Commonwealth v. Lawrence

313 A.3d 265

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Darren LAWRENCE, Appellant

No. 2486 EDA 2022

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted October 30, 2023

Filed March 27, 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 9, 2022, In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-15-CR0000869-2020, Alita A. Rovito, J.

Joseph T. Schultz, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Leslie S. Pike, Assistant District Attorney, West Chester, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., SULLIVAN, J., and COLINS, J.^*

OPINION BY NICHOLS, J.:

Appellant Darren Lawrence appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction of one count of rape of a child, ten counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI) with a child, five counts of aggravated indecent assault of a child, and one count each of indecent assault of a person less than thirteen years of age, endangering the welfare of children (EWOC), and sexual abuse of children-photographing, videotaping, depicting on computer or filming sexual acts.¹ On appeal, Appellant raises multiple claims concerning the hearing on the Commonwealth’s motion in limine, the sufficiency of the evidence, his designation as a sexually violent predator (SVP), the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, and the discretionary aspects of his sentence. After careful review, we affirm.

The trial court set forth the following factual and procedural history:

On February 21, 2020, Detective James Ciliberto of the Chester County Detectives Office received a report of suspected child abuse, otherwise referred to as a "CY104 report" or "Childline," involving [A.R.] and [ ] Appellant. Detective Ciliberto contacted [A.R.] immediately and arranged for an interview on the same day. During the interview, [A.R.] advised Detective Ciliberto that Appellant sexually abused her from the age of nine (9) to approximately twelve (12) years old. She informed Detective Ciliberto she previously reported abuse when she was about eighteen (18) or nineteen (19) years old and why she did not move forward at the time. Detective Ciliberto later confirmed [A.R.’s] statement of making a previous report as she had been interviewed by retired [Pennsylvania] State Trooper Todd Hershey when she was fourteen (14) years old.

[Trooper Hershey] testified at trial regarding his investigation following a 2014 Childline report filed by [ ] Caryn Malatesta. Ms. Malatesta, a mental health professional in the Avon Grove school system, testified at trial she met [A.R.] on the recommendation of a teacher due to "whatever transpired in that conversation. [A.R.] revealed to Ms. Malatesta she had been sexually abused for several years. Although [A.R.] willingly disclosed, for the first time the past abuses she suffered, [A.R.] did not provide Ms. Malatesta her abuser’s full name.

After receiving a report of suspected sexual abuse, Trooper Hershey contacted [J.R., A.R.’s] mother, and set up a time to conduct an interview of [A.R.] at the Pennsylvania State Police Barracks in Avondale, PA (Troop J). As a highly trained and experienced interviewer of child victims of abuse, Trooper Hershey found [A.R.] to be hesitant, impatient, anxious, and frustrated during their interview. Upon conclusion of [A.R.’s] interview, Trooper Hershey spoke with [J.R.] and [A.R.] regarding the next steps in the investigation, namely the need for a more detailed forensic interview. However, [A.R.] failed to continue cooperating with the investigation and Trooper Hershey closed the investigation for reporting purposes.

At twenty-two (22) years old, [A.R.] finally disclosed the prolonged abuses she previously attempted to disclose were perpetrated by Appellant. [A.R.] indicated she chose to come forward due to her mother, [J.R.], having a conversation with Appellant’s adopted daughter, [D.L. J.R.] inquired of [D.L.] of possible abuse against her as well as disclosing alleged abuses against [A.R.] At her interview, [A.R.] stated she performed oral sex on [ ] Appellant approximately fifty (50) times during the three (3) year period of abuse. Appellant performed oral sex on her "pretty often." Appellant photographed her nude. Appellant digitally penetrated her vagina and anus. Appellant attempted to insert his penis into her vagina. [A.R.] specifically indicated Appellant performed these acts at her mother’s home, Appellant’s home, Appellant’s neighbor’s home, and other various locations within Chester County, Pennsylvania.

During the interview, at Detective Ciliberto’s direction, [A.R.] provided her phone and consented to a digital download of its contents. Detective Ciliberto then received approval for a "consensual intercept" to be performed that night between [A.R.] and Appellant. The "intercept" was executed that evening between [A.R.] and Appellant to confirm or learn additional information.

