Com. v. Lee, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Com. v. Lee, F.

DecidedOctober 22, 2024

Docket1493 MDA 2023

StatusUnpublished

This text of Com. v. Lee, F. (Com. v. Lee, F.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Com. v. Lee, F., (Pa. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

J-S26035-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : FAKARADEEN LEE : : Appellant : No. 1493 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 3, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-CR-0000469-2023

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

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: OCTOBER 22, 2024

Fakaradeen Lee appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after

a jury convicted him of endangering the welfare of a child (“EWOC”).1 He

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Upon review, we affirm.

On January 7, 2023, Lee went to pick up his 16-year-old son, J.D., from

J.D.’s mother’s house and take him back to his house. Earlier that day, Lee

got into an argument with J.D.’s mother. Lee was also upset with J.D. for

supporting his mother in this argument. Nevertheless, Lee told J.D. he was

coming to get him.

When Lee arrived, J.D. came out to the car, sat in the front passenger

seat, and closed the door. Lee asked him why he did not have his backpack

and other things with him. J.D. told Lee he did not want to go with him. J.D.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304(a)(1). J-S26035-24

then opened his door and started to get out of the car. J.D. was half in the

car and half out when Lee grabbed J.D. by his sweatshirt and started driving

at about 15 to 20 miles per hour down the street with J.D.’s feet dragging

along. J.D. told him to stop, but Lee told him to get in the car. J.D. said he

would if Lee stopped the car. Lee stopped, and J.D. ran out of the car and

into his mother’s house. Lee chased J.D. into the house and got into a verbal

and physical confrontation with J.D. and his mother, as Lee tried to pull J.D.

back down the steps. J.D.’s sister called the police. Lee was arrested and

charged with several offenses.

A jury trial was held eight months later on August 1, 2023. At the close

of trial, the trial court granted Lee’s motion for a demurrer as to burglary and

simple assault. The jury then found Lee guilty of EWOC but acquitted him of

recklessly endangering the welfare of a child. On October 1, 2023, the court

sentenced Lee to 6 to 24 months less one day of incarceration.

Lee filed this timely appeal. He and the trial court complied with

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

On appeal, Lee raises the following single issue:

I. Was [the] evidence sufficient to prove [Lee] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of one count of [EWOC]?

Lee’s Brief at 7.

Lee challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction

for EWOC. Specifically, he argues that the evidence failed to establish that

-2- J-S26035-24

his son was in a situation where his physical or psychological welfare was

threatened. Alternatively, Lee argues that, if his son was threatened, the

Commonwealth failed to establish that Lee did not act to protect his child’s

welfare. Lee’s Brief at 13. We disagree.

In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim,

we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, as well as all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, are sufficient to support all elements of the offense. Additionally, we may not reweigh the evidence or substitute our own judgment for that of the fact finder. The evidence may be entirely circumstantial as long as it links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Commonwealth v. Koch, 39 A.3d 996, 1001 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations

omitted). However, “the inferences must flow from facts and circumstances

proven in the record and must be of such volume and quality as to overcome

the presumption of innocence and satisfy the jury of an accused's guilt beyond

a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Scott, 597 A.2d 1220, 1221 (Pa.

Super. 1991). “The trier of fact cannot base a conviction on conjecture and

speculation and a verdict which is premised on suspicion will fail even under

the limited scrutiny of appellate review.” Id. “Because evidentiary sufficiency

is a question of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review

is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Diamond, 83 A.3d 119, 126 (Pa. 2013).

The EWOC statute provides that “[a] parent ... supervising the welfare

of a child under 18 years of age . . . commits an offense if he knowingly

endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection or

-3- J-S26035-24

support.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304(a)(1). The Court has developed a three-part

test to prove the intent element of EWOC:

(1) the accused [was] aware of his/her duty to protect the child;

(2) the accused [was] aware that the child [was] in circumstances that could threaten the child's physical or psychological welfare; and

(3) the accused has either failed to act or has taken action so lame or meager that such actions cannot reasonably be expected to protect the child's welfare.

See Commonwealth v. Bryant, 57 A.3d 191, 197 (Pa. Super. 2012)

(excessive brackets and citations omitted). Further, in determining whether

a parent or guardian's conduct is sufficient to support a conviction under

Section 4304(a)(1), courts must consider whether the conduct at issue

offends the “common sense of the community” and the “sense of decency,

propriety and the morality which most people entertain.” Commonwealth

v. Lynn, 114 A.3d 796, 818 (Pa. 2015) (citation omitted).

Preliminarily, we observe, as the trial court did, that Lee failed to set

forth his sufficiency claim in his Rule 1925(b) statement and statement of

questions involved with the requisite specificity. Lee merely claimed that the

evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for EWOC; he did not

identify which element(s) the Commonwealth allegedly failed to establish. As

such, Lee waived his sufficiency claim. See Commonwealth v. Garland, 63

A.3d 339, 344 (Pa. Super. 2013) (holding sufficiency claim waived where the

Rule 1925(b) statement did not specify which element(s) the appellant was

-4- J-S26035-24

challenging). Even if Lee did not waive this issue, we would conclude that

there was sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for EWOC.

Here, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to establish that

Lee possessed the requisite intent. There was no dispute that Lee, as J.D.’s

father, knew he had a duty to protect J.D satisfying the first component.

Regarding the other two components, J.D. testified at trial as follows:

Q: [] When your father pulled up, what did you do?

A: I went out to the car and had entered it.

Q: [] Did you go into the passenger side?

A: Yes.

Q: []Did you lean down and say something to your father?

A: No, I entered the car.

Q: [] Did you fully enter the vehicle?

Q: And what happened then?

A: He had asked me where my stuff was. I said it's in the house.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI