Commonwealth v. Wright

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MATTHEW ROBERT WRIGHT Appellant

No. 1815 EDA 2023

No. J-S16009-24

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 22, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 31, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division at No: CP-48-CR-0002961-2021

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

MEMORANDUM

STABILE, J.

Appellant Matthew Robert Wright, appeals from the May 31, 2023 judgment of sentence imposing an aggregate 52 to 104 months of incarceration for endangering the welfare of a child, simple assault and summary harassment. Upon review, we affirm.

In August 2021, the victim, A.A., began dating G.H., both of whom were freshmen at Northampton Area High School. N.T. Trial Vol II, 5/3/23, at 211. They primarily communicated via iMessage and SnapChat, which included sending sexually explicit messages and photographs. Id. at 213, 244.

On September 30, 2021, G.H. texted A.A. to ask if he was okay. Id. at 228. During the conversation, G.H. suspected that the person she was messaging with was not A.A. Id. at 229-233. Specifically, she testified that the text messages included language and punctuation that was not typical of A.A. Id. Ultimately, G.H. complied with the requests to send a sexually explicit photograph and video to A.A. Id. at 221, 223, 236-38. The next day at school, G.H. asked A.A. why he was acting "weird" the night before. Id. at 241. A.A. informed G.H. that Appellant took his cell phone and PlayStation 4 away approximately two weeks prior, and he was not communicating with her. N.T. Trial Vol I, 5/2/23, at 30.

On October 6, 2021, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Appellant arrived home from work to find his stepson, A.A., still awake and doing homework in his bedroom. Id. at 68. A.A.'s bedroom door was shut, but not locked. Id. at 71. Appellant opened A.A.'s door without knocking, took A.A.'s laptop away and told him to go to sleep. Id. at 70. A.A. went downstairs to use the bathroom before bed because Appellant was preparing a bath in the upstairs bathroom. Id. at 74-75. Appellant yelled and said offensive things about A.A. and his family while A.A. was using the bathroom. Id. at 75. While bickering, A.A. called Appellant a "pedo", short for pedophile.^[1] Id. at 79. In response, Appellant barged into the bathroom, poured a bottle of water on A.A. while he was sitting on the toilet, and threw the empty bottle at him. Id. at 89-90.

A.A. went to change out of his wet clothing and shut his bedroom door. Id. at 92-93. Moments later, Appellant aggressively barged into A.A.'s bedroom holding something shiny in his right hand. Id. at 94-95. A.A. stood up as Appellant approached him. Id. at 96-97. Appellant then physically attacked A.A. - he punched and kicked A.A. in the arms, legs, and chest. Id. at 99. A.A. explained:

I was always so scared to fight back, because, you know, I live with [Appellant], and I can never leave because I'm still a kid. But I - once I fought back, I should say, the metal spoon came at me and hit my mouth and broke my tooth, and I fell back on the wall behind me.

Id. (emphasis added). A.A. said that Appellant hit him with such force that when he fell back into the wall it moved his bed slightly. Id. at 107. When A.A. opened his eyes, he saw blood rushing out of his mouth. Id. at 108. After the initial shock wore off, A.A. put on socks and shoes, ran out of his bedroom, down the stairs, out the front door and straight to the police station. Id. at 110-11.

Officer John Shoemaker of the Northampton Police Department was on duty when A.A. arrived at the station a little after midnight on October 7, 2021. N.T., Trial Vol II, at 264. Officer Shoemaker described A.A. as nervous and out of breath, bleeding from the mouth with visible lacerations on his face. Id. at 264. "[T]here were cuts on his top lip, bottom lip, and his tooth was loose." Id. at 265. He said blood was dripping out of A.A.'s mouth onto his clothes. Id. Officer Shomaker called EMS and A.A. was transported to the hospital. Id. at 264.

Marcela Robles-Angles ("Ms. Robles-Angles"), A.A.'s mother, was working overtime when she received a voicemail from Officer Shoemaker that A.A. was in the hospital, that she should come there, but not bring Appellant with her. Id. at 155. She arrived at the hospital to find A.A. bleeding from the mouth. Id. at 163. Once discharged from the hospital, A.A. and his mother went to the police station for A.A. to provide a written statement. N.T., Trial Vol I, at 144.

A.A. described some of his injuries as follows:

If you see right on my lip, like right in the middle of my lip on top, where my nose and my lip is, that's where the one puncture wound was. And then where my tooth is . . . it was broken completely in half, still like - like not intact, but it was stuck in my mouth, and it was broken in half. I could feel it wiggling; just moving in my mouth.

Id. at 114-15. Ultimately, the tooth had to be removed by a dentist. Id. at 123. A.A. will have to undergo surgery to have an implant installed, but must wait due to his age. Id. Thus, his tooth was still missing at the time of trial - two years after this incident. Id. at 124. A.A. was unable to eat, drink, or talk without difficulty for at least a month after sustaining the injuries. Id. at 130. Additionally, A.A. could not brush his teeth and the health of his teeth declined. Id. at 131.

In addition to this incident, A.A. testified to two other times where Appellant inflicted pain on him. One night while eating dinner, A.A. was arguing with his little sister when Appellant "out of nowhere, threw a knife at [A.A.'s] chest." N.T., Trial Vol II, at 10. A.A. described it as a serrated steak knife and it punctured his chest approximately one inch. Id. at 11, 14-15. A.A. looked down, saw a hole in his shirt and blood emanating from the hole. Id. at 14. Ms. Robles-Angles cleaned A.A.'s wound but did not take A.A. to the hospital or call police. Id. at 15, 17. A.A. still has a scar from the injury. Id. at 20.

The other incident A.A. testified to occurred on October 5, 2021, the day prior to the assault which resulted in Appellant's arrest. A.A. said that he did not want to go to school after finding out about the messages between Appellant and G.H. on September 30, 2021. Id. at 33. He was humiliated and afraid the other students would make up rumors. Id. A.A. explained:

I tried to stay in my bed, and then [Appellant] came inside the room, grabbed me behind my neck and started pouncing my head on my bed repeatedly telling me to go to school. Then my mom called the police, because she didn't know what was going to happen.

And the police told me I had to go to school. Id. at 33-34. Officer Shoemaker confirmed this incident during his investigation. Id. at 273.

Thereafter, Appellant was arrested and charged with endangering the welfare of a child ("EWOC"), simple assault, and summary harassment. Following a three-day jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of EWOC and simple assault, and the trial court found Appellant guilty of summary harassment. Sentencing was deferred for the completion of a presentence investigation and batterers assessment. On May 31, 2023, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 52 to 104 months of incarceration. Appellant filed a timely post sentence motion, which was denied by the trial court. This appeal followed. Both the trial court and Appellant have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

A. Whether the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that [Appellant] was guilty of the crime charged so as to convict him?

B. Whether the verdict of the jury is against the weight of the evidence as it is so weak and inconclusive that no probability of fact essential to any charge could be drawn as a matter of law?

C. Whether, at least some, jurors had considered evidence that was improperly admitted during the course of the trial and deliberations. The court erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion in failing to declare a mistrial and when the Commonwealth argued "prior bad acts" in the presence of the jury with respect to several uncharged, unsubstantiated and unproven suggestions that [Appellant] was previously engaged in violent and sexual impropriety prior to the acts charged in the case.

D. Whether the sentence imposed by [the trial court] is manifestly excessive and unreasonable and whether the court erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion in denying [Appellant's] motion for judgment of acquittal, motion in arrest of judgment and motion for new trial.

Appellant's Brief at 4-5.

I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Appellant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Our standard of review is:

whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all

...