Although Appellant did not provide any meaningful information and was unwilling to continue the conversation over the phone, Appellant later agreed to an in-person meeting which occurred on February 28, 2020. [A.R.] agreed to and did wear a "wire" to record the conversation between herself and Appellant which occurred on February 28, 2020. During the conversation Appellant made several incriminating statements ultimately leading to his arrest and subsequent prosecution.

* * *

On September 22, 2021, after three days of trial, the jury found Appellant [ ] guilty of nineteen (19) offenses stemming from sexual abuse which occurred between 2008 and 2012 when [A.R.] was between nine (9) and twelve (12) years of age. During the trial, the Commonwealth established the incidents occurred in multiple locations in Chester County, Pennsylvania, including Appellant’s home, [A.R.’s] home, and Appel- lant’s vehicle, over the course of approximately three (3) plus years.

On October 7, 2021, after being found guilty, the trial court entered an order directing the State Sexual Offender Assessment Board ("SOAB") to perform an assessment of Appellant to determine if he meets the criteria to be statutorily classified as a [SVP]. On November 30, 2021, the trial court entered an order for a pre-sentence investigation. The Commonwealth filed a memorandum in support of sentencing on July 27, 2022 and Appellant filed a memorandum in support of motion for judgment of acquittal on August 2, 2022.

A [SVP] assessment hearing was held on August 3, 2022 and sentencing followed. During the SVP hearing, Dr. Bruce Mapes testified on behalf of the Commonwealth as an expert in the field of sexual offender assessment and treatment and Dr. Christopher Lorah testified on behalf of Appellant as an expert in the field of forensic psychology. After hearing both experts and argument of counsel, the trial court declared Appellant [to be a] SVP and proceeded to sentencing. During sentencing, Appellant presented the following character witnesses: Anna Guy (Appellant’s significant other) and [D.L.] (Appellant’s adopted daughter). Appellant also presented a mitigation package for the [trial court’s] consideration. The Commonwealth presented the following character witnesses: [J.R. (A.R.’s] mother), [L.M. (A.R.’s] foster mother), and A.R. (victim).

Appellant was re-sentenced on August 9, 2022 due to an error on the sentencing sheet. [The trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of forty-two to eighty-six years’ incarceration.] Appellant filed a post-sentence motion to reconsider on August 12, 2022 and the trial court denied his motion on September 12, 2022. On September 30, 2022, Appellant filed the present appeal and was ordered to file a statement of errors complained of on appeal on October 4, 2022 and he filed his statement of errors on October 25, 2022.

Trial Ct. Op., 12/30/22, at 3-7 (some formatting altered, quotation marks, footnotes, and citations omitted). The trial court subsequently filed an opinion addressing Appellant’s claims.

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

1. Whether [Appellant] was deprived of his right to be present at a critical stage of trial, in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I Section 6 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, for a hearing on the Commonwealth’s motion in limine to admit other acts evidence?

2. Whether the [trial court] erred in granting the Commonwealth’s motion in limine to admit [Appellant’s] prior convictions for tax fraud from 2001?

3. Whether the [trial court] erred in granting the Commonwealth’s motion in limine to admit other[ ] acts evidence of a sexual encounter between [Appellant] and the victim that occurred at Six Flags Great Adventure?

4. Whether the trial court erred in failing to provide the jury with an immediate and complete limiting instraction as to the purpose of the evidence of the prior sexual encounter at Six Flags Great Adventure, and the limiting instraction provided in the jury charge was defective?

5. Whether the evidence was insufficient to sustain [Appellant’s] convictions for ten counts of IDSI where there was only testimony to support, at most, five to seven counts?

6. Whether the [trial court] erred in declaring [Appellant] a[ ] SVP with no factual basis to make that determination when [Appellant] had over ten years of non-detection, and there was only evidence of his abuse against a single victim?

7. Whether the [trial court] erred in overruling [ ] Appellant’s objections to the Commonwealth’s line of hypothetical questioning of Dr. Lorah after the Commonwealth conceived of hypotheticals and then attributed them to another expert without any basis?

8. Whether the [trial court’s] sentence was an exercise of discretion for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will[?] The [trial court] remarked at sentencing that there should be no volume discounts for such crimes evidencing a bias against and ill-will toward Appellant?

9. Whether the [trial court’s] sentence double counted the aggravating factors included in...