Opinion
J-S56011-18 No. 1898 MDA 2017
11-14-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. BRIAN SANCHEZ-PADILLA Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 4, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0002281-2017 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, Brian Sanchez-Padilla, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial convictions for aggravated assault and resisting arrest. We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1) and 5104, respectively.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no need to restate them.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FINDING [APPELLANT] COMPETENT TO BE TRIED, WHERE [APPELLANT] PROVED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT [HE] WAS SUBSTANTIALLY UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OR OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM OR TO
PARTICIPATE AND ASSIST IN HIS DEFENSE?(Appellant's Brief at 8-9).
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN PERMITTING EMT EMMA EINWECHTER TO TESTIFY TO THE EFFECTS OF K2, WHERE SHE WAS NOT QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT WITNESS, AND HER TESTIMONY WAS NOT PROPER AS A LAY WITNESS, AS SHE DID NOT OBSERVE [APPELLANT]'S INTERACTIONS WITH POLICE AT THE PARK?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FINDING THE DEADLY WEAPON USED ENHANCEMENT APPLIED TO ANY OF [APPELLANT]'S OFFENSES, WHERE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT [APPELLANT] USED A PEN TO ATTACK EITHER POLICE OFFICER, AND THE PEN DID NOT FIT THE DEFINITION OF A DEADLY WEAPON, NOR WAS IT USED AS A DEADLY WEAPON?
WAS THE AGGREGATE SENTENCE OF THE COURT MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE AND AN ABUSE OF THE COURT'S DISCRETION, WHERE THE COURT CLASSIFIED FAILURE OF A MENTALLY ILL PERSON TO TAKE MEDICATION AS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE, AND IT CITED IMPROPER AND INADEQUATE AGGRAVATING FACTORS FOR THE SENTENCE IMPOSED?
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Donald R. Totaro, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court's opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed February 5, 2018, at 4-18, 23-39) (finding: (1) Appellant failed to establish he was incompetent to stand trial; court rejected testimony and report of Appellant's competency expert, licensed psychologist Dr. Robert Stein; (2) Commonwealth offered testimony of Emma Einwechter, EMT who interacted with Appellant immediately after altercation in park, to rebut Appellant's trial testimony that he did not use drugs on day of incident; Ms. Einwechter testified that, in course of her work as EMT, she dealt with individuals who had ingested K2, synthetic marijuana, and saw effects of K2; Ms. Einwechter explained she observed some people who had ingested K2 were tranquil, while others were extremely violent and required chemical sedation; to extent Appellant argues Commonwealth failed to present evidence Appellant had used drugs on day of incident, his argument fails; Ms. Einwechter testified Appellant admitted he had used K2 earlier that day; further, testimony established police found in park near Appellant baggies typically possessed by drug users; to extent Appellant argues Ms. Einwechter's testimony was irrelevant because she did not observe Appellant's conduct in park, his argument fails; Ms. Einwechter personally interacted with Appellant mere thirteen minutes after Appellant was removed from park; to extent Appellant argues Ms. Einwechter's testimony constitutes improper expert testimony, his argument also fails; Ms. Einwechter did not offer expert or lay opinion on whether Appellant was under influence of K2; rather, she testified to her observations of Appellant and her prior experience with individuals who had used K2; Appellant failed to show Ms. Einwechter's testimony about effects of K2 use was erroneously allowed or based on manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will; moreover, even if court improperly permitted Ms. Einwechter to testify, court's ruling constitutes harmless error, in light of other properly admitted overwhelming trial evidence of Appellant's guilt; (3) at trial, Officer Herr testified Appellant used pen to stab Officer Deitz in leg and face; further, two other officers testified they observed wounds on Officer Deitz consistent with stab wounds inflicted with sharp object; photographs of Officer Deitz after incident showed two puncture wounds near his right eye and cuts on his face; testimony established Appellant used pen as weapon to stab officer; also, Appellant's argument that pen does not constitute deadly weapon fails, where Appellant intentionally used pen to stab Officer Deitz, who sustained puncture wounds near eye consistent with punctures from pen; pen was capable of producing serious bodily injury or blindness; Appellant also used pen to threaten assault on Officer Herr, although Appellant did not injure Officer Herr with pen; deadly weapon enhancement applied to Appellant's use of pen to threaten/assault both officers; (4) court sentenced Appellant with benefit of pre-sentence investigation ("PSI") report; at sentencing, court stated it considered all information in PSI report, including Appellant's mental health history, Appellant's character, background, age, work history, education, ability to speak and understand English, substance abuse, and prior criminal record; to extent Appellant argues court failed to consider his mental illness as mitigating factor, his argument fails; sentencing court did not inhibit or deprive Appellant of access to mental health care; rather, court made Appellant eligible for all available treatment programs for substance addiction and anger management; court also considered nature and circumstances of current offenses as well as gravity of offenses and effect of offenses on Victims and community; court considered Appellant's rehabilitative needs; additionally, record indicates Appellant has failed to try to change his lifestyle and is not amenable to rehabilitation; based on foregoing, sentence was not manifestly excessive). The record supports the trial court's rationale. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
We depart from the trial court's analysis to the extent it relies upon Appellant's conduct in other proceedings and a separate expert psychiatrist's report the court considered at sentencing.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 11/14/2018
Image materials not available for display.