Montalvo-Fernandez and Mr. Pass were on the third floor, Diaz-

Ayala was with Mr. Williams in his second-floor bedroom. Mr. Williams resisted

and stabbed Diaz-Ayala, who screamed. Upon hearing Diaz-Ayala’s scream,

____________________________________________

1See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903(a)(1), 907(a), 2505(b), 2702(a)(1), 3701(a)(1)(i),
3701(a)(ii), and 3701(a)(1)(iv); see also 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3733(a).
J-S07029-23

Montalvo-Fernandez shot Mr. Pass in the leg and buttocks.             Montalvo-

Fernandez ran downstairs, where he repeatedly shot and killed Mr. Williams.

      The three home invaders fled the scene. Diaz-Ayala left a trail of blood

from Mr. Williams’ bedroom, down the stairs, through the kitchen, out the

back door, and into the street. Montalvo-Fenandez drove Mitchell home and

then took Diaz-Ayala to a hospital.

      Two days later, a traffic-patrol officer attempted to stop Mitchell for

illegally tinted car windows. Mitchell began to slowdown but then sped away.

Instead of pursuing the car, the patrol officer obtained a warrant for Mitchell’s

arrest.

      Several months passed, and police eventually apprehended Mitchell and

Diaz-Ayala. Meanwhile, Montalvo-Fernandez escaped to Mexico with the help

of his close friend, Elijah Moody.

      The Commonwealth filed two cases against Mitchell. One case was for

eluding apprehension by the patrol officer. The other case was for the crimes

committed during the home invasion. The Commonwealth joined Mitchell’s

two cases under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 582.

      Mitchell moved to separate them. The trial court denied his request. It

explained his eluding-apprehension charge “arguably is evidence of flight,”

due to an inferable consciousness of guilt arising from Mitchell’s involvement

in the home invasion. N.T., 7/15/21, at 23.

      Also, the Commonwealth filed a motion in limine to admit the testimony

of Elijah Moody regarding statements Montalvo-Fernandez made to him in the

                                      -2-
J-S07029-23

days after the homicide. The trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion

and explained its ruling from the bench as follows:

              It’s important to note that Moody and Montalvo[-
        Fernandez] were friends prior to the homicide. It’s also
        important to note that, at the time these statements were
        made, [none] of the defendants had been arrested for
        homicide. The case law does say that the conspiracy ends
        upon arrest. We don’t have that in this particular situation.
        We know that Mr. Moody testified before the Investigating
        Grand Jury on two occasions, that being September 3, 2019
        and . . . July 24, 2019.

              On August 7, 2019, he and his attorney met with
        Detective Mitchell, and I’ll quote, “to clarify false information
        that he previously testified to before the Investigating Grand
        Jury.” There was no question-and-answer statement taken
        at the time, and it is not clear from the record why no formal
        statement was taken. It’s also not clear what generated this
        meeting on August 7th. Was Mr. Moody being threatened
        with contempt of court for lying to the grand jury? It’s just
        not clear. But a police report was generated, and it says
        various things that Montalvo[-Fernandez] is reported to
        have said to Moody.

              At some point, . . . Mr. Moody came to Detective
        Mitchell, and he did give a Q-and-A statement. I believe it
        was two pages and basically adopted a police report. That
        was March 12, 2020.

               So, what we have here is knowing the facts of this
        case, we know that the three people came together. After
        the homicide, they left in a car together. Two of them were
        wearing masks during the crime. We know that there was
        cell phone contact between them, after the time and prior
        to their arrest. I think it can be readily inferred that there
        was an agreement, as part of the original plan, to get away
        with the crime, to cover up, to evade capture, and I think
        that can be readily inferred as part of the plan. So, I find
        that the conspiracy did not end. The statements were made
        in furtherance of the conspiracy, and they are admissible.

N.T., 7/15/21, at 18-19.

                                      -3-
J-S07029-23

      The matter proceeded to trial. The jury convicted both men, and the

trial court sentenced Mitchell as described above. This timely appeal followed.

      The trial court ordered Mitchell to file a Rule of Appellate Procedure

1925(b) Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. However, there is

no 1925(b) Statement in the certified record, and Mitchell did not attach his

1925(b) Statement to his appellate brief.

      In its 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court indicated that Mitchell served the

trial judge with “a Statement of 13 errors claimed on appeal.” Trial Court

Opinion, 7/20/22, at 2. “Seven of those claims (numbered III-IX) pertain to

the disposition of pretrial motions by the Hon. William R. Carpenter,” who

neither presided over the trial nor authored the 1925(a) Opinion. Id. The

opinion incorporated Judge Carpenter’s pretrial rulings by reference, but it did

not identify which pretrial issues Mitchell raised in his 1925(b) Statement.

