Commonwealth v. Batchelor

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RAHAJAHI BATCHELOR Appellant

No. 2994 EDA 2022

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

May 14, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 30, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division at CP-46-CR-0000031-2021.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., SULLIVAN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM

BENDER, P.J.E.:

Rahajahi Batchelor (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after the juvenile court transferred his case to criminal court, where he pled guilty to more than 30 crimes.^[1] After careful consideration, we affirm.

JUVENILE HISTORY

Appellant was born on January 24, 2003. On September 28, 2020, the Commonwealth filed a delinquency petition at CP-46-JV-0000462-2020. The Commonwealth alleged that Appellant committed 179 delinquent acts involving gun trafficking. The alleged acts occurred in the summer of 2020 when Appellant was 17½ years old. On October 13, 2020, the Commonwealth filed a petition to transfer the case to criminal court.

The juvenile court held a hearing on November 24, 2020. The Commonwealth presented testimony from nine witnesses: Norristown Police Officer Carl Robinson, Jr.; Norristown Police Detective William Klinger; Philadelphia Police Officer Michael Braun; Montgomery County Detective Jeffrey Koch; SCI Camp Hill Unit Manager Lori Newsome; SCI Pine Grove Corrections Counselor Michele Powell; Montgomery County Detective Erick Echevarria; Probation Supervisor Jennifer Ugarino; and Norristown Police Lieutenant Todd Dillon. Appellant presented expert testimony from a licensed psychologist, Dr. Steven Samuel.

The juvenile court recounted the following testimony:

On October 6, 2018, an incident occurred in Norristown, Pennsylvania that resulted in [Appellant]'s arrest and charges of firearm carried by a minor and possession of a firearm that had an obliterated serial number. Officer Carl Robinson Jr. ("Ofc. Robinson") responded to a 911 call for shots fired in the area. Ofc. Robinson arrived on the scene [and] was told to be on the lookout for a black male wearing all black clothing running towards DeKalb Street. Ofc. Robinson observed this male, later identified as [Appellant], running behind … DeKalb Street. Ofc. Robinson exited his car and chased [Appellant] … to the area where [Appellant] was detained. During the pursuit[,] … Ofc. Robinson witnessed [Appellant] remove a firearm and throw it into the alleyway. After [Appellant] was detained, Ofc. Robinson returned to the alley and recovered the firearm, a 9-millimeter handgun with a live round in the chamber. The gun's serial number had been obliterated. [Appellant] admitted to having committed these delinquent acts, and he was placed in a juvenile facility….

Another incident occurred at [Appellant]'s … residence on August 10, 2020. Detective William Klinger ("Det. Klinger") responded to the scene as a result of [Appellant's] being sent to [the h]ospital due to a gunshot wound. [Appellant] stated he was taking out the trash, heard a gunshot, and the next thing he knew he was shot in the arm. … When Det. Klinger examined the pattern of the blood spots in the house where the shooting occurred and gained access to [Appellant]'s phone, it became clear that [Appellant] accidentally shot himself.

In August of 2020, Detective Jeffrey Koch ("Det. Koch") began investigating firearm paperwork that purchasers are required to fill out to purchase handguns. When [Appellant] accidentally shot himself [], Det. Koch began an investigation into a gun-trafficking organization that was operating in Montgomery County, Bucks County, and Philadelphia County. The organization was identified as a group of individuals who were purchasing numerous firearms in a short amount of time to be resold for profit, traded for other firearms, or used to arm themselves. Det. Koch identified 44 firearms purchased by the organization. Fourteen individuals (9 adults and 5 juveniles, [including Appellant]), ranging in age from 14 to 23 years old, were charged during this investigation.

Det. Koch identified [Appellant] as a member of the organization who had an integral role. [Appellant] was one of the main individuals who organized and coordinated the firearm purchases made by a member of the organization that could legally purchase firearms. Det. Koch obtained a search warrant for [Appellant]'s phone, which resulted in the identification of multiple Instagram accounts belonging to [Appellant]. From the period of July 3, 2020 to August 27, 2020, Det. Koch identified multiple individuals in the organization who purchased the 44 guns. On August 10, 2020, while the police were at [Appellant]'s residence investigating the shooting [], police recovered two (2) gun boxes which were labeled with the serial number of these guns. Police verified that these serial numbers matched two (2) of the 44 guns purchased by the organization.

Juvenile Court Opinion (JCO), 2/13/23, at 2-3 (emphasis added).

