Commonwealth v. Torres

303 A.3d 1058

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Luis Gabriel TORRES, Jr., Appellant

No. 962 MDA 2022

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted June 6, 2023

Filed September 27, 2023

MaryJean Glick, Lancaster, for appellant.

Linda F. Gerencser, Assistant District Attorney, Lancaster, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. ^*

OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.:

Luis Gabriel Torres, Jr., appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, following his convictions of one count each of rape of a child ¹ and aggravated indecent assault of a child, ² and three counts each of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child (IDSI), ³ indecent assault of a person less than thirteen years of age, ⁴ and unlawful contact with a minor-sexual offenses. ⁵ Upon review, we affirm.

Between June 2008 and March 2011, Torres, his mother, and four of his younger half-siblings were living with maternal grandmother in a residence located at 16 Parkside Avenue in Lancaster Township. Throughout this period, Torres sexually abused three of his younger half-siblings, his half-sister D.A.L.(f) and his half-brothers D.A.L.(m) and D.D.L. At the time of the offenses, all three children were between the ages of two-and-a-half and six years old, and Torres was between the ages of 13 to 15. Torres was often left in charge of his younger half-siblings because their mother was working sixteen hours a day to support their family.

D.A.L.(f) reported that she was approximately six years old when the abuse began. Torres would make D.A.L.(f) go to Torres’ bedroom and touch her in places where she did not want to be touched. Torres would also digitally penetrate her vagina, force her to perform oral sex on him, force her to swallow his ejaculate, and force her to have sex with him. In May 2009, she attempted to disclose Torres’ abuse by telling her mother, who called the police. Mother also confronted Torres, who claimed that his half-sister was lying. Ultimately, D.A.L.(f) was interviewed by Lancaster County Children's Alliance, but she declined to tell the interviewer about the abuse. ⁶ None of Torres’ other siblings was interviewed at this time, and no charges were filed.

Subsequently, in March 2018, D.A.L.(f) again told her parents that Torres had sexually abused her. Following this report, Torres’ two younger half-brothers D.A.L.(m) and D.L.L. came forward and also disclosed sexual abuse by Torres. Both D.A.L.(m) and D.L.L. reported that Torres would individually bring each boy into Torres’ room, where he would force them to perform oral sex on him and ejaculate in their mouths. Both D.A.L.(m) and D.L.L. also reported that Torres would show them pornography. D.A.L.(m) and D.L.L. were approximately 4 years old and 2½ years old, respectively, when the abuse began. All three half-siblings reported that Torres would threaten them afterwards that things would get worse if they told anyone.

On July 23, 2018, the Commonwealth charged Torres with, inter alia , the above-mentioned offenses. Torres was 23 years old when the Commonwealth filed charges. On August 7, 2020, Torres filed a motion to dismiss asserting, inter alia , that he could not be charged in criminal court with offenses that he had committed as a juvenile and that he should be prosecuted in Juvenile Court under the Juvenile Act. ⁷ In particular, Torres argued that the Commonwealth had acted in bad faith when it failed to investigate D.A.L.(f)’s report in 2009 by failing to also interview the other children. On November 16, 2020, the trial court denied Torres’ motion.

On August 23, 2021, Torres proceeded to a three-day jury trial, after which he was convicted of the above-mentioned offenses. The trial court postponed sentencing and ordered a pre-sentence investigation report (PSI). On April 18, 2022, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing and sentenced Torres to 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment for his conviction of rape of a child; 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment for Torres’ conviction at Count 2 - IDSI; 9 to 20 years’ imprisonment for each of Torres's conviction at Counts 3 and 4 of IDSI; 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment for one conviction of unlawful contact with a minor; and 9 to 20 years’ imprisonment for each remaining conviction of unlawful contact with a minor. The trial court merged the remainder of the convictions for sentencing purposes. The trial court imposed Torres’ sentences for rape of a child and Count 3 – IDSI consecutively. The remainder of Torres’ sentences were imposed concurrently, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 19 to 40 years’ imprisonment.