Hence, Mitchel’sl failure to file to his 1925(b) Statement left the record devoid

of which pretrial issues he raised in his 1925(b) Statement.

      The Commonwealth therefore asserts that Mitchell has waived his issues

on appeal.    See Commonwealth’s Brief at 18.        In its appellate brief, the

Commonwealth stated that it did not object to Mitchell supplementing his brief

to include the statement of errors that he submitted to the trial court.

However, the Commonwealth contended that any arguments not preserved in

that Statement are now waived. See id. (citing Commonwealth v. Hill, 16

A.3d 484, 492 (Pa. 2011).

                                      -4-
J-S07029-23

      Despite the concession from the Commonwealth, Mitchell did not file a

reply brief or supplement his initial brief to provide us with his 1925(b)

Statement. Thus, before reaching the merits of Mitchell’s appellate issues, we

must determine whether his failure to include his 1925(b) Statement in the

certified record and his brief results in waiver of his appellate issues.

      Waiver presents “a question of law, over which our standard of review

is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Barbour,

189 A.3d 944, 954 (Pa. 2018).

      Rule 1925(b) is very clear and very strict.      Where, as here, the trial

court has ordered an appellant to file a 1925(b) Statement, he “shall file of

record the Statement and concurrently shall serve [it upon] the judge.”

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1).     Moreover, “[i]ssues not included in the Statement

and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4)

are waived.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).

      Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has said, “In order to

preserve their claims for appellate review, appellants must comply whenever

the trial court orders them to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on

Appeal pursuant to Rule 1925.        Any issues not raised in a 1925(b)

statement will be deemed waived.” Hill, 16 A.3d at 491 (emphasis in

original).

      Here, Mitchell served his 1925(b) Statement on the trial judge, but he

failed to file it of record. Thus, he violated Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1). This violation

inhibits our appellate review, because the trial judge who received the 1925(b)

                                       -5-
J-S07029-23

Statement was not the same judicial officer who ruled on the pretrial matters.

Mitchell raised seven pretrial issues in his 1925(b) Statement, but, due to his

failure to file the 1925(b) Statement or attach it to his brief, we have no way

of knowing which pretrial issues he raised (and thereby preserved) in that

Statement.

      Given that we do not know which pretrial issues Mitchell preserved in

his 1925(b) Statement, we hold that he has preserved none of them. We

dismiss all of Mitchell’s pretrial appellate issues as waived.

      Regarding trial and post-trial issues, the trial court authored a 1925(a)

Opinion listing Mitchell’s issues from his 1925(b) Statement as follows:

         1.    The evidence was insufficient to support the guilty
               verdict;

         2.    The verdict was contrary to the weight of the
               evidence;

         3.    The trial court erred by admitting the testimony of a
               forensic pathologist, despite his failure to state his
               opinions to a reasonable degree of medical certainty;

         4.    The trail court erred by admitting a timeline exhibit
               produced by the Commonwealth, marked and
               received into evidence as C-163;

         5.    The trial court erred by allowing the Commonwealth
               to amend the bills of information after the close of the
               evidence; and

         6.    The trial court abused its discretion by sentencing
               [Mitchell] to an aggregate sentence of ten to 20 years’
               imprisonment consecutive to his life sentence for
               murder.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/20/22, at 2-3.

                                      -6-
J-S07029-23

      Unlike the pretrial issues, because the trial court has identified and

addressed the merits of the above issues in its opinion, Mitchell’s failure to file

his 1925(b) Statement does not inhibit our review of whether he raised them

in his 1925(b) Statement.      Therefore, Mitchell’s failure to file his 1925(b)

Statement with the clerk of courts does not result in waiver of those issues.

      Clearly, Mitchell served his 1925(b) Statement on the trial judge, who

placed his trial and post-trial appellate issues in the record through its 1925(a)

Opinion. Hence, we hold that those six trial and post-trial issues are preserved

for appellate review.

      Nevertheless, in his appellate brief, Mitchell raises many issues that are

different from the issues that the trial court identified in its 1925(a) Opinion.

Specifically, he now claims the following five grounds of error:

         1.    Did the trial court err in not granting the motion to
               sever the codefendant’s cases, violating [Mitchell’s]
               constitutional rights?

         2.    Did the trial court err in joining the fleeing and eluding
               charges?

         3.    Did the trial court err in admitting crimen falsi
               evidence that was too remote in time without doing
               the proper analysis of the probative value versus
               prejudicial impact?

