Opinion
J-A03038-16 No. 2684 EDA 2014
03-30-2016
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.R., A MINOR APPEAL OF: J.R., A MINOR
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Dispositional Order August 15, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-39-JV-0000318-2014 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY J., and DUBOW, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, J.R., appeals from the dispositional order entered in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, following his adjudication of delinquency for three counts of indecent assault. We affirm.
In its opinion, the juvenile court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. We add only that the court denied Appellant's suppression motion on July 22, 2014, and adjudicated Appellant delinquent on three counts of indecent assault. The court imposed juvenile probation on August 15, 2014, until further notice of the court. On September 11, 2014, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. The court ordered Appellant on September 16, 2014, to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The court granted Appellant's request for an extension of time, and Appellant timely filed his Rule 1925(b) statement on October 31, 2014.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
WHETHER THE [JUVENILE] COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS WHERE APPELLANT'S WAIVER OF HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS WAS INVOLUNTARY, UNKNOWING, AND/OR UNINTELLIGENT IN THAT IT WAS MADE WITHOUT A FULL AWARENESS OF THE RIGHTS BEING ABANDONED AND/OR CONSEQUENCES OF GIVING UP THOSE RIGHTS?(Appellant's Brief at 5).
We review the denial of a suppression motion as follows:
Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a [juvenile] court's denial of a suppression motion is limited to determining whether the factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct.
Commonwealth v. Williams , 941 A.2d 14, 26-27 (Pa.Super. 2008) (en banc) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "It is within the suppression court's sole province as factfinder to pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony." Commonwealth v. Clemens , 66 A.3d 373, 378 (Pa.Super. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Gallagher , 896 A.2d 583, 585 (Pa.Super. 2006)).[W]e may consider only the evidence of the prosecution and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole. Where the record supports the findings of the suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the court erred in reaching its legal conclusions based upon the facts.
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Kelly L. Banach, we conclude Appellant's issue merits no relief. The juvenile court's opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Juvenile Court Opinion, filed July 22, 2014, at 7-9) (finding: Detective contacted Appellant's stepmother, who confirmed Appellant's uncle and family friend could act as interested adults on Appellant's behalf; stepmother permitted detective to speak with Appellant in presence of uncle and family friend; prior to Appellant's interview, Detective spoke with uncle and family friend outside interview room and discussed nature of incidents that led to Appellant's questioning; Detective showed uncle and family friend photo of Appellant on city surveillance system; tone of interview was conversational, as Appellant requested to speak with Detective outside presence of uncle and family friend, and disclosed information unknown to police; Detective gave Appellant Miranda waiver form, explained that form was given to all juveniles to read and consider, and that form contained Appellant's rights; Detective told Appellant to discuss waiver form with his uncle and family friend, and indicated where to sign; court reviewed audio/videotape of interview, which showed Appellant's family friend holding waiver form and reading it aloud in Spanish; court also observed Appellant's uncle sign waiver form; Appellant's uncle gave Detective permission to speak with Appellant alone, as Appellant's stepmother authorized Appellant's uncle to act as "parent"; Detective told Appellant he could stop talking to Detective and speak with his uncle at any time; Appellant's uncle and family friend were interested and informed adults; Appellant's uncle read and voluntarily signed Miranda waiver form; audio/videotape of police interview and Detective's testimony at suppression hearing showed Appellant understood and comprehended questions posed to him in interview, and appropriately responded to questions). The record supports the court's decision; therefore, we have no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the juvenile court's opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 3/30/2016
Image materials not available for display.