Torres filed a timely post-sentence motion challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence and asserting that an "adult-based sentence" violated his constitutional rights where he committed the crimes as a juvenile. On June 3, 2022, the trial court denied Torres’ post-sentence motion. Torres filed a timely notice of appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.

Torres now raises the following claims for our review:

1. Did the trial court err in denying the [m]otion to [d]ismiss because the late[ ]filing of the charges against [ ] Torres, nine years after they were first reported to the police, violated [ ] Torres’ due process rights under the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions, and [ ] Torres was prejudiced by the late[ ]filing of the charges against him because, inter alia , he lost the ability to have these charges resolved in the juvenile court?

2. Did the mandatory minimum sentence of ten years’ incarceration for rape of a child and the aggregate, adult-based sentence of 19 to 40 years constitute cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions, where [ ] Torres was between 13 and 15 years old when the offenses were committed?

3. Was the imposition of consecutive sentences, for an aggregate sentence of 19 to 40 years[’] incarceration, manifestly excessive, clearly unreasonable under the circumstances, and an abuse of the court's discretion?

Brief for Appellant, at 8-9.

In his first claim, Torres claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based upon the Commonwealth's purported late[ ]filing of the instant offenses against him. See Brief for Appellant, at 25-34.

Torres’ claim relies upon the contention that Torres should have received benefits of the Juvenile Act because he was a minor at the time the offenses were committed, despite the charges being filed when he was 23 years old. This claim has been foreclosed by our Supreme Court's recent decision in Commonwealth v. Armolt , ––– Pa. ––––, 294 A.3d 364 (2023).

In Armolt , our Supreme Court determined that the Juvenile Act "clearly and unambiguously refutes" the notion that an adult defendant should be tried in juvenile court. See id. at 372. The Court rejected the argument that the defendant, a 42-year-old male who committed offenses when he was a juvenile, should be tried in juvenile court where he alleged that the Commonwealth's bad faith in delaying the filing of charges caused him to lose the benefits of juvenile court. See id. Indeed, the Court, in rejecting the "bad faith" argument, emphasized that Section 6302 of the Juvenile Act defines a "child" as an individual who is "under the age of 18 years" or "is under the age of 21 years who committed an act of delinquency before reaching the age of 18 years." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302 ; see also Armolt , supra . Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that "the [Juvenile] Act plainly extends juvenile jurisdiction to offenders who committed an offense while under the age of eighteen only if they are prosecuted before turning twenty-one ." Id. (emphasis added). We find Armolt to be directly on point and controlling.

Here, Torres was between the ages of 13 and 15 years old at the time the offenses occurred. However, Torres was not criminally charged until he turned 23 years old. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/28/22, at 1. Consequently, Torres was not entitled to be tried in Juvenile Court, and the trial court did err when it denied Torres's motion to dismiss. See id. ; Armolt , supra .

Accordingly, Torres is afforded no relief on this claim.

In his second claim, Torres raises two sub-issues, which we address together for ease of disposition. In his first sub-issue, Torres contends that the trial court's imposition of the mandatory minimum 10 years’ imprisonment for his rape of a child conviction was unconstitutional. See Brief for Appellant, at 35-58. Torres argues that, because he was a minor at the time he committed the offenses, the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13, of the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibit the application of a mandatory minimum sentence. See id. at 36-40. In his second sub-issue, Torres contends that his aggregate sentences of 19 to 40 years’ incarceration constitute cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions, because he was a minor at the time of the offense. Id. at 35-58.

In support of both sub-issues, Torres cites to myriad other jurisdictions’ case law, provides a robust history of various juvenile statutes in other states, and cites our Supreme Court's most recent decisions regarding juvenile life sentences. Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Felder , ––– Pa. ––––, 269 A.3d 1232 (2022) ). Torres asks that this Court "declare that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 13 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania require a criminal court to consider the diminished culpability of youth when imposing a sentence where the defendant committed the crime as a child ... [and] declare that the Eighth Amendment and Article 1, Section 13, forbid the application of mandatory minimum sentences to defendants who committed their crimes as children." Id. at 58.

T...