In Re: H.A.D.A. ( 2014 )

J-S60009-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: H.A.D.A. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 792 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Dispositional Order April 7, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
Criminal Division at No(s): 64-J-2014
BEFORE: OTT, J., STABILE, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 18, 2014
H.A.D.A., a minor,1 appeals from the dispositional order entered in the
Berks County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division. On April 7, 2014,
at the conclusion of a hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated H.A.D.A.
delinquent on the charge of institutional vandalism.2 That same day, the
court entered a dispositional order committing H.A.D.A. to the George Junior
short-term residential program, and directing him to complete 40 hours of
community service and to pay restitution in the amount of $8,825.00. On
appeal, H.A.D.A. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his
adjudication of delinquency. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
____________________________________________
1
H.A.D.A.’s date of birth is 12/3/1998.
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 3307(a)(3).
J-S60009-14
The facts underlying H.A.D.A.’s adjudication are as follows. On
October 10, 2013, H.A.D.A. was performing community service3 with the
maintenance crew at the Third and Spruce Recreation Center (“Rec Center”)
in Reading, Pennsylvania. When the maintenance supervisor’s shift was
complete at 2:30 p.m., the supervisor permitted H.A.D.A. to “shoot some
hoops to kill some time” in the Rec Center’s gym until H.A.D.A. was required
to report back to the community service supervisor at 2:45 p.m. N.T.,
4/7/2014, at 8. H.A.D.A. was the only person in the gym when the
maintenance supervisor left. At 2:55 p.m., H.A.D.A. reported to the
community service supervisor in his office across the street from the Rec
Center. Several witnesses testified that no one entered the gym through the
front doors from 2:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. Although there was another door
on the north side of the Rec Center, that door was accessible from the
outside only with a key. However, the door could be opened from the inside
without a key. Id. at 10-11.
At approximately 3:15 p.m., a Rec Center worker entered the building
through the side door, and noticed a punctured basketball lying by a
dumpster. Later, at 4:30 p.m., a Rec Center counselor entered the gym and
noticed immediately that 69 of the padded mats hanging on the gym walls
____________________________________________
3
H.A.D.A. was performing community serve pursuant to a consent decree he
previously entered to charges of burglary and criminal conspiracy.
-2-
J-S60009-14
had been “slashed … with something sharp.” Id. at 17. When questioned
about the damage to the mats by a police criminal investigator, H.A.D.A.
initially stated he noticed the damage, but when he tried to report it to a Rec
Center employee, the employee was on a phone call, and H.A.D.A. had to
leave to report back to the community service office. However, he had told
his probation officer that he tried to report the damage to the community
service crew supervisor, but that the supervisor responded he was on the
phone and could not deal with that. About a week later, H.A.D.A. admitted
to the investigator that the story he told his probation officer was a lie.
H.A.D.A., however, insisted he did not damage the mats.
On March 3, 2014, a juvenile petition was filed against H.A.D.A.
charging him with institutional vandalism and criminal mischief. At the
conclusion of an April 7, 2014, adjudication hearing, the juvenile court
adjudicated H.A.D.A. delinquent on the charges of institutional vandalism
and criminal mischief.4 That same day, the court entered a dispositional
order committing H.A.D.A. to the George Junior short-term residential
program, and directing him to complete 40 hours of community service and
to pay restitution in the amount of $8,825.00. This timely appeal followed.5
____________________________________________
4
The juvenile court, thereafter, dismissed the criminal mischief charge,
concluding it merged for dispositional purposes. See N.T., 4/7/2014, at 78.
5
On May 9, 2014, the juvenile court ordered H.A.D.A. to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3-
J-S60009-14
On appeal, H.A.D.A. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his adjudication of delinquency on the charge of institutional
vandalism. Specifically, he argues the evidence did not demonstrate that he
was the person who caused the damage in the gym. He contends that while
the testimony demonstrated there was no noticeable damage to the mats
when the cleaning crew left at 11:45 a.m., someone else could have entered
the gym through an unsecured back door and caused the damage. Further,
he asserts “a mere suspicion or a significant hunch of guilt is not enough to
sustain the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.” H.A.D.A.’s Brief at 9.
As with any sufficiency claim, our review of an adjudication of
delinquency is well-settled:
When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
following an adjudication of delinquency, we must review the
entire record and view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the Commonwealth.
In determining whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient
evidence to meet its burden of proof, the test to be applied is
whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, and drawing all reasonable inferences
therefrom, there is sufficient evidence to find every element of
the crime charged. The Commonwealth may sustain its
burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt by wholly circumstantial evidence.
The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth
need not be absolutely incompatible with a defendant’s
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
H.A.D.A. complied with the trial court’s directive and filed a concise
statement on May 19, 2014.
-4-
J-S60009-14
innocence. Questions of doubt are for the hearing judge, unless
the evidence is so weak that, as a matter of law, no probability
of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances
established by the Commonwealth.
In re V.C., 66 A.3d 341, 348-349 (Pa. Super. 2013) (emphasis supplied and
quotation omitted), appeal denied, 80 A.3d 778 (Pa. 2013).
Here, H.A.D.A. was adjudicated delinquent of the charge of
institutional vandalism, which is defined in the Crimes Code as follows:
(a) Offenses defined.--A person commits the offense of
institutional vandalism if he knowingly desecrates, … vandalizes,
defaces or otherwise damages:
****
(3) any school, educational facility, community center,
municipal building, courthouse facility, State or local
government building or vehicle or juvenile detention
center[.]
18 Pa.C.S. § 3307(a)(3) (footnote omitted). H.A.D.A. does not dispute that
the Rec Center gym was vandalized. Rather, he contends the evidence was
not sufficient to identify him as the culprit.
After a thorough review of the transcript from the adjudication
hearing, we find the juvenile court, in its opinion, thoroughly and accurately
summarizes the testimony presented by the Commonwealth’s witnesses at
the adjudication hearing. See Juvenile Court Opinion, 6/4/2014, at 2-6. We
also conclude that the court provides a well-reasoned basis for its
determination that H.A.D.A. committed the crime of institutional vandalism.
-5-
J-S60009-14
Id. at 6-8. Accordingly, we rest upon the juvenile court’s June 4, 2014,
Opinion, and find that H.A.D.A.’s sufficiency challenge fails.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/18/2014
-6-
Circulated 10/30/2014 12:17 PM
Circulated 10/30/2014 12:17 PM
Circulated 10/30/2014 12:17 PM
Circulated 10/30/2014 12:17 PM
Circulated 10/30/2014 12:17 PM
Circulated 10/30/2014 12:17 PM