Opinion
J. S10027/17 No. 435 EDA 2016
02-17-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DWAYNE GOODEN, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 7, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005197-2014 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and SOLANO, J. MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:
Appellant, Dwayne Gooden, appeals from the January 7, 2016 Judgment of Sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. After careful review, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's Opinion, which found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's convictions for Endangering the Welfare of a Child and Unlawful Restraint.
The trial court's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion includes a thorough and complete narrative of the facts and procedural history of this case, which we adopt for purposes of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, filed 7/20/16, at 2-7. While we will not go into exhaustive detail here, some of the relevant facts are as follows.
In 2013 and 2014, Appellant lived with his then girlfriend Zoraya Velez ("Victim Mother") and her three young sons ("Victim Children"). Appellant drove the Victim Children to school, cooked meals for the Victim Children, helped them with schoolwork, and generally contributed to the care of the three Victim Children.
From the evening of March 29, 2014 to the early morning hours of March 30, 2014, Appellant subjected his victims to a campaign of escalating threats and physical abuse. Appellant demanded money from Victim Mother, spat in her face, smacked her, and threatened to kill her. He told Victim Mother that she could not leave the apartment or phone for help, and he took her phone and keys from her. Around 5:00 am, after Appellant fell asleep, Victim Mother retrieved her phone, called the front desk of her building, and asked for help.
At approximately 5:30 am, police responded to the apartment and knocked on the door. The knocking woke Appellant, who began barricading the door with a bedframe and other large objects. Appellant then went after Victim Mother, holding a pillow over her face. He pinned her to the bed, cutting off her ability to breathe. Although she briefly wrestled free, Appellant tackled her to the floor, covering her mouth with his hands and later forcing a dirty washcloth into her mouth to prevent her from calling out for help.
Victim Mother tried to scream, and called for her sons to open the front door to get help. Appellant called the Victim Children "motherfuckers," told them he would kill them if they went near the front door, and then continued assaulting their mother, dragging her across the apartment floor in view of the boys.
The oldest of the Victim Children, Z.Z., who was 11 or 12 years old on the night of the attack, testified at trial that he felt traumatized by the incident.
It took the collective efforts of seven or eight officers, kicking the door and utilizing a crowbar, to finally gain entry into the apartment. On the other side of Appellant's makeshift barricade, Victim Mother lay bleeding in the corner of the apartment, suffering injuries to her chest, hands, neck, knee, head and face. A laceration in her bottom lip required stitches.
Appellant, who was fugitive on unrelated charges, refused to comply with the officers who entered the apartment. He was taken into custody at gunpoint, and charged with Attempted Murder, Aggravated Assault, Unlawful Restrain, Endangering the Welfare of a Child, and related charges.
Appellant proceeded to a jury trial. On October 23, 2015, the jury found Appellant guilty of Unlawful Restraint, Simple Assault, and Endangering the Welfare of a Child. On January 7, 2016, the trial court sentenced Appellant to five to ten years of incarceration.
18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2902(a)(1), 2701(a), and 4304(a)(1), respectively.
On February 1, 2016, Appellant timely-filed the instant appeal. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
On appeal, Appellant raises two issues:
1. Was not the evidence insufficient to establish endangering the welfare of children [] where Appellant did not meet the definition of a "person supervising the welfare of a child," and there was insufficient evidence that the welfare of a child was, in any event, endangered?Appellant's Brief at 3.
2. Was not [A]ppellant erroneously convicted of unlawful restraint [] as there was insufficient evidence either that he exposed the complainant, Zoraya Velez, to actual risk of serious bodily injury or that she was deprived of her freedom to leave her apartment.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, our standard of review is as follows:
The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is to determine whether, when viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict winner, the evidence at trial and all reasonable inferences therefrom is sufficient for the trier of fact to find that each element of the crimes charged is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.Commonwealth v. Vogelsong , 90 A.3d 717, 719 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations and quotations omitted).
The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubt raised as to the accused's guilt is to be resolved by the fact-finder. As an appellate court, we do not assess credibility nor do we assign weight to any of the testimony of record. Therefore, we will not disturb the verdict 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.
In his first issue, challenging his conviction for Endangering the Welfare of a Child, Appellant presents two distinct arguments. First, Appellant avers that he did not meet the required definition of a "person supervising the welfare of a child" because the evidence at trial showed Appellant "was merely present in [the children's] apartment in the role as the mother's boyfriend" and that Appellant and the Victim Children had "virtually no relationship at all." Appellant's Brief at 15.
The Honorable Diana L. Anhalt has authored a comprehensive, thorough, and well-reasoned Opinion, citing to the record and relevant case law in addressing Appellant's claims. After a careful review of the parties' arguments, and the record, we affirm on the basis of that Opinion, which held that Appellant met the definition of a "person supervising the welfare of a child" because he voluntarily resided with the Victim Children for nearly a year and took on an active role helping with the Victim Children including driving them to school, preparing meals for them, and assisting with schoolwork. Trial Court Opinion, filed 6/2/16, at 7-9.
Second, Appellant avers that, because the Victim Children were "merely bystanders" to his assault on their mother, his actions did not endanger their welfare. Appellant's Brief at 16. Judge Anhalt's Opinion includes a comprehensive, thorough, and well-reasoned discussion of this claim, with citations to the record and relevant case law. After a careful review of the parties' arguments, and the record, we affirm on the basis of that Opinion, which found that Appellant placed the Victim Children "in a situation that threatened their physical or psychological welfare" and ultimately traumatized the Victim Children when he barricaded them in the apartment, assaulted their mother in their presence, and referred to the children as "motherfuckers" and threatened to kill them when they attempted to help their mother. Trial Court Opinion, filed 6/2/16, at 9-11.
In his second issue, Appellant challenges his conviction for Unlawful Restraint on the grounds that "the Commonwealth failed to prove that [A]ppellant exposed [Victim Mother] to a risk of serious bodily injury or that [Victim Mother] was deprived of her freedom to leave her apartment[.]" Appellant's Brief at 17.
Judge Anhalt's Opinion includes a comprehensive, thorough, and well-reasoned discussion of this claim, with citations to the record and relevant case law. After a careful review of the parties' arguments, and the record, we affirm on the basis of that Opinion, which found that Appellant (i) detained Victim Mother against her will by physically restraining her, threatening her and her children, and barricading the door; and (ii) exposed Victim Mother to the risk of serious bodily injury when he "spat in her face, smacked her, and tried to silence her screams by holding a pillow over her face, holding his hands over her mouth and nose, shoving a washcloth in her mouth, and choking her." Trial Court Opinion, filed 7/20/16, at 11-12.
The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court's June 2, 2016 Opinion to all future filings.
Judgment of Sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 2/17/2017
Image materials not available for display.