Com. v. Matthews, J.
This text of Com. v. Matthews, J. (Com. v. Matthews, J.) 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.
Opinion
J-S32018-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOHN A. MATTHEWS : : Appellant : No. 2093 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 5, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0007400-2021
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED OCTOBER 23, 2024
Appellant, John A. Matthews, appeals from his judgment of sentence of
17-34 years’ imprisonment plus five years’ probation for rape by forcible
compulsion, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion
(“IDSI”), sexual assault, corruption of minors, and related offenses. We quash
this appeal as untimely.
The evidence adduced during Appellant’s non-jury trial was as follows.
In the spring of 2019, Appellant was living at a house in Philadelphia with his
girlfriend (the victim’s mother), her daughter (sixteen-year-old victim J.P.)
and her son. One day, J.P. got in trouble at school, and her mother and
Appellant picked her up from school early to remain at home for the rest of
the day. Because her mother was working late, J.P. was left alone with
Appellant. J-S32018-24
While alone with J.P., Appellant began asking her about what types of
punishments she should receive. J.P. suggested taking her phone away or
grounding her, but Appellant appeared unsatisfied and proposed other options
that made her very uncomfortable. First, he went through J.P.’s underwear
and made inappropriate comments. Next, he ordered her to undress and took
pictures of her. He then instructed her to assume a push-up position, applied
baby oil to her naked body and struck her three to five times with a belt.
Despite J.P.’s pleas to stop, Appellant insisted that a different punishment was
necessary. He coerced her into stating on video that she permitted him to
punish her. Appellant then proceeded to penetrate J.P. vaginally with his
penis.
After these assaults, J.P. began staying with her grandmother more
frequently. One night, J.P.’s mother and Appellant insisted that she return
home and clean her room. Appellant picked her up early the next morning.
After J.P.’s mother left for work, Appellant once again asked her what her
punishment should be. J.P. again suggested normal punishments, such as
taking away her phone. Appellant, however, again struck her three to four
times on the back with a belt and forced her to engage in sexual intercourse.
On this occasion, Appellant forced J.P. to perform oral sex.
Appellant “punished” the victim in a similar manner three to four more
times until mid-October of 2019. J.P. did not initially disclose Appellant’s
actions to anyone else because she feared the possibility of being separated
from her brother. She intended to endure the situation until her eighteenth
-2- J-S32018-24
birthday, at which point she planned to leave her mother and take care of her
brother independently. However, the emotional impact of the abuse
overwhelmed her and caused her friends and school counselor to notice that
something was wrong. On November 14, 2019, when the counselor learned
what happened to J.P., she reported Appellant to the Department of Human
Services.
On July 15, 2021, Appellant was arrested. On November 29, 2022, the
case proceeded to trial. The court found Appellant guilty of the above-
mentioned offenses and deferred sentencing pending a pre-sentence
investigation. On April 5, 2023, the date of sentencing, Appellant informed
his attorney that he would not attend sentencing without providing a valid
reason. At the sentencing hearing, a police officer testified that she conducted
an exhaustive search for Appellant’s whereabouts, checking local hospitals,
prisons, the state prison system, the PARS system, and the Medical
Examiner’s Office, all yielding negative results. N.T., 4/5/23, at 6-7. The
court then sentenced Appellant in absentia.
On June 5, 2023, two months after sentencing, Appellant was
apprehended. On July 10, 2023, Appellant filed an untimely post-sentence
motion, which the trial court denied. On July 25, 2023, the trial court sua
sponte granted Appellant leave to file a notice of appeal nunc pro tunc. On
August 9, 2023, counsel for Appellant filed a notice of appeal. Both Appellant
and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-3- J-S32018-24
In this appeal, Appellant contends that his convictions for rape, sexual
assault, simple assault, indecent assault and IDSI should have merged for
purposes of sentencing, and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his
conviction for corruption of minors. In response, the Commonwealth argues
that this appeal should be quashed due to Appellant’s failure to file a timely
appeal. We agree that the appeal must be quashed.
In Commonwealth v. Deemer, 705 A.2d 827 (Pa. 1997), the
defendant was present for trial but failed to return to court when the jury
announced its guilty verdict. He did not appear for sentencing, and the court
sentenced him in absentia. Counsel filed post-verdict motions on the
defendant’s behalf prior to sentencing as well as post-sentence motions, but
the court dismissed all motions due his fugitive status. Two months later, the
defendant was apprehended. He filed a motion to reinstate his post-verdict
motions nunc pro tunc, but the court denied this motion because the
defendant had knowingly absconded without justification. The Superior Court
affirmed, holding that the court’s refusal to reinstate the post-verdict motions
was a valid exercise of the court’s discretion.
Our Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning:
[A] returned fugitive should not benefit from his fugitive status. Courts should not take extraordinary measures, such as granting motions to reinstate post trial motions or requests to appeal nunc pro tunc, in order to accommodate fugitives who have now returned and wish to pursue post-trial measures.
Rather, a fugitive who has returned to the jurisdiction of the court should be allowed to exercise his post-trial rights in the same
-4- J-S32018-24
manner he would have done had he not become a fugitive. If he returns in time for post-trial motions, he should be allowed to file them. If he returns after the time for post-trial motions has expired, his request to file post-trial motions or to reinstate post- trial motions should be denied. If he became a fugitive between post-trial motions and an appeal and he returns before the time for appeal has expired and files an appeal, he should be allowed to appeal. If he returns after the time for filing an appeal has elapsed, his request to file an appeal should be denied.
Applying this rule to the present case, [the defendant] voluntarily absented himself from the jurisdiction and did not return within the time allowed for post-trial motions. Both lower courts were correct, therefore, in denying his motion to reinstate his post-trial motions.
Id. at 829.
In the present case, Appellant voluntarily absented himself from
sentencing and was not apprehended until two months after sentencing, one
month after the time for filing an appeal had lapsed. Thus, under Deemer,
Appellant forfeited his right to file an appeal. Id. The trial court erred by
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Matthews, J., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-matthews-j-pasuperct-2024.