J-S24018-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
LUIS RAMOS NUNEZ-CALDERON,
Appellant No. 893 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 30, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0001440-2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BOWES, AND MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED MARCH 04, 2016
Luis Ramos Nunez-Calderon appeals from the judgment of sentence of
life imprisonment that the trial court imposed after a jury convicted him of
first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault. We affirm.
Appellant’s convictions arise from the April 29, 2014 death of Wendy
Contreras-Hernandez. We briefly recite the pertinent facts. From
approximately May 2013 until March 2014, Ms. Contreras-Hernandez and
Appellant were involved in a romantic relationship while living in New York
City. In March 2014, Appellant and the victim moved to a rented residence
at 518 West Centre Street, Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, and ceased their
romantic involvement at some point prior to the murder. J-S24018-16
On the morning of her death, Ms. Contreras-Hernandez took her
daughter Xina to school. Shortly before noon, Nicole Brobst, a neighbor who
was familiar with Appellant and the victim, saw them together on the porch
of 518 West Centre Street. Ms. Brobst said that Appellant had Ms.
Contreras-Hernandez pinned on the ground and then dragged her into the
residence. Walter Sadusky, who lived at 516 West Centre Street, heard the
victim screaming and saw a man place his hands around her throat and then
drag her into 518 West Centre Street. Shenandoah Borough Police were
dispatched to 518 West Centre Street for a domestic dispute. They left after
they were unable to contact anyone at that location.
The victim’s neighbor and the manager of her residence, Lydia
Contreras, was contacted by the school when Xina was not retrieved at the
end of the day. Ms. Contreras picked up Xina, went to 518 West Centre
Street, and entered it with a key. Ms. Contreras discovered Ms. Contreras-
Hernandez’s body lying in a pool of blood in the bathroom. Her throat had
been slit with a knife, and she had defensive wounds on her hands.
In the meantime, Appellant had fled to New York City. Police
ascertained Appellant’s whereabouts using his cellular telephone. He was
arrested and transported to the New York Central Court Building in
Manhattan at approximately 6:00 p.m. on April 30, 2014. State Troopers
Melissa Kyper and Eric Schaeffer arrived to retrieve Appellant at 11:00 p.m.
Upon their arrival at the police station, those troopers secured the services
-2- J-S24018-16
of Adelis Acosta, who worked for the Manhattan Criminal Court in Central
Booking, Manhattan. Ms. Acosta was employed as a Spanish/English
interviewer for purposes of determining whether a detainee could be
released on his own recognizance in lieu of posting bail. In that capacity,
she interviewed arrestees who spoke Spanish and helped them complete an
intake form. Ms. Acosta spoke both Spanish and English fluently, was not
acquainted with Appellant, and did not know why he was being held.
Since Appellant did not understand English, Ms. Acosta disseminated
the Miranda warnings to him in Spanish, and Appellant executed a written
waiver of his rights.1 He thereafter confessed to the murder, telling police
the following. On the day in question, Appellant and Ms. Contreras-
Hernandez were no longer living together but he came from New York City
to visit her. The victim told Appellant that she had a protection from abuse
order against him. Appellant became convinced that Ms. Contreras-
Hernandez was trying to steer him toward the front windows so that he
could be viewed by neighbors and arrested for violating the order.
Ms. Contreras-Hernandez and Appellant began to argue, and she fled
to the porch and started screaming. Appellant hit, bit, and then choked Ms. ____________________________________________
1 In his brief, Appellant represents that Ms. Acosta testified at trial that Appellant was told by the troopers that “the information he gave would be private or confidential[.]” Appellant’s brief at 5. However, Ms. Acosta stated at trial, “I don’t remember if the term private or confidential was used at the time” that Appellant was interviewed. N.T. Trial (Vol.1), 4/27-30/15, at 336.
-3- J-S24018-16
Contreras-Hernandez so that she would stop yelling. After the victim
became unconscious, Appellant dragged her inside the residence and carried
her into the bathroom. Ms. Contreras-Hernandez regained consciousness
and attempted to speak and stand up.
Appellant told police that “he already knew that he was in trouble and
Wendy was half dead already. So he went down to the kitchen and got a
knife. He retrieved the knife, came back up the steps back into the
bathroom, and he sliced her throat.” N.T. Trial (Vol.1), 4/27-30/15, at 350-
51. Appellant blamed the victim for the entire incident, telling police that he
would not have had to kill her if she had not run outside and screamed.
Appellant also told police that the knife that he used as the murder weapon
could be found in the victim’s closet on the top shelf. State police recovered
that item in the described location, and Appellant’s DNA was discovered on
the blade.
