Opinion
J-A17039-16 No. 2558 EDA 2015
10-07-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. WILLIAM WESLEY SWEENEY Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 9, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0007866-2013 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, William Wesley Sweeney, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial convictions for five counts of criminal attempt (related sexual offenses), five counts of criminal solicitation (related sexual offenses), and one count each of unlawful contact with minor, and criminal use of communication facility. We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a), 902(a), 6318(a)(1), and 7512(a), respectively.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case; so, we will not restate them.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
WAS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE TIME OF TRIAL TO CONVICT [APPELLANT] OF CRIMINAL ATTEMPT PHOTOGRAPHS/FILMS/DEPICTION ON COMPUTER SEX ACT—CHILD, CRIMINAL SOLICITATION IDSI PERSON LESS THAN SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE, CRIMINAL SOLICITATION STATUTORY SEXUAL ASSAULT, CRIMINAL SOLICITATION CORRUPTION OF MINORS, CRIMINAL SOLICITATION INDECENT ASSAULT ON PERSON LESS THAN SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE, CRIMINAL SOLICITATION PHOTOGRAPHS/FILMS/DEPICTION ON COMPUTER SEX ACT—CHILD, UNLAWFUL CONTACT WITH MINOR, AND CRIMINAL USE OF COMMUNICATION FACILITY?(Appellant's Brief at 5).
WAS THE GUILTY VERDICT AS TO THE CHARGES OF CRIMINAL ATTEMPT PHOTOGRAPHS/FILMS/DEPICTION ON COMPUTER SEX ACT—CHILD, CRIMINAL SOLICITATION [IDSI] PERSON LESS THAN SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE, CRIMINAL SOLICITATION STATUTORY SEXUAL ASSAULT, CRIMINAL SOLICITATION CORRUPTION OF MINORS, CRIMINAL SOLICITATION INDECENT ASSAULT ON PERSON LESS THAN SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE, CRIMINAL SOLICITATION PHOTOGRAPHS/FILMS/DEPICTION ON COMPUTER SEX ACT—CHILD, UNLAWFUL CONTACT WITH MINOR, AND CRIMINAL USE OF COMMUNICATION FACILITY AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?
WAS THE TRIAL COURT IN ERROR FOR DENYING [APPELLANT'S] MOTION IN LIMINE AS TO THE REQUESTED EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE OF A CRAIGSLIST ADVERTISEMENT?
WAS THE TRIAL COURT IN ERROR IN ALLOWING EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING PURSUANT TO THE COMMONWEALTH'S 404(B) MOTION AS TO PURPORTED STATEMENTS MADE WHEN THOSE INDIVIDUALS SUPPOSEDLY MAKING SAID STATEMENTS WERE NOT PRESENT IN COURT?
WAS THE TRIAL [COURT] IN ERROR IN GRANTING THE COMMONWEALTH'S 404(B) MOTION?
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable James P. Bradley, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed September 30, 2015, at 2-14) (finding: (1 and 2) Sgt. Smith conducts undercover investigations and pursues Craigslist postings and responds to postings, which appear to be seeking sex with underage children; Sgt. Smith posed as "Sammy," 15-year-old boy, in response to ad entitled "Sunday Funday in Delco—33 (Aston/Lima)"; ad stated: "Looking for some fun (mutual oral) at my place today. I am looking for someone under 25, white, thin/athletic, D/D Free, and likes to get sucked and suck too..."; Sgt. Smith took "screen shot" of ad and initiated contact with Appellant on 10/20/13 through e-mail; Appellant asked "Sammy" for pictures, but "Sammy" replied he was 15 and "new at this" and did not want his mom to see communications; when Appellant asked if "Sammy" was affiliated with law enforcement, "Sammy" replied he had to finish homework and ended conversation that day; on 10/22/13, Sgt. Smith e-mailed Appellant image of fellow officer from when officer was 15 years old; Appellant continued to communicate with "Sammy" in following days via e-mail and text, sent pictures of himself, and suggested they meet; Appellant told "Sammy" he likes to give oral and asked "Sammy" to send a "cock pic"; Appellant provided "Sammy" with directions to meeting location; when Appellant arrived at meeting location, Sgt. Smith immediately recognized Appellant from his pictures; officers detained Appellant; Appellant admitted he posted ad on Craigslist but claimed he was only seeking "workout partner"; Appellant denied exchanging any e-mails referencing sexual activity or posting the language accompanying ad seeking "mutual oral"; search warrant on Appellant's home revealed computer from which Appellant communicated with "Sammy"; expert testified Craigslist identification number assigned to ad was same number attached to e-mail exchange; Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence Appellant attempted to commit IDSI with 15-year-old boy; Appellant's continued communication with "Sammy" after posting ad shows Appellant took "substantial step" toward completing IDSI by appearing at designated location to meet "Sammy"; verdict was not against weight of evidence; (3) Craigslist ad was properly authenticated through Sgt. Smith's testimony that ad produced at trial was same ad Sgt. Smith documented on 10/20/13; Sgt. Smith had personal knowledge to testify ad is what Commonwealth claimed it was; ad was also not admitted to prove truth of matter asserted but to show Sgt. Smith's subsequent course of conduct in initiating contact with Appellant; (4 and 5) prior to trial, Commonwealth gave notice of its intent to introduce evidence from two witnesses regarding events, which transpired in separate instances between Appellant and each witness; following pretrial hearing, pretrial court ruled testimony from designated witnesses was admissible for limited purpose of proving Appellant's intent in communicating with "Sammy" was to engage in sex with underage boy; notwithstanding pretrial evidentiary ruling, at trial, court heard witnesses' testimony but decided it was irrelevant and unreliable and disregarded it in toto; to extent admission of evidence was improper, it constituted harmless error). The record supports the court's decision, and we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
In its opinion at page 4, footnote 1, the trial court notes Appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement sets forth a general claim of insufficiency for all charges, but Appellant failed to identify which elements of which offenses had not been satisfied. The trial court could have waived the issue for vagueness. See Commonwealth v. Reeves , 907 A.2d 1 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 591 Pa. 712, 919 A.2d 956 (2007) (stating Rule 1925(b) statement that is not specific enough for trial court to identify and address issues Appellant wishes to raise on appeal may result in waiver); Commonwealth v. Williams , 959 A.2d 1252, 1257-58 (Pa.Super. 2008) (stating to preserve claim that evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction, appellant must specify allegedly unproven element or elements in his Rule 1925(b) statement, or face waiver of claim). Instead of waiving Appellant's claim entirely, the court concluded Appellant's issue related to an alleged insufficiency of the evidence to prove intent and a substantial step toward the commission of IDSI. The court drew Appellant's specific sufficiency claim from his motion for judgment of acquittal. See Commonwealth v. Laboy , 594 Pa. 411, 936 A.2d 1058 (2007) (stating court can review issue despite vague Rule 1925(b) statement, where court readily apprehends appellant's claim and thoroughly addresses it in opinion).
See Commonwealth v. Smith , 97 A.3d 782 (Pa.Super. 2014) (stating: "[A] trial court, acting as the finder of fact, is presumed to know the law, ignore prejudicial statements, and disregard inadmissible evidence").
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/7/2016
Image materials not available for display.