Com. v. Hellams, H. ( 2018 )

J-S13007-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
HERMAN ORLANDO HELLAMS :
:
Appellant : No. 447 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 26, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0014767-2015
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MAY 03, 2018
Appellant, Herman Orlando Hellams, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, following
his jury trial conviction of one count each of indecent assault of a person less
than 13 years of age, corruption of minors, and endangering welfare of
children (“EWOC”).1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court correctly set forth the facts and procedural
history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. We add
only that the court also imposed three years of probation to follow the
aggregate sentence of incarceration.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING [APPELLANT’S]
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A §§ 3126(a)(7), 6301 (a)(1)(i), 4304 (a)(1), respectively.
J-S13007-18
POST-SENTENCE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL CHALLENGING
THE VERDICT ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WAS AGAINST
THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?
(Appellant’s Brief at 2).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Jill E. Rangos,
we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion fully
discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. (See Trial Court
Opinion, filed July 31, 2017, at 1-6) (finding: jury found credible testimony of
Commonwealth’s witnesses; all six Commonwealth witnesses, who were
sequestered, presented consistent testimony of Appellant’s assault on his
stepdaughter, which jury was free to believe; Appellant and Victim testified
and denied any inappropriate contact; Appellant and Victim claimed each
Commonwealth witness lied on stand because each witness was vindictive;
court’s sense of justice is not shocked by jury’s verdict, as weight of evidence
supported it). Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/3/2018
-2-
Circulated 04/09/2018 02:30 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION
v.
CC No. 201514767
HERMAN HELLAMS,
Appellant
Appeal of:
OPINION
HERMAN HELLAMS,
Appellant
Honorable Jill E. Rangos
Courthouse
Room 326
436 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Copies to:
Michael W. Streily
Office of the District Attorney
301 Courthouse
436 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Todd Masser
211 North 136 Street
Suite 801
Philadelphia, PA 19107
lia. ,....;
..;3' !
.
0.0::' .
.0.r.::. .
..e. , .
'0.-...
co
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION
v. CC No. 201514767
HERMAN HELLAMS,
Appellant
Appeal of:
HERMAN HELLAMS,
Appellant
OPINION
RANGOS, J. July 31, 2017
On July 28, 2016, a jury found Appellant guilty of one count each of Indecent Assault Person
Less than 13 Years of Age, Corruption of Minors, and Endangering Welfare of Children ("EWOC").'
On October 26, 2016, this Court imposed an aggregate sentence of five to ten years of incarceration.
Appellant's Post Sentence Motion was denied on March 10, 2017. Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal
on March 1412017 and a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal on April H, 2017.
MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
Appellant alleges one error on appeal. Appellant alleges that all of the verdicts were against
the weight of the evidence. (Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal at 2-4).
18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3126 (a) (7), 6301 (a) (1) (i), and 4304 (a) (1), respectively.
2
SUMARY OP THE EVIDENCE
Cassondra Johnston, a nurse at Allegheny Valley Hospital, testified that on
November 13,
2013, she was on duty between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m.
(Transcript ofJury Trial on July 26, 2016 to July 28,
2016, hereinafter TT at 36). She testified that she was
the first person to interact with A.B., a minor
patient who had been brought to the hospital after she
had run away from a group home. 37)
She testified that Appellant, A.B's stepfather,
called the hospital and insisted that the child receive no
medical treatment until he arrived. (TT 39) When
Appellant arrived at the hospital, he told A.B. to
put on her jacket and told staff several times that they
were leaving. (1 1 40-41) Appellant and the
child's mother left the hospital when staff from the group
home arrived. (TT 41) A,B. was moved to
an observation room with cameras while the
paperwork for an involuntary psychiatric hospitalization
was being completed. (11 41-42) Appellant and the
child's mother returned to the hospital. Mother
was permitted to go into the room with A.B., but
Appellant was not because of his earlier conduct
and because he was not the biological parent of A.B.
Johnston further testified that Sarah Stempkoski, a physician's
assistant who was watching the
monitor in A.B.'s room, called Johnston over and said she
thought something inappropriate was
happening. (1'1 46) Johnston testified that on the monitor
she observed Appellant standing beside
A.B.'s bed. A.B. was lying on her right side with her knees
slightly bent up. Id. Appellant had his left
arm "about elbow deep, under the blanket about hip
level." Id. Johnston observed Appellant's arm
making fast back and forth movements under the
blanket. Id Once Johnston witnessed the
movement, she called over a doctor to observe Appellant's
activity. (IT 48) After the doctor observed
the monitor, Johnston walked into the room. Id.
Appellant immediately pulled his hand out. Id.
Johnston asked A.B. if everything was OK, and she said yes.
Johnston then asked "[W]hat is going
on in here?" Id. Appellant responded, "Nothing.
Everything is Fine." Id. Appellant was asked to
step out of the room so that A.B. could be interviewed.
Id. After A.B. was informed about the video
3
feed, she responded by pulling
a blanket over her head.
(1'1 50) A.B. then ran out of the
room and
whispered something to Appellant.
(11 50) A.B. and Appellant
returned to the room and both
started yelling. (1 1 51)
Several other medical personnel
testified to observations consistent with
Johnston's testimony.
Sarah Stempkoski testified that she
was a patient care associate
responsible for watching the monitors
of the psychiatric patient's rooms on
November 13, 2015. (1'1 62) She testified that she observed on
the monitor Appellant put his
hand under A.B.'s blanket. (1"1 64) Stempkoski saw Appellant's hand
go between the child's legs,
and Appellant moved his hand
rapidly until the blanket fell away.
