Commonwealth v. Bradshaw

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KEITH SCOTT BRADSHAW Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KEITH S. BRADSHAW Appellant

Nos. 1196 WDA 2022, 1363 WDA 2022

Nos. J-S34006-24, J-S34007-24

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

October 31, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 6, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0001656-2020, CP-26-CR-0000988-2021

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., LANE, J., and STEVENS P.J.E.^[*]

MEMORANDUM

DUBOW J.:

Appellant Keith Scott Bradshaw appeals from the Judgments of Sentence entered October 6, 2022, by the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas after a jury found him guilty following a consolidated trial of one count each of Second-Degree Homicide, Kidnap to Facilitate Felony ("Kidnapping"), and Conspiracy to Kidnap to Facilitate Felony^[1] in CP-26-0001656-2021 ("Kidnapping at Case No. 1656"), and guilty at CP-26-0000988-2021 ("Sexual Offenses at Case No. 988") of five counts each of Rape- Threat of Forcible Compulsion, Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse ("IDSI"), Statutory

Sexual Assault, Indecent Assault of a Minor less than 16, Sexual Assault, and Aggravated Indecent Assault.^[2] He challenges (1) the weight of evidence underlying the verdicts, (2) the legality of the sentence imposed in Kidnapping at Case No. 1656, and (3) the discretionary aspects of the sentence imposed at Sexual Offenses at Case No. 988. After careful review, we vacate the judgment of sentence imposed in Kidnapping at Case No. 1656 because it merged for purposes of sentencing with the Second-Degree Homicide conviction. In all other respects, we affirm.

A.

We glean the following factual and procedural history from the trial court's opinion and the certified record. Appellant befriended a friend's 15-year-old son, D.M., and after a period of grooming with outings and meals, D.M. moved into Appellant's home in September 2019. Over the ensuing five-month period, Appellant sexually assaulted D.M. three to five times each week, threatening to kill his family if he told anyone. In addition, Appellant limited D.M.'s ability to contact his parents by allowing him to speak with them only on speaker phone and visit with them only when Appellant was present.

In February 2020, Appellant accompanied D.M. and his family on a trip to Disney World, a gift Appellant gave to them to celebrate D.M.'s 16^thbirthday. During the trip, D.M. spoke with his mother's fiancé, Bill Stewart, and hinted at the sexual nature of his relationship with Appellant. He also told Mr. Stewart he did not feel safe living with Appellant and did not want to continue living with him. Mr. Stewart told D.M. that when they returned from Florida, D.M. should return to live with him and D.M.'s mother.

On February 15, 2020, Appellant and D.M.'s family flew home from Florida. When they arrived at Stewart's residence from the airport, D.M. went into the house and refused to leave with Appellant. Appellant became verbally abusive and when D.M. continued to refuse to leave, Mr. Stewart and Appellant got into a fistfight. After the fight, Appellant left Mr. Stewart's home. Although Appellant had no direct contact with D.M. after that incident, D.M. saw Appellant drive past the house several times over the next three days.

On February 17, 2020, Appellant borrowed his ex-husband's car and at 2:15 AM on February 18, 2020, Appellant and his friend, Marjorie Ann Jay, arrived at Stewart's house after putting clothes, duct tape, and other items into a tote bag. Appellant had told Ms. Jay that he loved D.M. and intended to tie him up and take D.M. back to live with him. Prior to exiting the vehicle, Appellant grabbed a gun from under the front seat and put it in his pants; Ms. Jay held an expandable baton as a weapon. They climbed over a fence and walked to the back patio where Appellant tried unsuccessfully to open the door. At that moment, Mr. Stewart opened the door to let his dogs out and told Appellant and Ms. Jay to leave. Appellant and Mr. Stewart began to argue and after Mr. Stewart pulled Ms. Jay's baton from her grasp, Appellant pulled the gun out of his pants and shot Mr. Stewart three times, killing him.

Appellant then entered the house, woke D.M. who was asleep on the living room couch, and forced D.M. at gunpoint to leave with him. He drove with D.M. some distance into the woods, where he threatened to kill D.M and himself. After D.M. convinced Appellant to throw the gun away, Appellant continued to drive D.M. away from Fayette County. The vehicle contained an OnStar system and Pennsylvania State Police Troopers were able to locate it approximately 115 miles away and stopped the vehicle near Chambersburg. They rescued D.M. and arrested Appellant.

