J-S16035-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.S., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: M.S., MINOR : : : : : No. 2045 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered June 29, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-JV-0000368-2021
BEFORE: STABILE, J., LANE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 31, 2024
Appellant, M.S., a minor, appeals from the dispositional order entered
on June 29, 2023, placing him on probation following his adjudication of
delinquency on two counts of aggravated indecent assault and two counts of
indecent assault.1 After a careful review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: On December
21, 2021, West Whiteland Township Police Detective Michael Buchman filed
written allegations against Appellant for two counts of aggravated indecent
assault and two counts of indecent assault. Therein, Detective Buchman
indicated that, on December 2, 2021, the minor victim, V.K., arrived at the
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3125 and 3126, respectively, J-S16035-24
police station and reported that, on November 26, 2021, she had been
sexually assaulted by Appellant in her living room. On March 7, 2022, the
Commonwealth filed a delinquency petition under the Juvenile Act, 42
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301–6357, against Appellant charging him with the
aforementioned offenses.
On June 8, 2022, following a hearing, the juvenile court filed an
adjudicatory hearing order. Therein, the juvenile court indicated that “[t]he
Juvenile has not admitted to any of the offenses alleged in the petition.” Order,
filed 6/8/22, at 1. The juvenile court indicated the matter would proceed to a
formal adjudicatory hearing, and on February 16 and 17, 2023, the juvenile
court held a formal hearing at which V.K. testified. Appellant, represented by
counsel, testified in his defense, and he offered a version of events, which was
substantially contrary to V.K.’s version.
On February 21, 2023, after the formal hearing, the juvenile court filed
an adjudicatory hearing order indicating the “Commonwealth has met its
burden” and holding Appellant had committed the delinquent acts alleged in
the Commonwealth’s petition. Order, filed 2/21/23, at 2. The juvenile court
deferred the determination of whether Appellant was in need of treatment,
supervision, or rehabilitation.
On April 28, 2022, Appellant proceeded to a hearing. In light of the
juvenile court’s determination that the Commonwealth had met its burden of
proving Appellant committed the delinquent acts, Appellant’s counsel
-2- J-S16035-24
indicated he would not dispute that Appellant was in need of treatment,
supervision, or rehabilitation. N.T., 4/28/22, at 2-3. By order entered on May
1, 2023, the juvenile court filed an order indicating “[t]he Juvenile is in need
of treatment, supervision or rehabilitation.” Order, filed 4/26/23, at 1. The
matter proceeded to a dispositional hearing on June 29, 2023, and the juvenile
court filed an order that same day placing Appellant on formal probation with
various conditions. Represented by newly retained counsel, Appellant filed
the instant timely appeal.
On appeal, Appellant sets forth the following issues in his “Statement of
Questions Presented” (verbatim):
1. Was M.S.’s admission knowing, voluntary, and intelligent? 2. Was the record sufficient for the juvenile court to determine that M.S. needed treatment, supervision, and rehabilitation?
Appellant’s Brief at 2 (answers omitted).
In his first issue, Appellant contends the juvenile court erred in failing
to abide by the requirements of Pa.R.J.C.P. 407(A)(1).2 Aside from quoting
Rule 407 and its Comment, Appellant’s entire appellate argument is as follows:
2 The Rule relevantly provides:
Rule 407. Admissions. A. Admissions. At any time after a petition is filed, the juvenile may tender an admission to some or all of the delinquent acts charged. (1) Requirements. (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3- J-S16035-24
The juvenile court erred and abused its discretion in determining that [Appellant’s] admission was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Therefore, this Court should vacate the dispositional order, reverse the adjudication of delinquency, and remand the case. Under Pa.R.J.C.P. 407(A)(1), a juvenile court must determine on the record whether a juvenile’s admission is tendered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily by conducting an independent inquiry. *** Here, the juvenile court erred under Rule 407 because the record does not indicate that the court conducted a sufficient independent inquiry to support its determination that [Appellant’s] admission was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Therefore, this Court should vacate the dispositional order, reverse the adjudication of delinquency, and remand the case.
Appellant’s Brief at 5-7.
Aside from this conclusory argument, Appellant has failed to develop the
argument on appeal. Initially, we note Appellant has not referenced that place
in the record where he made admissions, the juvenile court conducted an
independent inquiry, or Appellant objected to the alleged deficient inquiry.
(a) Before the court can accept an admission, the court shall determine that the admission is knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Pa.R.J.C.P. 407(A)(1)(a) (emphasis in original). Pa.R.J.C.P. 407(A)(1)(c) provides that, when the juvenile tenders an admission under Rule 407(A)(1)(a), the juvenile court shall conduct an independent inquiry to determine the juvenile’s understanding of five areas of concern. Pa.R.J.C.P. 407(A)(1)(c)(i)-(v).
-4- J-S16035-24
It is well-settled that an appellant must point to that place in the record
where issues have been preserved. See Pa.R.A.P. 2117(c),3 2119(e).