(1"r 65)
Stempkoski testified that she could see
Appellant's hand inside A.B.'s pants. (TT
65-66) Stempkoski
asked the nurses nearby to look at
what she was seeing on the
monitors. (T1 66) Stempkoski testified
that, after herself observing the
monitor, one of the nurses, Cassondra
Johnston, went into A.B.'s
room to investigate. (1 1 67)
Stempkoski observed Appellant quickly
remove his hand from A.B.'s
pants when Johnston entered the
room. Id.
Melissa Winfrey testified that she was
a nursing student at the
time of this incident. (IT 74)
She was seated in the same area as
Stempkoski when Stempkoski first
observed Appellant's behavior
on the monitor. Stempkoski
called Winfrey's attention to the
monitor. (11 75) Winfrey observed
Appellant with his hand down A.B.'s
pants, rubbing her genital area in a
vigorous, back and forth
manner. (11 76) Winfrey then
informed her mentor, Audrey, of what she
had observed. Id.
Shannon Tabor also testified that she was
a student nurse in the hospital
at that time and that
Stempkoski also called her over to look at
the monitor. (1"1 82-83) Tabor
observed that Appellant
had his hand under the sheet
vigorously rubbing A.B.'s vagina back and
forth. (1 1 84) Tabor added
that once Appellant finished rubbing
her, he smelled and then tasted his
fingers. (1'1 85) Tabor stated
that Appellant then began to rub
A.B. again. Id. Tabor told Dr.
Taylor what she had observed. Id.
Dr. Taylor entered the room
behind Johnston. Id. Tabor
observed on the monitor that as soon as
4
Dr. Taylor and Johnston
entered the room, Appellant took his
hand out from under the sheet and
pretended to look at his phone. (11 86)
Audrey McGarrity testified that she was
working on November 13, 2015 as a registered nurse.
(TT105) A nursing assistant called her
over to look at a video monitor.
Id. She observed on the
monitor Appellant vigorously rubbing
A.B. with his hand under the
cover. (1``1 107) She also
observed Appellant quickly withdraw
his hand when Johnston entered the
room. (TT 108)
Dr. Jerry Taylor testified that, although
he was not A.B.'s treating
physician, he was called to
the nurse's station to observe
suspicious behavior in A.B.'s room. (f1
113) He observed on the
monitor Appellant's hand under the
sheet of A.B.'s bed rubbing A.B.'s
groin rapidly back and forth.
(1 1 114) When he and
Johnston entered the room, he saw Appellant
withdraw his hand. (11 115)
After Appellant exited the room, Dr.
Taylor told A.B. what he saw on the live feed. (11 117) A.B.
pulled the sheet over her head and
refused to talk with Dr. Taylor. Id. A.B.
got out of bed, went over
to Appellant and whispered
something to him. Id.
Detective Timothy Stetzer testified that he
attempted to interview A.B., but she was
uncooperative and called him an "asshole."
(11 128)
A.B. testified for the defense and
denied any inappropriate contact by
Appellant. (1 11149)
She said that all of the witnesses
were lying and vindictive. (TT
154-155)
Appellant testified in his own defense and
asserted that he did not at any point
touch A.B.
inappropriately. (11 182-183) He stated
that the witnesses had ulterior motives
for their false
testimony. (TT 187)
DISCUSSION
Appellant alleges that all of the verdicts were
against the weight of the evidence. The standard
for a "weight of the evidence"
claim is as follows:
5
A motion for a new trial
alleging that the verdict was against the weight
is addressed to the discretion of the evidence
of the trial court, An appellate court,
the exercise of discretion, not the therefore, reviews
underlying question whether the verdict is
the weight of the evidence. The against
factfinder is free to believe all, part, or
evidence and to determine the none of the
credibility of the witnesses. The trial court will
new trial only when the jury's award a
verdict is so contrary to the evidence as
sense of justice. In determining whether to shock one's
this standard has been met,
is limited to whether the trial appellate review
judge's discretion was properly exercised,
only be granted where the facts and and relief will
inferences of record disclose a palpable abuse
discretion. Thus, the trial court's denial of
of a motion for a new trial based on a
of the evidence claim is the least weight
assailable of its rulings.
Commonwealth v. Cousar, 928 A.2d 1025,1035-36
(Pa. 2007).
The jury reasonably found credible the
testimony of Commonwealth witnesses with no motive
to fabricate. All six
Commonwealth witnesses, who were sequestered,
presented consistent testimony
which the jury was free to believe.
Against this evidence, Appellant and A.B. took
the stand and
denied any inappropriate contact,
testifying that each of the Commonwealth's
witnesses lied because
each was vindictive. Upon further
review of the evidence, this Court's
sense of justice is not shocked
by the jury's verdict in this case as
it was not against the weight of the
evidence but rather supported
by it.
CONCLUSION
For all of the above reasons, the findings
and rulings of this Court should be
AFFIRMED
BY THE COURT:
crAlte
E RANGOS
etzv-J r J.
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a
true and correct copy of this OPINION was
mailed
to the following individuals by first
class mail, postage prepaid on the 31st day of
July, 2017.
Michael W. Streily
Office of the District Attorney
301 Courthouse
436 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Todd Mosser
211 North 13th Street
Suite 801
Philadelphia, PA 19107
James y. Robertson
Law clerk for Judge Jill E. Rangos
7