Com. v. Mable, A. ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • J-S53009-17
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,                    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee
    v.
    ANTOINE JAMES MABLE,
    Appellant                    No. 3211 EDA 2016
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 23, 2016
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-CR-0000723-2015
    BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                  FILED OCTOBER 11, 2017
    Appellant, Antoine James Mable, appeals from the judgment of
    sentence of an aggregate term of 30-60 months’ incarceration, imposed
    following his conviction for promoting prostitution, conspiracy to promote
    prostitution, and transporting a prostitute. After careful review, we remand
    for the trial court to file a responsive Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
    The Commonwealth charged Appellant with Rape, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121;
    conspiracy (promoting prostitution), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903; involuntary deviate
    sexual intercourse, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121; aggravated indecent assault, 18
    Pa.C.S. § 3125; promoting prostitution (encouragement), 18 Pa.C.S. §
    5902(b)(3); unlawful restraint, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2902; indecent assault, 18
    Pa.C.S. § 3126; and promoting prostitution (transportation), 18 Pa.C.S. §
    5902(b)(6).    On March 9, 2016, a jury convicted Appellant of all the
    J-S53009-17
    prostitution-related offenses (conspiracy, encouraging prostitution, and
    transporting a prostitute), but “was hopelessly deadlocked on the remaining
    charges[,]” leading the trial court to declare a mistrial with respect to the
    remaining counts.    Post-Sentence Motion Opinion, 9/19/16, at 1.       On May
    23, 2016, the court sentenced Appellant to consecutive terms of 15-30
    months’ incarceration for conspiracy and encouraging prostitution, and to a
    concurrent term of 6-12 months’ incarceration for transporting a prostitute.
    On June 2, 2016, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, and a
    hearing was held on July 13, 2016, to address the claims raised therein.
    The motion was denied by an opinion and order dated September 19, 2016.
    Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and a timely, court-ordered
    Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. However, the trial court neither issued a Rule
    1925(a) opinion, nor a statement in lieu thereof. Moreover, our review of
    the trial court’s September 19, 2016 opinion indicates that it did not
    adequately address all of the issues which Appellant raised in his Rule
    1925(b) statement and now presents in his brief, thereby hindering our
    review of those claims.
    Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court for the filing of a
    Rule 1925(a) opinion within 45 days of the filing date of this Judgment
    Order. In the interest of judicial economy, we specifically direct the court to
    address the following claims as set forth in Appellant’s brief to this Court:
    I.   Whether the Commonwealth should have been precluded
    from relying on expert testimony regarding gang affiliation,
    any reference to gang affiliation and/or activity and
    -2-
    J-S53009-17
    statements      made    by    [Appellant]  regarding     said
    affiliation[?] Further, testimony from a “gang expert” and
    any mention of gang affiliation by any witness is irrelevant,
    more      prejudicial  than    probative,  and    inherently
    inadmissible pursuant to Pa.R.E. 404(b).
    II.    Did the trial court err in denying [Appellant]’s omnibus
    pretrial motion seeking, inter alia, to preclude the
    conclusory term of “victim” when referencing the
    complaining witness[?]
    III.    Whether Appellant[’]s convictions are contrary to the
    weight and sufficiency of the evidence presented where the
    Commonwealth’s complaining witness testified in an
    inconsistent manner and there was insufficient evidence
    presented that [Appellant] was involved in a conspiracy to
    commit or engaged in any overt act to promote
    prostitution[?][1]
    Appellant’s Brief at 10.
    Case remanded to the trial court for the filing of a Rule 1925(a)
    opinion consistent with this Judgement Order within 45 days.         Jurisdiction
    retained.
    ____________________________________________
    1 With regard to Appellant’s third claim, the trial court is directed to address
    Appellant’s sufficiency issue in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. However, with
    regard to Appellant’s weight-of-the-evidence claim, we ask the trial court to
    first address whether Appellant adequately preserved that matter in his
    post-sentence motion, before the court addresses its merit.                 See
    Commonwealth v. O'Bidos, 
    849 A.2d 243
    , 252 (Pa. Super. 2004)
    (“Weight of the evidence claims must be raised via oral, written, or post-
    sentence motions in the trial court for the issue to be preserved for
    appeal.”); Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A).
    -3-
    J-S53009-17
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 10/11/2017
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 3211 EDA 2016

Filed Date: 10/11/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2024