Further, it is well-settled that an appellant must set forth citations to the place
in the record where the matter referred to appears, as well as develop the
issue with citation to relevant authorities. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b), (c). Here,
Appellant has not set forth where he made an alleged admission, which would
fall under the auspices of Pa.R.J.C.P. 407(A)(1), or where the juvenile court
conducted its inquiry. Further, aside from quoting Pa.R.J.C.P. 407 and its
Comment, Appellant has failed to cite any relevant authority analyzing his
claim. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b).
Simply put, particularly given that the juvenile court held a formal
hearing at which Appellant specifically contended he did not commit “some or
all of the delinquent acts charged,” Appellant has failed to explain how Rule
3 Notably, Pa.R.A.P. 2117 sets forth the requirements for the “Statement of
the Case” in an appellant’s brief. Specifically, the Rule provides that the “Statement of the Case” must include, inter alia, a brief procedural history, a condensed chronological statement of facts, and a statement of the place raising or preserving issues. See Pa.R.A.P. 2117. In the case sub judice, Appellant’s entire “Statement of the Case” is as follows (verbatim): M.S. was arrested and charged with two counts1 of aggravated indecent assault and two counts2 of indecent assault. The juvenile court adjudicated him delinquent and placed him on probation. 1 18 PA. Cons. Stat. § 3125(A)(1) and (4). 2 18 PA. Cons. Stat.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S16035-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.S., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: M.S., MINOR : : : : : No. 2045 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered June 29, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-JV-0000368-2021
BEFORE: STABILE, J., LANE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 31, 2024
Appellant, M.S., a minor, appeals from the dispositional order entered
on June 29, 2023, placing him on probation following his adjudication of
delinquency on two counts of aggravated indecent assault and two counts of
indecent assault.1 After a careful review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: On December
21, 2021, West Whiteland Township Police Detective Michael Buchman filed
written allegations against Appellant for two counts of aggravated indecent
assault and two counts of indecent assault. Therein, Detective Buchman
indicated that, on December 2, 2021, the minor victim, V.K., arrived at the
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3125 and 3126, respectively, J-S16035-24
police station and reported that, on November 26, 2021, she had been
sexually assaulted by Appellant in her living room. On March 7, 2022, the
Commonwealth filed a delinquency petition under the Juvenile Act, 42
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301–6357, against Appellant charging him with the
aforementioned offenses.
On June 8, 2022, following a hearing, the juvenile court filed an
adjudicatory hearing order. Therein, the juvenile court indicated that “[t]he
Juvenile has not admitted to any of the offenses alleged in the petition.” Order,
filed 6/8/22, at 1. The juvenile court indicated the matter would proceed to a
formal adjudicatory hearing, and on February 16 and 17, 2023, the juvenile
court held a formal hearing at which V.K. testified. Appellant, represented by
counsel, testified in his defense, and he offered a version of events, which was
substantially contrary to V.K.’s version.
On February 21, 2023, after the formal hearing, the juvenile court filed
an adjudicatory hearing order indicating the “Commonwealth has met its
burden” and holding Appellant had committed the delinquent acts alleged in
the Commonwealth’s petition. Order, filed 2/21/23, at 2. The juvenile court
deferred the determination of whether Appellant was in need of treatment,
supervision, or rehabilitation.
On April 28, 2022, Appellant proceeded to a hearing. In light of the
juvenile court’s determination that the Commonwealth had met its burden of
proving Appellant committed the delinquent acts, Appellant’s counsel
-2- J-S16035-24
indicated he would not dispute that Appellant was in need of treatment,
supervision, or rehabilitation. N.T., 4/28/22, at 2-3. By order entered on May
1, 2023, the juvenile court filed an order indicating “[t]he Juvenile is in need
of treatment, supervision or rehabilitation.” Order, filed 4/26/23, at 1. The
matter proceeded to a dispositional hearing on June 29, 2023, and the juvenile
court filed an order that same day placing Appellant on formal probation with
various conditions. Represented by newly retained counsel, Appellant filed
the instant timely appeal.
On appeal, Appellant sets forth the following issues in his “Statement of
Questions Presented” (verbatim):
1. Was M.S.’s admission knowing, voluntary, and intelligent? 2. Was the record sufficient for the juvenile court to determine that M.S. needed treatment, supervision, and rehabilitation?
Appellant’s Brief at 2 (answers omitted).
In his first issue, Appellant contends the juvenile court erred in failing
to abide by the requirements of Pa.R.J.C.P. 407(A)(1).2 Aside from quoting
Rule 407 and its Comment, Appellant’s entire appellate argument is as follows:
2 The Rule relevantly provides:
Rule 407. Admissions. A. Admissions. At any time after a petition is filed, the juvenile may tender an admission to some or all of the delinquent acts charged. (1) Requirements. (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3- J-S16035-24
The juvenile court erred and abused its discretion in determining that [Appellant’s] admission was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Therefore, this Court should vacate the dispositional order, reverse the adjudication of delinquency, and remand the case. Under Pa.R.J.C.P. 407(A)(1), a juvenile court must determine on the record whether a juvenile’s admission is tendered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily by conducting an independent inquiry. *** Here, the juvenile court erred under Rule 407 because the record does not indicate that the court conducted a sufficient independent inquiry to support its determination that [Appellant’s] admission was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Therefore, this Court should vacate the dispositional order, reverse the adjudication of delinquency, and remand the case.
