Commonwealth v. Troupe

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANTHONY TROUPE Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANTHONY TROUPE Appellant

Nos. 2947 EDA 2022, 2949 EDA 2022

No. J-S13039-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

June 7, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 8, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0003290-2021, CP-09-CR-0003292-2021

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.^[*]

MEMORANDUM

STEVENS, P.J.E.

Anthony Troupe ("Appellant") appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County after his plea of nolo contendere under two criminal informations to multiple counts of possessing images of child sexual abuse, criminal use of a communication facility, and various sexual offenses committed against two children over the course of five years. Sentenced to an aggregate sentence of not less than 24 years nor more than 48 years, Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. After review, we affirm.

The trial court's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion aptly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history, as follows:

In February of 2021, the Bensalem Township Police Department received a cyber tip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The tip was in regard to approximately eighteen files of child pornography found in a Dropbox account. One of the files was a seven-minute-long video depicting a boy estimated to be between 10 and 12 years old being anally penetrated by an adult male. The adult male was identified as Appellant, Anthony Troupe. A search warrant was executed at Appellant's resident on March 16, 2021, where several electronic devices were seized. N.T. 1/31/22, pp 19-20. Upon execution of the warrant, Appellant informed police that he owned the Dropbox account, that the electronic devices contained additional child pornography, and that he shares child pornography on the internet. N.T. 1/31/22, p. 20. Appellant was arrested the same day.

Several days after Appellant was arrested, his live-in girlfriend ("K.A."), and her 14-year-old son ("A.A.") reported to police that Appellant had abused A.A. Interviews with the Children's Advocacy Center revealed that Appellant had sexually abused both A.A. and a friend ("M.R.") over several years. The uncontroverted facts presented at the plea established that Appellant began sexually abusing A.A. the first time Appellant met A.A. At 9 years old. Appellant's conduct escalated over time and A.A. stated that Appellant performed oral sex on him and M.R. before they were 13 years old. N.T. 1/31/22, pp. 21-22. Once Appellant moved in with K.A. and A.A., A.A. "would do sex stuff" with Appellant to avoid punishment at home. This included anal sex once A.A. was about 13 or 14 years old. N.T. 1/31/22, pp. 22-33.

The Children's Advocacy Center later interviewed M.R. about his relationship with Appellant. M.R. stated that he had known Appellant since he was 3 or 4 years old. M.R. did not disclose any sexual abuse when first interviewed by the Children's Advocacy Center. A few weeks later, however, M.R. went to the police station with his mother and informed police that Appellant had sexually abused him starting around 4 or 5 years old. N.T. at 2324. M.R. stated that Appellant sexually abused him almost daily while Appellant lived with M.R. and his family. This abuse included touching, oral sex, and attempted anally sex. M.R. told police that the abuse stopped once Appellant moved in with K.A. and A.A. N.T. at 24-25.

Following the interviews of both A.A. and M.R., police interviewed Appellant. Appellant was Mirandized and agreed to speak with police, during which Appellant admitted to sexual activity with A.A. and M.R. Appellant provided details as to the type of sexual abuse, locations where the abuse happened, the ages of A.A. and M.R. At the time of the abuse and the frequency of the abuse. Appellant admitted to police that he began sexually abusing M.R. [at] around 3 or 4 years old and began sexually abusing A.A. at 9 years old, consistent with the ages when M.R. and A.A. stated that the abuse started. N.T. at 25-26.

Appellant was later charged in two criminal informations with numerous offenses [].^FN On January 31, 2022, Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the following charges: two counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child, two counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a person less than 16 years of age, one count of unlawful contact with a minor, two counts of indecent assault of a person less than 13 years of age, one count of corruption of minors, one count of indecent assault of a person less than 16 years of age and four counts of disseminating photographs or films of children engaged in sexual acts. After the plea, this Court ordered an evaluation by the Pennsylvania Sexual Offenders Assessment Board to determine if Appellant met the criteria to be classified as a sexually violent predator, as well as a pre-sentence investigation with a written report.

FN: See supra p. 1 [noting, "The first criminal information, at Bucks County Court of Common Pleas Docket Number 3290-2021, included two counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child, four counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a person less than sixteen years of age, two counts of unlawful contact with a minor, two counts of indecent assault of a person less than thirteen years of age, corruption of minors, and indecent assault of a person less than sixteen years of age.

The second criminal information, at Bucks County Court of Common Pleas Docket Number 3292-2021, included forty-one counts of disseminating photographs or films of children engaged in sexual acts and forty-one counts of child pornography."]

On September 8, 2022, Appellant came before [the trial court] for a determination as to whether he should be classified as a sexually violent predator and for sentencing. The evaluation by the Pennsylvania Sexual Offenders Assessment Board concluded that Appellant met the criteria to be classified as a sexually violent predator because he suffered from Pedophilic Disorder and his conduct was predatory. After considering the evaluation and argument from both Appellant and the Commonwealth, [the trial court] found Appellant to be a sexually violent predator. See generally N.T. 9/8/22, at 1-16.

Following classification as a sexually violent predator, [the trial court] imposed Appellant's sentence. With respect to Criminal Information Number 3290 of 2021, [the trial court] sentenced Appellant to 10 to 20 years for Count 1, 10 to 20 consecutive years for Count 2, 1 to 2 consecutive years for Count 11, with no additional penalties for Counts 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 12. N.T. at 5860. With respect to Criminal Information Number 3292 of 2021, [the trial court] sentenced Appellant to 3 to 6 years for Count 1 to run consecutive to the prior sentencing, with no additional penalties with respect to Counts 2, 3, and 4. Appellant's aggregate sentence was not less than 24 years nor more than 48 years. N.T. at 60-62. The Commonwealth nolle prossed several counts.^FN

Fn: On Information Number 3290 of 2021, the Commonwealth nolle prossed the following: two counts of Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse with a Person Less than 16 Years of Age (18 Pa.C.S. § 3123(a)(7)) and one count of Unlawful Contact with a Minor (18 Pa.C.S. § 6318(a)(1)). On Information Number 3292 of 2021, the Commonwealth nolle prossed the following: thirty-six counts of Disseminating Photographs or Films of Children Engaged in Sexual Acts (18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(c)) and forty-one counts of Child Pornography (18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(d)).

On September 19, 2022, Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence. After a hearing held on October 21, 2022, [the trial court] denied Appellant's motion. On November 18, 2022, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court from the Judgment of Sentence. On the same day, the Court directed Appellant to file a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal (herein "Concise Statement"). Appellant timely filed his Concise Statement on December 9, 2022.

Trial Court Opinion, 1/19/23, at 1-5.

Appellant presents the following question for this Court's review:

Did the Trial Court abuse its discretion in sentencing Appellant by imposing a manifestly excessive sentence, relying solely on the nature of the charges, and failing to consider all relevant factors?

Brief for Appellant at 9.

Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence.

[T]he proper standard of review when considering whether to affirm the sentencing court's determination is an abuse of discretion.... [A]n abuse of discretion is more than a mere error of judgment; thus, a sentencing court will not have abused its discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will. In more expansive terms, our Court recently offered: An abuse of discretion may not be found merely because an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly erroneous.

The rationale behind such broad discretion and the concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review is that the sentencing court is in the best position to determine the proper penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances before it.

Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 169-170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted; brackets in original).

Preliminarily we...