In this appeal, Appellant raises a challenge to the trial court’s denial of
his pre-trial motion to suppress his confession: “Did the court err in failing to
suppress the defendant’s oral statement given to the Pennsylvania State
Police while he was in custody in New York City?” Appellant’s brief at 4.
This Court's standard of review of a denial of a motion to suppress
evidence is as follows:
An appellate court's standard of review in addressing a challenge to the denial of a suppression motion is limited to determining whether the suppression court's factual findings are
-4- J-S24018-16
supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Because the Commonwealth prevailed before the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole. Where the suppression court's factual findings are supported by the record, [the appellate court is] bound by [those] findings and may reverse only if the court's legal conclusions are erroneous. Where ... the appeal of the determination of the suppression court turns on allegations of legal error, the suppression court's legal conclusions are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts below are subject to plenary review.
Commonwealth v. Jones, 121 A.3d 524, 526-27 (2015) (citation omitted).
Whether a confession is voluntary is a question of law subject to
plenary review. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 902 A.2d 430 (Pa. 2006). In
evaluating whether a confession is voluntary, we examine the totality of the
circumstances. Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S24018-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
LUIS RAMOS NUNEZ-CALDERON,
Appellant No. 893 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 30, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0001440-2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BOWES, AND MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED MARCH 04, 2016
Luis Ramos Nunez-Calderon appeals from the judgment of sentence of
life imprisonment that the trial court imposed after a jury convicted him of
first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault. We affirm.
Appellant’s convictions arise from the April 29, 2014 death of Wendy
Contreras-Hernandez. We briefly recite the pertinent facts. From
approximately May 2013 until March 2014, Ms. Contreras-Hernandez and
Appellant were involved in a romantic relationship while living in New York
City. In March 2014, Appellant and the victim moved to a rented residence
at 518 West Centre Street, Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, and ceased their
romantic involvement at some point prior to the murder. J-S24018-16
On the morning of her death, Ms. Contreras-Hernandez took her
daughter Xina to school. Shortly before noon, Nicole Brobst, a neighbor who
was familiar with Appellant and the victim, saw them together on the porch
of 518 West Centre Street. Ms. Brobst said that Appellant had Ms.
Contreras-Hernandez pinned on the ground and then dragged her into the
residence. Walter Sadusky, who lived at 516 West Centre Street, heard the
victim screaming and saw a man place his hands around her throat and then
drag her into 518 West Centre Street. Shenandoah Borough Police were
dispatched to 518 West Centre Street for a domestic dispute. They left after
they were unable to contact anyone at that location.
The victim’s neighbor and the manager of her residence, Lydia
Contreras, was contacted by the school when Xina was not retrieved at the
end of the day. Ms. Contreras picked up Xina, went to 518 West Centre
Street, and entered it with a key. Ms. Contreras discovered Ms. Contreras-
Hernandez’s body lying in a pool of blood in the bathroom. Her throat had
been slit with a knife, and she had defensive wounds on her hands.
In the meantime, Appellant had fled to New York City. Police
ascertained Appellant’s whereabouts using his cellular telephone. He was
arrested and transported to the New York Central Court Building in
Manhattan at approximately 6:00 p.m. on April 30, 2014. State Troopers
Melissa Kyper and Eric Schaeffer arrived to retrieve Appellant at 11:00 p.m.
Upon their arrival at the police station, those troopers secured the services
-2- J-S24018-16
of Adelis Acosta, who worked for the Manhattan Criminal Court in Central
Booking, Manhattan. Ms. Acosta was employed as a Spanish/English
interviewer for purposes of determining whether a detainee could be
released on his own recognizance in lieu of posting bail. In that capacity,
she interviewed arrestees who spoke Spanish and helped them complete an
intake form. Ms. Acosta spoke both Spanish and English fluently, was not
acquainted with Appellant, and did not know why he was being held.
Since Appellant did not understand English, Ms. Acosta disseminated
the Miranda warnings to him in Spanish, and Appellant executed a written
waiver of his rights.1 He thereafter confessed to the murder, telling police
the following. On the day in question, Appellant and Ms. Contreras-
Hernandez were no longer living together but he came from New York City
to visit her. The victim told Appellant that she had a protection from abuse
order against him. Appellant became convinced that Ms. Contreras-
Hernandez was trying to steer him toward the front windows so that he
could be viewed by neighbors and arrested for violating the order.
Ms. Contreras-Hernandez and Appellant began to argue, and she fled
to the porch and started screaming. Appellant hit, bit, and then choked Ms. ____________________________________________
1 In his brief, Appellant represents that Ms. Acosta testified at trial that Appellant was told by the troopers that “the information he gave would be private or confidential[.]” Appellant’s brief at 5. However, Ms. Acosta stated at trial, “I don’t remember if the term private or confidential was used at the time” that Appellant was interviewed. N.T. Trial (Vol.1), 4/27-30/15, at 336.
