Com. v. Saunders, M.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: February 7, 2025
• Docket: 93 WDM 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-M01003-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MICHAEL G. SAUNDERS : : Petitioner : No. 93 WDM 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered November 12, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-10-MD-0000661-2024

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED: February 7, 2025

Michael G. Saunders (“Saunders”) filed a petition for specialized review

of the November 12, 2024 order of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas

(“trial court”) denying his motion for modification of bail. See Pa.R.A.P. 1610

(providing “for specialized review in the appellate court that would have

jurisdiction over the appeal from the judgment of sentence” of an order

“granting or denying release or modifying the conditions of release before

sentence”); see also Pa.Rs.Crim.P. 529, 1762(b)(2). Saunders contends that

the bail condition prohibiting his contact with “any other minors” (not only the

alleged minor victim in this matter) violates his constitutional rights to be free

from excessive bail under the Eighth Amendment to the United States J-M01003-25

Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution,1 as well

as his freedom of association under the First Amendment to the United States

Constitution and Article I, Section 20 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. 2 See

Bail Release Conditions Order, 10/1/2024. After careful review, we find no

abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision and therefore affirm.

The record reflects that in the matter presently before this Court,

Saunders was charged on October 1, 2024, with corruption of minors

(defendant over eighteen) and indecent assault (person less than sixteen).3

See Criminal Docket, MJ-50303-CR-0000115-2024, at 2; Petition, Exhibit A.

At that time, Saunders was separately awaiting trial on a separate incident

involving a minor victim on charges of rape of a child, aggravated indecent

assault without consent, aggravated indecent assault (complainant less than

thirteen), aggravated indecent assault (complainant less than sixteen),

aggravated indecent assault of a child, indecent assault without consent,

indecent assault (person less than thirteen), indecent assault (person less

____________________________________________

1 Both the Eighth Amendment and Article I, Section 13 provide, in pertinent part: “Excessive bail shall not be required[.]” U.S. CONST. amend. VIII.; PA. CONST. art. I, § 13.

2 The First Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting any law that, in relevant part, abridges “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” U.S. CONST. amend. I. Its counterpart in the Pennsylvania charter provides: “The citizens have a right in a peaceable manner to assemble together for their common good[.]” PA. CONST. art. I, § 20.

3 18 Pa.C.S. §§6301(a)(1)(ii), 3126(a)(8).

-2- J-M01003-25

than sixteen), indecent exposure, and corruption of minors (defendant over

eighteen).4 See Criminal Docket, CP-10-CR-0001120-2024, at 2; Petition,

Exhibit C; see also Trial Court’s Statement of Reasons, 12/27/2024, at 1 n.1.

On October 1, 2023, the Magisterial District Judge entered an order

granting Saunders bail and, in relevant, part, included the following conditions

of his release:

No Contact - No contact with juvenile victim J8 or their family.

No contact with any other minors.

Pre-Trial Supervision - Defendant to be released directly to Adult Probation only. Pre[-]Trial Supervision along with Electronic Monitoring (Ref CR-111-24) prior Electronic Monitoring.

Bail Release Conditions Order, 10/1/2024. On October 9, 2024, Saunders

filed a motion for modification of bail pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 529 (governing

modification of bail prior to verdict). Therein, he sought to remove the

condition that prohibited his contact with “any other minors,” asserting that

this provision was unenforceable because it prohibited him from participating

in necessary activities of life (working, shopping, attending religious services,

and the like) because he could have incidental contact with minors, it did not

allow him to attend family functions, and it stopped him from seeing his

grandchildren. Motion to Modify Bail, 10/9/2024, ¶¶ 7-11. In his view, “[t]he

condition that he have no contact with the alleged victim, or the alleged

4 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3121(c), 3125 (a)(1), (7), (8), 3126(a)(1), (7), (8), 3127(a),

6301(a)(1)(ii).

-3- J-M01003-25

victim’s family, is sufficient to ensure his appearance and protect the

community.” Id. ¶ 12.

He raised these same claims at oral argument on the motion. N.T.,

11/8/2024, at 2-3. Though recognizing the “serious charges” he was facing,

he asserted that prohibiting him from contacting minors was excessive and

unnecessary. Id. at 3. The Commonwealth disagreed, noting that this is not

his only alleged criminal activity involving sexual conduct with a child, and

that these other charges had a separate victim. Id. at 3-4. The

Commonwealth took the position that the condition prohibiting contact with

any minor was not only appropriate, it was necessary to ensure the safety of

the community:

I don’t feel that the Commonwealth can ensure the safety of the community without this condition. While I do understand that it does put a hardship on [Saunders], certainly a higher bail and incarceration could also ensure that. For [Saunders] to say it’s an undue burden for him to have to stay away from minors is concerning to the Commonwealth, quite frankly. If he sees a minor child, he walks the other direction. No, he cannot attend family functions. He is essentially on house arrest because he is on electronic monitoring. He does have to stay away from minors; it just takes a couple of minutes for these types of crimes to be committed, and the Commonwealth cannot ensure the safety of the community without this condition.

* * *

[H]e can still go to church; he can’t sit near any minors. He can still go to the grocery store; he can’t be near a minor. He would have to go the opposite direction. I understand it’s inconvenient, but it’s certainly not impossible.

Id. at 4-5.

-4- J-M01003-25

The trial court took the matter under advisement and ultimately denied

the motion in an order issued on November 12, 2024. Saunders filed a petition

for specialized review with this Court on December 11, 2024. See

Commonwealth v. Miller, 319 A.3d 575, 580 (Pa. Super. 2024) (if a

petitioner meets the requirements for specialized review, this Court’s review

of a bail order is mandatory). Following our December 13, 2024 Order

directing the Commonwealth and the trial court to file responses in accordance

with Rule 1762(e), the Commonwealth filed an answer in opposition to bail

modification on December 20, 2024 and the trial court issued its statement of

reasons in support of its denial of modification on December 27, 2024.