         4.    Did the trial court err, violating [Mitchell’s] rights
               under the Confrontation Clause, the Fourteenth
               Amendment and Article I sec. 9, when it permitted
               admission of the statement of Montalvo-Fernandez, a
               non-testifying coconspirator which he made to Elijah
               Moody?

         5.    Did the sentencing court abused its discretion in
               sentencing [Mitchell] to an aggregate sentence of ten

                                       -7-
J-S07029-23

                 to 20 years of state incarceration consecutive to his
                 life sentence violating state law and the Eighth
                 Amendment?

Mitchell’s Brief at 2.

      Of the above issues, the first four deal with pretrial matters that the trial

court did not identify or address in its 1925(a) Opinion. Hence, in accordance

with our above analysis, Mitchell has not properly preserved them for appeal.

He waived his first four appellate issue.     See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) and Hill,

supra.

      The only issue that Mitchell preserved for appellate review challenges

the trial court’s discretionary aspects of his sentence. He disagrees with the

ten to 20 years’ incarceration that the trial court imposed consecutively to his

life sentence.

      Such issues “are not appealable as of right.”         Commonwealth v.

Miller, 275 A.3d 530, 534 (Pa. Super. 2022). Instead:

         [a]n appellant challenging the sentencing court’s discretion
         must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by (1) filing a timely
         notice of appeal; (2) properly preserving the issue at
         sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify the
         sentence; (3) complying with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), which
         requires a separate section of the brief setting forth a
         concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance
         of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of a
         sentence; and (4) presenting a substantial question that the
         sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the
         Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b), or sentencing
         norms.

                                      -8-
J-S07029-23

Id. Mitchell has satisfied the first three pongs. However, the Commonwealth

objects to our assertion of appellate jurisdiction over this issue based on the

fourth prong, i.e., presentation of a substantial question.

      Regarding the substantial-question prong, Mitchell offers no analysis in

his Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) Statement. He merely states, “there is a substantial

question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the

Sentencing Code.” Mitchell’s Brief at 34. But Mitchell does not explain why

or how that is so.

      By contrast, the Commonwealth argues that:

         a guideline sentence is presumptively reasonable. See
         Commonwealth v. Fowler, 893 A.2d 758, 767 (Pa. Super.
         2006) (“the standard range . . . is presumptively where a
         defendant should be sentenced”). Moreover, “the general
         rule in Pennsylvania is that in imposing a sentence the court
         has discretion to determine whether to make it concurrent
         with or consecutive to other sentences then being imposed
         or other sentences previously imposed.” Commonwealth
         v. Hoag, 665 A.2d 1212, 1214 (Pa. Super. 1995) (citation
         omitted) (“We see no reason why Hoag should be afforded
         a ‘volume discount’ for his crimes by having all sentences
         run concurrently”).

               Accordingly:

                     A court’s exercise of discretion in imposing a
                     sentence concurrently or consecutively does not
                     ordinarily raise a substantial question . . .
                     Rather, the imposition of consecutive rather
                     than concurrent sentences will present a
                     substantial question in only the most extreme
                     circumstances, such as where the aggregate
                     sentence is unduly harsh, considering the
                     nature of the crimes and the length of
                     imprisonment.

                                       -9-
J-S07029-23

         Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 769 (Pa.
         Super. 2015) (internal citations and quotation marks
         omitted).

                In this case, [Mitchell] fails to raise a substantial
         question, because his sentence is not unduly harsh under
         the circumstances. He led two armed and dangerous
         individuals to break the victims’ door down and enter their
         home to take what they believed to be drug money by force.
         After invading the home, the men shot their target as well
         as his father. The father died, thus mandating defendant’s
         life sentence. He has no right to bypass a prison term for
         his remaining crimes, which include the aggravated assault
         on the son who survived.

               [Mitchell] does not contend that the court sentenced
         him outside the guidelines, and there is nothing harsh or
         excessive about an aggregate sentence of ten-to-20 years
         in prison for shooting a man during a home invasion
         robbery. His claim that he was not the shooter is unavailing,
         as he is responsible for all of the natural and foreseeable
         consequences of his decision to participate in an armed,
         person-present, home invasion robbery.         Under these
         circumstances, gun-violence was not only foreseeable, but
         probable. Thus, this case does not present the “most
         extreme” of circumstances that would make the question at
         hand a substantial one.

Commonwealth’s Brief at 29-31.

      We agree with the Commonwealth. Mitchell’s sentence does not raise a

substantial question concerning the discretionary aspects of sentencing. We

therefore decline to exercise jurisdiction over his fifth and final issue.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                      - 10 -
J-S07029-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/11/2023

                          - 11 -