Com. v. Sadowski, N.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 25, 2024
• Docket: 37 WDM 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-M03002-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : NOAH STORM SADOWSKI : : Petitioner : No. 37 WDM 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered April 25, 2024, In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No.: CP-02-MD-0002169-2024

JUDGMENT ORDER PER CURIAM: FILED: July 25, 2024

Petitioner, Noah Storm Sadowski, filed a “Petition for Specialized Review

Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1610” (“Petition”), seeking review of the April 25, 2024

order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, which denied

Sadowski bail. Upon review, we reverse and remand to the trial court.1

Sadowski was charged with 32 counts, including burglary, robbery,

aggravated assault, kidnapping, strangulation, conspiracy, and other related

offenses.2 A bail hearing was held on April 15, 2024. The Commonwealth

presented the trial court with the affidavit of probable cause as its sole piece

of evidence. The defense provided nine letters submitted on Sadowski’s ____________________________________________

1 We are required to review the merits of the trial court’s decision to deny bail.

See In the Int. of N.E.M., 311 A.3d 1088 (Pa. 2024).

2 Despite the heinousness of Sadowski’s offenses, bail is not proscribed. See Pa. Const. art. I, § 14; Pa.R.Crim.P. 520(A). See also Commonwealth v. Talley, 265 A.3d 485, 525-26 (Pa. 2021) (analyzing defendant’s right to bail pursuant to Pennsylvania Constitution). J-M03002-24

behalf, and testimony from Sadowski’s witnesses. The Commonwealth

presented no witnesses and declined to cross-examine Sadowski’s witnesses

at that time.

On April 25, 2024, the trial court reconvened the proceedings and

incorporated the record from the April 15, 2024 hearing. The trial court was

provided additional documents by the Commonwealth in the form of: a

behavior clinic report; two photographs supplied by the alleged victim

detailing her injuries; and a letter from the alleged victim that the

Commonwealth read. No witnesses testified at the April 25, 2024 hearing. At

the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court entered an order denying

Sadowski’s request for bail.

Sadowski filed the instant Petition in this Court on May 21, 2024. The

Commonwealth filed a response on June 10, 2024.

This Court reviews orders denying bail for an abuse of discretion, and

this Court’s scope of review is limited to the record evidence adduced at the

bail hearing and the findings of the lower court, reviewed in the light most

favorable to the prevailing party. See Talley, 265 A.3d at 527;

Commonwealth v. Bishop, 829 A.2d 1170, 1172 (Pa. Super. 2003).

In Talley, our Supreme Court held that “an affidavit of probable cause

simply is not conducive to assessing the persuasiveness of the

Commonwealth’s case under the [substantially more likely than not

standard].” Talley, 265 A.3d at 527-28. Thus, the Talley Court concluded

that the trial court erred when it denied bail solely on the affidavit of probable

-2- J-M03002-24

cause and a proffer by the Commonwealth, as neither of these constituted

legally competent evidence to satisfy the “substantially more likely than not”

standard. Id. at 528.

In the matter sub judice, the trial court denied bail due to the serious

nature of the charges, the strength of the Commonwealth’s case, the

potential penalties, the alleged victim’s statement, and a determination that

partial electronic monitoring would not ease any fear or anxiety by the alleged

victim because it does nothing more than send an alert that Sadowski is

presumptively not at the assigned location.

Sadowski argues that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden

because the Commonwealth did not present any testimony at the bail

hearings, instead providing the Court with only a letter written by the alleged

victim, a reference to the charges, and two photographs provided by the

alleged victim. We agree. This Court’s scope of review is limited to the record

evidence from the bail hearing, and the evidence presented by the

Commonwealth failed to establish it was substantially more likely than not

that Sadowski presents a danger to any person and the community, which

cannot be abated using any available bail conditions, especially when we

remove the affidavit of probable cause from consideration, as we must. See

Talley, 265 A.3d at 528 (merely relying on the affidavit of probable cause and

a proffer of evidence is insufficient to satisfy the substantially more likely than

not standard).

-3- J-M03002-24

The Commonwealth failed to call any witnesses or cross-examine any of

the defense witnesses at either bail proceeding in the trial court. Moreover,

the Commonwealth did not present any evidence regarding several of the

factors set forth in Talley and Pa.R.Crim.P. 523. Instead, similar to Talley,

the Commonwealth attempted to satisfy its burden that it is “substantially

more likely than not” that Sadowski presents a danger to the community by

merely relying on the affidavit of probable cause and a written statement from

the alleged victim. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in denying

Sadowski bail.

Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the trial court to enter an order

granting Sadowski’s motion for bail pursuant to any conditions of bail imposed

as permitted by law. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 520–36.

Order reversed. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction

relinquished.

DATE: 07/25/2024

-4-