In its statement of reasons submitted to this Court, the trial court

asserts that the condition prohibiting Saunders from having contact with any

minor is both appropriate under Rule 527 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal

Procedure (addressing nonmonetary conditions of bail) and necessary to

protect the public. Trial Court’s Statement of Reasons, 12/27/2024, at 2-3

(citing Commonwealth v. Sloan, 907 A.2d 460, 468 (Pa. 2006)). The court

finds Saunders’ claim that the condition is “per se unconstitutional” to be

entirely meritless, as “such conditions are routinely applied to sex offenders

on parole or probation. Id. at 3 (citing Commonwealth v. Blango, 327 A.3d

670 (Pa. Super. 2024)). Although implicitly recognizing the inconvenience of

the order as it relates to Saunders carrying out his daily activities, the trial

-5- J-M01003-25

court found that it was not insurmountable and was necessary to ensure the

safety of the community. Id. at 4.

As stated above, Saunders raises two constitutionally based claims in

his petition for specialized review before this Court: that the condition of

release prohibiting his contact with any minors violates his right to be free

from excessive bail and his right to intimate associations under both the

Federal and Pennsylvania Constitutions. Petition, 12/11/2024, at 4-10

(pagination added). In support of his excessiveness claim, he cites a non-

precedential decision from the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania stating that to pass constitutional muster, bail conditions must

be “reasonable in light of the compelling interests of the Commonwealth[.]”

Id. at 5-6 (citing U.S. ex rel. Savitz v. Gallagher, 800 F. Supp. 228, 233

(E.D. Pa. 1992)). He contends that prohibiting his contact with minors serves

no interest of the Commonwealth, as he is already on electronic monitoring,

which “adequately addresses any safety concerns.” Id. at 6. Instead,

Saunders states that this condition serves only to limit his ability to engage in

daily activities—working, shopping, visiting with family (even when other

adults are present)—and is overly broad in violation of Rule 527, which

requires bail conditions to be reasonable and enforceable. Id. at 6-7.

Saunders’ argument in support of his right to intimate associations is

based on a single concern: “he is unable to gather with his own grandchildren.”

Id. at 10. Relying on sweeping statements of the law pertaining to the

-6- J-M01003-25

existence and importance of the federal and state right of association,

Saunders contends that the condition prohibiting his contact with minors “is

unconstitutional and must be struck down.” Id. at 9-10.

We review bail decisions for an abuse of discretion and will reverse the

trial court only if we conclude its determination “misapplies the law, or its

judgment is manifestly unreasonable, or the evidence of record shows that its

decision is a result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will.” Commonwealth

v. Miller, 319 A.3d 575, 580 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation omitted). Our scope

of review is limited to the record of the bail hearing, along with the findings of

the trial court, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the

prevailing party. Id. (citation omitted). If the trial court’s findings of fact

have record support and its legal conclusions are correct, we must affirm. Id.

(citation omitted).

Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Constitution, courts are empowered to set

conditions of bail that “will reasonably assure the safety of any person and the

community[.]” See PA. CONST. art. I, § 14; see also Sloan, 907 A.2d at 454.

Additionally, Criminal Rule 527 provides that a bail authority may, in pertinent

part, impose nonmonetary conditions of bail that are “designed to ensure the

defendant’s … compliance with the conditions of the bail bond.” Pa.R.Crim.P.

527(A)(3). The comment instructs that “the bail authority should consider

what the specific circumstances are that relate to the likelihood that the

defendant will … comply and should tailor the conditions of release for the

-7- J-M01003-25

defendant’s specific circumstances,” and further that the conditions must be

“reasonably capable of being enforced.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 527, cmt.

Saunders’ arguments fail to bridge his constitutional challenges to the

facts of this case. To the extent the trial court correctly found that he is

claiming the condition is per se unconstitutional, we dismiss that out of hand

based upon the trial court’s constitutional authority to set bail conditions for

the protection of the public. See PA. CONST. art. I, § 14.

Although Saunders baldly states in both his brief before this Court and

in his motion below that prohibiting his contact with all minors precludes him

from participating in activities necessary for his daily life, he has not provided

any support for this contention. To the contrary, as stated by the

Commonwealth and found by the trial court, while this condition is an

inconvenience, and requires that he avoid interacting with minors when he is

shopping, working, and worshiping, it does not preclude him from engaging

in any of these activities. There is a clear difference between, for example,

coincidentally being in the same store as a minor child and having “contact”

with a minor child.

Further, Saunders fails entirely to address the fact that at the time he

was charged with the sex crime against a minor in this matter, he already had

pending charges for sex crimes committed against another minor. The

prohibition against allowing him to have contact with “any other minors” was

intended to do exactly that—stop him from associating with children under the

-8- J-M01003-25

age of eighteen while he is released on bail for sex crimes committed against

two separate children in two separate incidents.

The record reflects that the court found this condition to be necessary

to protect the public; this is reasonable based upon allegations made against

Saunders as to his sexual assaults of two different minors in separate

circumstances. The trial court further found this condition will help ensure

Saunders’ compliance with the conditions of his bond, which include, inter alia,

refraining from any criminal activity while released on bail. See Bail Bond

Order, 10/1/2024.

In other words, the trial court found this condition to be reasonable in

light of Saunders’ individual facts and circumstances. As its findings are

supported by the record and its legal conclusions are sound, we find no abuse

of discretion and therefore affirm.

Order affirmed.

2/7/2025

-9-