-3- J-S24018-16
Contreras-Hernandez so that she would stop yelling. After the victim
became unconscious, Appellant dragged her inside the residence and carried
her into the bathroom. Ms. Contreras-Hernandez regained consciousness
and attempted to speak and stand up.
Appellant told police that “he already knew that he was in trouble and
Wendy was half dead already. So he went down to the kitchen and got a
knife. He retrieved the knife, came back up the steps back into the
bathroom, and he sliced her throat.” N.T. Trial (Vol.1), 4/27-30/15, at 350-
51. Appellant blamed the victim for the entire incident, telling police that he
would not have had to kill her if she had not run outside and screamed.
Appellant also told police that the knife that he used as the murder weapon
could be found in the victim’s closet on the top shelf. State police recovered
that item in the described location, and Appellant’s DNA was discovered on
the blade.
In this appeal, Appellant raises a challenge to the trial court’s denial of
his pre-trial motion to suppress his confession: “Did the court err in failing to
suppress the defendant’s oral statement given to the Pennsylvania State
Police while he was in custody in New York City?” Appellant’s brief at 4.
This Court's standard of review of a denial of a motion to suppress
evidence is as follows:
An appellate court's standard of review in addressing a challenge to the denial of a suppression motion is limited to determining whether the suppression court's factual findings are
-4- J-S24018-16
supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Because the Commonwealth prevailed before the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole. Where the suppression court's factual findings are supported by the record, [the appellate court is] bound by [those] findings and may reverse only if the court's legal conclusions are erroneous. Where ... the appeal of the determination of the suppression court turns on allegations of legal error, the suppression court's legal conclusions are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts below are subject to plenary review.
Commonwealth v. Jones, 121 A.3d 524, 526-27 (2015) (citation omitted).
Whether a confession is voluntary is a question of law subject to
plenary review. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 902 A.2d 430 (Pa. 2006). In
evaluating whether a confession is voluntary, we examine the totality of the
circumstances. Id.
The determination of whether a defendant has validly waived his Miranda rights depends upon a two-prong analysis: (1) whether the waiver was voluntary, in the sense that defendant's choice was not the end result of governmental pressure, and (2) whether the waiver was knowing and intelligent, in the sense that it was made with full comprehension of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequence of that choice.
Id. at 451.
Appellant first asserts that his confession was involuntary because he
did not understand English. Appellant’s brief at 7. However, Ms. Acosta,
who spoke fluent Spanish and English, gave Appellant his Miranda warnings
in Spanish. Appellant never complained that he did not understand Ms.
-5- J-S24018-16
Acosta, who translated the interview questions and answers. Ms. Acosta
testified at the suppression hearing that Appellant told her that he was “fine”
with her interpretation during the interview and that they were both from
the Dominican Republic. N.T. Suppression Hearing, 3/6/15, at 24. Thus,
this challenge to the knowing and voluntary nature of his confession fails.
Appellant next makes a series of factual assertions. Appellant notes
that he “was not asked to review, at any point, anything he allegedly said.
None of the interview was visually or audio recorded. Sections of what was
allegedly asked and the responses of the Defendant in the summary were
left blank.”2 Appellant’s brief at 7. Appellant provides no case authority to
support a proposition that a defendant must review his confession. The law
does not require that a confession be recorded. Commonwealth v. Craft,
669 A.2d 394 (Pa. 1995). The fact that a police officer did not take detailed
notes of a question does not render the answer thereto involuntary.
A confession is voluntary when a defendant knowingly waived his
constitutional rights and if he was not pressured into make the confession. ____________________________________________
2 This final statement pertains to the fact that the contents of Appellant’s confession were outlined in notes by Trooper Kyper. Contrary to Appellant’s position on appeal, Trooper Kyper never said that there were blank spaces in her notes about what Appellant told her. Rather, that witness testified that she did not transcribe in detail her questions. She explained that she did not need to write down the entire content of what she asked because she knew where she was going at each point in the interview based upon Appellant’s answers and could remember the questions. N.T. Trial (Vol. I), 4/27-30/15, at 431-434.
-6- J-S24018-16
Appellant was given his Miranda warnings in Spanish, and he executed a
written waiver of those rights. The suppression court also made the
following findings, which were supported by the record. The two state
troopers were calm during the interview and never raised their voices.
Neither Trooper Kyper nor Trooper Schaeffer threatened Appellant or
promised him anything. Appellant remained calm and answered questions
coherently until he began to detail slicing the victim’s throat, when he
started to cry. Hence, there is no basis upon which to overturn the
suppression court’s determination that Appellant’s confession was voluntarily
and knowingly given.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 3/4/2016
-7-