Opinion
J-A19006-18 No. 183 MDA 2018
10-09-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. SAMIRA H. RANDOLPH-ALI Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 12, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0003578-2016 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., NICHOLS, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, Samira H. Randolph-Ali, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, following her jury trial conviction for obstruction in the investigation of a child abuse case. We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4958(b.1).
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. Procedurally, we add that Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on January 23, 2018. The court ordered Appellant on January 24, 2018, to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely complied on February 13, 2018.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
WAS NOT THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT [APPELLANT'S] CONVICTION FOR OBSTRUCTION OF A CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATION, 18 PA.C.S. § 4958(B.1)?(Appellant's Brief at 4).
Appellant argues the evidence considered in the trial court's sufficiency analysis should have been limited solely to the facts contained in the criminal information. Appellant alleges that, at trial, the Commonwealth based the obstruction charge on both (1) actions preceding June 4, 2016, which resulted in her daughter's recantation letter, and (2) the telephone conversation that occurred at the end of June 2016. Appellant, however, maintains the criminal information contained only facts relating to the events leading to the recantation letter and not the later telephone conversation. Appellant contends the Commonwealth made no request to amend the information to include the telephone call and, in instructing the jury, the trial court described the obstruction charge as it appeared in the criminal information only. Based on evidence relating solely to the facts contained in the criminal information, Appellant asserts the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to show Appellant induced her daughter to send the recantation letter. Moreover, even if the additional evidence relating to the telephone call is included, Appellant submits the trial evidence is still insufficient to uphold the obstruction conviction. Appellant concludes this Court should reverse her judgment of sentence and discharge her from further prosecution. We disagree.
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 560 describes the content of a criminal information and requires "a plain and concise statement of the essential elements of the offense substantially the same as or cognate to the offense alleged in the complaint." Pa.R.Crim.P. 560(B)(5) (emphasis added).
[Informations] must be read in a common sense manner and are not to be construed in an overly technical sense. The purpose of the [information] is to provide the accused with sufficient notice to prepare a defense, and to [ensure] that [s]he will not be tried twice for the same act.Commonwealth v. Ohle , 503 Pa. 566, 588, 470 A.2d 61, 73 (1983) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "A criminal information is not constitutionally infirm if it notified the defendant of the crime with which [s]he is charged." Commonwealth v. Jones , 590 Pa. 202, 237, 912 A.2d 268, 289 (2006). Additionally, Rule 560(B)(5) "does not require that the crime charged in the Information be identical to that charged in the Complaint, so long as the charge is [cognate] to the one laid in the Complaint." Commonwealth v. Donaldson , 488 A.2d 639, 640 (Pa.Super. 1985).
Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure were amended and Rule 225 was renumbered as Rule 560 in March 2000. The language quoted remained substantially the same.
"Variations between allegations and proof at trial are not fatal unless a defendant could be misled at trial, prejudicially surprised in efforts to prepare a defense, precluded from anticipating the prosecution's proof, or otherwise impaired with respect to a substantial right." Commonwealth v. Kelly , 487 Pa. 174, 178, 409 A.2d 21, 23 (1979). Accord Ohle , supra at 589, 470 A.2d at 73; Commonwealth v. Zullinger , 676 A.2d 687, 689 (Pa.Super. 1996).
Importantly, "Issues not raised in the [trial] court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal." Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). "[I]ssues are preserved when objections are made timely to the error or offense." Commonwealth v. Baumhammers , 599 Pa. 1, 23, 960 A.2d 59, 73 (2008), cert. denied, 558 U.S. 821, 130 S.Ct. 104, 175 L.Ed.2d 31 (2009). "The purpose of contemporaneous objection requirements respecting trial-related issues is to allow the court to take corrective measures and, thereby, to conserve limited judicial resources." Commonwealth v. Sanchez , 614 Pa. 1, 32, 36 A.3d 24, 42 (2011), cert. denied, 568 U.S. 833, 133 S.Ct. 122, 184 L.Ed.2d 58 (2012). "[A] party may not remain silent and afterwards complain of matters which, if erroneous, the court would have corrected." Commonwealth v. Strunk , 953 A.2d 577, 579 (Pa.Super. 2008) (quoting Commonwealth v. Clair , 458 Pa. 418, 423, 326 A.2d 272, 274 (1974)). See , e.g., Commonwealth v. Adams , 39 A.3d 310, 319-20 (Pa.Super. 2012), affirmed, 628 Pa. 600, 104 A.3d 511 (2014) (reiterating: "[A] defendant's failure to object to allegedly improper testimony at the appropriate stage...constitutes waiver" and "absence of a contemporaneous objection below constituted a waiver of appellant's claim respecting the prosecutor's closing argument").
Instantly, the record makes clear Appellant did not object at trial either to the admission of the additional facts she now challenges or to the prosecutor's reference to those facts at closing. ( See N.T., Trial, 9/11-12/17, at 13-14, 34-35, 44-46, 73-74, 107-08, 117.) Therefore, Appellant waived her "limited facts" issue for appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
Moreover, Appellant's claim merits no relief in any event. The well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Deborah E. Curcillo fully discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Post Sentence Motion Order and Memorandum Opinion, filed January 10, 2018, at 5-8) (finding: trial court can consider all evidence presented at trial in reviewing sufficiency of evidence; evidence demonstrated Appellant wrongly communicated with daughter and attempted to impede child abuse investigation; Appellant admitted contact with daughter during investigation and daughter then wrote letter recanting abuse; detective testified daughter later re-asserted abuse allegation once she learned her siblings would not necessarily be placed in foster care; detective testified Appellant directed daughter and grandmother to write recantation letter; Appellant admitted telling grandmother that Appellant was losing her home, kids, job, etc. as a result of abuse allegations; Appellant's statements to grandmother indicate attempt to get grandmother and daughter to work against investigation; Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain conviction). Accordingly, to the extent part of Appellant's sufficiency claim is properly before us, we affirm on the basis of the court's opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date:10/09/2018
Image materials not available for display.