Com. v. C.A.H.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: August 26, 2014
• Docket: 628 MDA 2013
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A18043-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

C.A.H.

Appellant No. 628 MDA 2013

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 4, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0002501-2011

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., WECHT, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 26, 2014

C.A.H. appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of

Common Pleas of Luzerne County. After our review, we affirm on the

opinion authored by the Honorable Tina Polachek Gartley.

C.A.H., the natural mother of C.C., was charged with rape of a child,1

criminal conspiracy (rape of a child),2 incest,3 corruption of minors,4 and

endangering the welfare of children.5 C.A.H. began the abuse when her son

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(c). 2 18 Pa.C.S § 903. 3 18 Pa.C.S. § 4302. 4 18 Pa.C.S. §6301(a)1. 5 18 Pa.C.S. §4304(a)(1). J-A18043-14

was eight years old, and it continued until he was twelve. C.C. testified that

he was home-schooled, watched pornography, and that on his eighth

birthday his father made him have sex with C.A.H. Thereafter, C.C. had sex

with C.A.H., while his father watched, approximately four times each week.

Following trial, a jury convicted C.A.H. of all charges. The Sexual

Offenders Assessment Board (SOAB) evaluated C.A.H. and determined she

was a sexually violent predator (SVP). The court sentenced C.A.H. to an

aggregate term of imprisonment of 20 years and 9 months to 41 years and 6

months (249 months to 498 months). C.A.H. filed a notice of appeal. On

April 3, 2013, the trial court ordered C.A.H. to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal. On April 23, 2013, C.A.H.

filed her Rule 1925(b) Statement, raising 27 claims of error. On appeal,

C.A.H. raises the following issues:

1. Was [C.A.H.] denied her right to a fair trial by the

Child victim undergo psychological and psychiatric examinations to determine his competency to testify?

2. Was the [C.A.H.] denied a fair trial when the lower court erred in finding the child competent to testify

provided copies of records and reports of interviews where the Child contradicted the accusations previously made concerning the instant charges against [C.A.H.]?

3. Was [C.A.H.] denied a fair trial when the lower court erred in failing to dismiss the charges or in permitting the Child to testify even after the District

reports of interviews wherein it was disclosed that

-2- J-A18043-14

against his parents on the current charges?

4. Was [C.A.H.] denied a fair trial when the court improperly permitted the Commonwealth to introduce evidence that C.C. had killed cats while living with his parents, as a result of his alleged abuse?6

5. Did the court below err in not instructing the jury that: A) the testimony of the Child was rendered suspect because of lack of prompt complaint and that it is a factor that the jury must consider as to

justifiably produce doubt as to whether the offense indeed occurred, or whether it was a recent

motive in making the complaints against the [C.A.H.] following his considerable period of silence was

6. Whether for discovery of certain records and material in the possession of the Wyoming County Children and Youth Services involving [P.P.]?

7. to the confrontation and due process clauses of the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions, in

the Child, [P.P.], and other Commonwealth witnesses with the hereinbefore mentioned records of the Luzerne County Child Advocacy Center and Wyoming ____________________________________________

6 We note that i waived for failure to place an objection on the record, see trial court opinion, at p. 5, C.A.H. does not develop any argument on this claim in her appellate adequately develop his argument, meaningful appellate review is not possible. This Court will not act as new Commonwealth v. Genovese, 675 A.2d 331, 334 (1996) (citing Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)). See also Commonwealth v. Zewe, 663 A.2d 195, 199 (1995).

-3- J-A18043-14

County Children & Youth Services which may have been reflective of the motive or bias of the Child and/or [P.P.]?

8. Did the lower court err in permitting the Child and [P.P.] to testify even after it was disclosed that the Child had complained that [P.P.], who was charged

communicating with him concerning the instant case and had to be warned about her interference in this case?

the relevant law,

C.A.H. raises on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/30/2013.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence based on Judge Polachek

e direct counsel to attach a copy of this opinion in

the event of further proceedings.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

WECHT, J., concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 8/26/2014

-4-