The Commonwealth charged Appellant at Case No. 1656 with homicide, kidnapping to facilitate a felony, and conspiracy to commit homicide and kidnapping.^[3] At Case No. 988, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with hundreds of counts of multiple offenses related to his sexual abuse of D.M.^[4] The Commonwealth consolidated the cases for Appellant's trial and, after the court denied Appellant's motion for severance, the six-day trial commenced on September 19, 2022. The Commonwealth presented testimony from, inter alia, D.M., D.M.'s mother, numerous law enforcement personnel, Appellant's former husband Brandon Bradshaw, and Ms. Jay. D.M. testified as to the friendship that developed with Appellant and the extensive sexual abuse that occurred over the ensuing 5-month period. Ms. Jay testified, inter alia, that she had spent the evening preceding the shooting with Appellant, who had told her that he loved D.M. and wanted to take him from Stewart's home to bring back to his home. She also described how they prepared to kidnap D.M. and approached Mr. Stewart's house at 2:15 AM. She further stated that she saw Appellant pull the gun from his pants and shoot Mr. Stewart. In addition, she testified extensively, during both on direct and cross-examination, about her criminal background, including her prior convictions for crimin falsi crimes, and acknowledged her plea agreement with the Commonwealth.

On September 22, 2022, the jury found Appellant guilty of the offenses listed above. The court sentenced him to life in prison on the Second-Degree Homicide conviction, ordered a pre-sentence investigation ("PSI") report, and deferred sentencing on the remaining convictions.

On October 6, 2022, the court held a consolidated sentencing hearing at which it acknowledged the PSI report. At Case No. 1656, the court sentenced Appellant to a term of 5 to 10 years' incarceration on the Kidnapping conviction and 3 to 6 years' incarceration on the Conspiracy to Commit Kidnapping conviction, to be served consecutively to the life sentence.

With respect to the Case No. 988, the court imposed standard-range sentences of 6 to 12 years' incarceration for each of the 5 Rape convictions and each of the 5 IDSI convictions, to be served consecutively to one another for an aggregate term of 60 to 120 years' incarceration.^[5] The court ordered this aggregate sentence to be served consecutively to the life sentence imposed in Case No. 1656.

Appellant filed timely post-sentence motions at each docket seeking judgments of acquittal and new trials. At both dockets, he raised a challenge to the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence. At Case No. 988, he also challenged the court's exercise of its discretion of ordering the aggregate sentence to be served consecutive to the life sentence imposed in Case No. 1656, contending his sentence is excessive. The court denied these motions.

Appellant filed timely Notices of Appeal at each docket number. The trial court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement in Case No. 988 only. Appellant complied and the court responded with a Rule 1925(a) Opinion.

B.

In his brief, Appellant provides the following questions for our review:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in not granting the Appellant's request for a new trial on the basis that the verdicts against him were against the weight of the evidence?

2. Whether the trial court imposed an illegal sentence upon the Appellant when sentencing him to 5 to 10 years of incarceration for Kidnapping consecutive to the Appellant's sentence for second degree murder when Kidnapping was the underlying felony for the second[-]degree Murder conviction?

3.Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the Appellant to life imprisonment plus sixty-eight (68) years to one-hundred and thirty-six years imprisonment?

Appellant's Br. at 13 (reordered for ease of disposition).^[6]

C.

In his first issue, Appellant argues that the verdicts in both cases were against the weight of the evidence and the court, thus, abused its discretion in denying his post-sentence motions seeking a new trial. Appellant's Br. at 33-40.

A challenge to the weight of the evidence concedes that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdicts, "but seeks a new trial on the ground that the evidence was so one-sided or so weighted in favor of acquittal that a guilty verdict shocks one's sense of justice." Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053, 1067 (Pa. 2013). In reviewing a trial court's adjudication of a weight of the evidence claim raised in a post-sentence motion, "an appellate court determines whether the trial court abused its discretion based upon review of the record; its role is not to consider the underlying question in the first instance." Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 946 A.2d 645, 653 (Pa. 2008). As our Supreme Court has held, reversal is only appropriate "where the facts and inferences...