The juvenile court determined that Appellant should be tried as an adult. By order entered November 30, 2022, the juvenile court certified Appellant's case for transfer to criminal court.

CRIMINAL COURT HISTORY

On April 14, 2021, the Commonwealth filed a criminal information charging Appellant with 179 crimes. See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 2/17/23, at 3.^[2] Approximately one year later, on April 8, 2022, Appellant pled guilty to:

Corrupt Organizations (Count 1); Dealing in Proceeds of Unlawful Activities (Count 4); Criminal Use of a Communication Facility (Count 26); Illegal Transfer to an Ineligible Person (Counts 120 and 122 through 145); Criminal Conspiracy to Illegal Transfer of Firearm (Count 121); and Possession of a Firearm by a Minor (Counts 167 through 169).

Id. (footnotes omitted). The trial court deferred sentencing and directed the completion of a presentence investigation (PSI) report. N.T., 4/8/22, at 41.

Prior to sentencing, the Commonwealth filed a 37-page memorandum in which it advocated for consecutive, 5-year sentences at each count.^[3]Sentencing Memorandum, 6/29/22, at 22 (stating, "The Commonwealth does not make this request lightly. The facts of this case are particularly egregious and the impact that these crimes had was substantial and widespread."). The Commonwealth emphasized Appellant's role as "one of the masterminds or leaders behind this organization, aimed at unlawfully purchasing firearms on the streets." Id. at 4.

On June 30, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 12-24 years of incarceration, followed by 5 years' probation, "in the middle of the standard range guidelines." TCO at 13. Appellant timely filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence. The trial court denied the motion on November 7, 2022. Appellant then filed a timely appeal and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement. As noted, the juvenile and trial courts authored separate opinions.

Appellant presents two issues for review:

I. DID THE JUVENILE COURT ERR IN CERTIFYING [] APPELLANT TO ADULT COURT WHERE THE EXPERTS FOR BOTH THE COMMONWEALTH AND DEFENSE FOUND [APPELLANT] WAS AMENABLE TO TREATMENT AS A JUVENILE?

II. WAS THE SENTENCE OF TWELVE (12) TO TWENTY-FOUR (24) YEARS OF A SEVENTEEN (17) YEAR-OLD JUVENILE AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE HARSH AND EXCESSIVE, WHEN THE COURT FOUND [] APPELLANT WAS NOT A SOPHISTICATED CRIMINAL, BUT A RECKLESS YOUTH?

Appellant's Brief at 4.

I. Transfer to Criminal Court

In his first issue, Appellant claims the juvenile court erred by ordering the transfer of his case to criminal court. We may not disturb this ruling unless the juvenile court committed an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. In re E.F., 995 A.2d 326, 329 (Pa. 2010). This Court has explained:

A juvenile court will be deemed to have properly considered and weighed the relevant information supplied for its consideration. "[A]n appellate court may not require detailed or intricate explanations of the rationale for certification [to criminal court] when a detailed juvenile file and arguments of counsel have been presented for consideration." In such a case, the appellate court's focus of review is limited to whether the record as a whole reveals an abuse of discretion.

Commonwealth v. McGinnis, 675 A.2d 1282, 1286 (Pa. Super. 1996) (citation omitted).

Appellant argues the juvenile court erred by finding he was not amenable to treatment. Appellant's Brief at 8. According to Appellant, the juvenile court "made findings, not supported by the evidence, which made the [c]ourt conclude that the Appellant was not amenable to treatment as a juvenile." Id. at 13. Appellant references testimony from his expert, Dr. Samuel, and his supervising probation officer, Ms. Ugarino, who "testified that Appellant was amenable to treatment." Id. Appellant claims the juvenile court "totally ignored the testimony." Id. at 14. Noting that he is now 21 years old, Appellant requests "a reduction in his adult sentence." Id.

The Commonwealth argues the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion. The Commonwealth maintains the court properly considered statutory factors, and states that amenability to treatment "is but one factor for the court to consider when assessing whether a transfer serves the public interest." Commonwealth's Brief at 8. The Commonwealth is correct.

The Juvenile Act provides for transfer of a case from juvenile to criminal court after "a petition has been filed alleging delinquency based on conduct which is designated a crime…." 42 Pa.C.S. § 6355(a). The juvenile court is required to conduct a hearing. Id. at § 6355(a)(2). "The burden falls on the Commonwealth to establish that the statutory...