Appellant’s Brief at 5-7.
Aside from this conclusory argument, Appellant has failed to develop the
argument on appeal. Initially, we note Appellant has not referenced that place
in the record where he made admissions, the juvenile court conducted an
independent inquiry, or Appellant objected to the alleged deficient inquiry.
(a) Before the court can accept an admission, the court shall determine that the admission is knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Pa.R.J.C.P. 407(A)(1)(a) (emphasis in original). Pa.R.J.C.P. 407(A)(1)(c) provides that, when the juvenile tenders an admission under Rule 407(A)(1)(a), the juvenile court shall conduct an independent inquiry to determine the juvenile’s understanding of five areas of concern. Pa.R.J.C.P. 407(A)(1)(c)(i)-(v).
-4- J-S16035-24
It is well-settled that an appellant must point to that place in the record
where issues have been preserved. See Pa.R.A.P. 2117(c),3 2119(e).
Further, it is well-settled that an appellant must set forth citations to the place
in the record where the matter referred to appears, as well as develop the
issue with citation to relevant authorities. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b), (c). Here,
Appellant has not set forth where he made an alleged admission, which would
fall under the auspices of Pa.R.J.C.P. 407(A)(1), or where the juvenile court
conducted its inquiry. Further, aside from quoting Pa.R.J.C.P. 407 and its
Comment, Appellant has failed to cite any relevant authority analyzing his
claim. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b).
Simply put, particularly given that the juvenile court held a formal
hearing at which Appellant specifically contended he did not commit “some or
all of the delinquent acts charged,” Appellant has failed to explain how Rule
3 Notably, Pa.R.A.P. 2117 sets forth the requirements for the “Statement of
the Case” in an appellant’s brief. Specifically, the Rule provides that the “Statement of the Case” must include, inter alia, a brief procedural history, a condensed chronological statement of facts, and a statement of the place raising or preserving issues. See Pa.R.A.P. 2117. In the case sub judice, Appellant’s entire “Statement of the Case” is as follows (verbatim): M.S. was arrested and charged with two counts1 of aggravated indecent assault and two counts2 of indecent assault. The juvenile court adjudicated him delinquent and placed him on probation. 1 18 PA. Cons. Stat. § 3125(A)(1) and (4). 2 18 PA. Cons. Stat. § 3126(A)(1) and (4). Appellant’s Brief at 3 (footnotes in original). As is evident, Appellant’s “Statement of the Case” sheds no meaningful light on Appellant’s issues.
-5- J-S16035-24
407 is applicable to his case.4 Also, to the extent the juvenile court was
required to conduct an independent inquiry under Rule 407(A)(1)(c)(i)-(v),
Appellant has not explained in what manner the juvenile court’s independent
inquiry was deficient. Simply put, aside from contending the juvenile court
erred in failing to abide by Rule 407(A)(1), Appellant has not developed his
argument in any meaningful fashion. It is not this Court’s duty to develop
arguments for an appellant. See Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766
(Pa.Super. 2007). Thus, we decline to address this issue further.
In his second issue, Appellant contends the juvenile court erred in
finding he was in need of treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation.
Specifically, Appellant contends that, since the juvenile court did not conduct
an independent inquiry when he entered an admission to some or all of the
4 The Juvenile Act relevantly provides that “[f]irst, the court is to hold an adjudicatory hearing, governed by Rule 406 or receive an admission from the juvenile of the allegations, governed by Rule 407.” Pa.R.J.C.P. 401. As indicated supra, in the case sub judice, the juvenile court held an adjudicatory hearing in accordance with Rule 406. “Second, after hearing the evidence or receiving an admission, the court is to rule on the offenses pursuant to Rule 408, stating with particularity the grading and counts of each offense.” Pa.R.J.C.P. 401. Here, the juvenile court ruled the Commonwealth met its burden, as well as stated the grading and counts. “Third, after ruling on the offenses or entering its findings, the court is to determine if the juvenile is in need of treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation pursuant to Rule 409.” Pa.R.J.C.P. 401. Here, Appellant’s counsel did not dispute that Appellant was in need of treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation, and the juvenile court so held. The juvenile court then held a dispositional hearing as provided for in Rule 512 and entered a dispositional order pursuant to Rule 515.
-6- J-S16035-24
delinquent acts, there was no lawful reason for the juvenile court to find that
he was in need of treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation.
As is evident, Appellant’s second issue is premised on this Court finding
merit to his first issue. However, as indicated supra, Appellant has not
adequately developed an argument in support of his first issue. Accordingly,
we decline to address this issue further.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
Order affirmed.
Date: 5/31/2024
-7-