Com. v. Savoy, S. ( 2015 )

J-S03019-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
STEVEN SAVOY
Appellant No. 1455 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 25, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007045-2012
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and OTT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED MARCH 19, 2015
Appellant, Steven Savoy, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered April 25, 2014, by the Honorable Jeffrey P. Minehart, Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. No relief is due.
The trial court aptly summarized the pertinent facts as follows.
On June 4, 2011, at approximately 8:53 a.m., Emergency
Medical Services (“EMS”) arrived at [Savoy’s] apartment building
at 2411 N. 11th Street in response to an emergency call where
they were met by defendant in the lobby of the apartment
building. He was holding the victim, [six-month-old] Essence
Savoy, in his arms. EMS transported the victim to St.
Christopher’s Hospital and while in route [sic] they administered
epinephrine and adrenaline to the victim. Once at St.
Christopher’s, the victim was given another round of epinephrine
and regained her pulse, but not her ability to breathe. The
victim, who was in a coma, was put on a respirator. However,
on June 10, 2011, the respirator was removed and at 2:43 p.m.,
the victim was declared dead by Children’s Hospital medical
personnel.
J-S03019-15
In his testimony, [Savoy] stated that on June 4, 2011, at
approximately 8:30-8:35 a.m., his girlfriend, Ebony Prattis left
the victim under his care and then departed the apartment she
shared with defendant with her three other children for a
birthday party. According to [Savoy], after his girlfriend left, he
was playing a video game when he heard the victim gasping for
air as she lay on the other end of the sofa. He thought she
needed to vomit so he picked her up. After picking up the
victim, he shook the victim three or four times. After the third
time, the victim’s head went limp and he laid her back on the
sofa. [Savoy] then attempted to give the victim CPR, causing
“milk and stuff” to come out of her mouth when he blew harder.
[Savoy] then went to the neighbor’s apartment and called his
girlfriend and then 9-1-1. Per 9-1-1 instructions, he laid the
victim on the floor and did a finger sweep of the victim’s mouth,
wherein he found a penny. He then attempted CPR again, but
saw no response. He felt that he was incorrectly performing CPR
and ran for the elevator when he heard an ambulance. Because
the elevators often operated slowly, [Savoy] instead ran down
the steps, with the victim in his arms, to meet paramedics.
An examination of the victim’s brain and spinal cord
revealed that the victim suffered from inflicted neuro trauma (or
abusive head trauma), which is injury to the top of the spinal
cord where it meets the brain. Dr. Lucy Rorke-Adams, an expert
in neuropathology, concluded that Mr. Savoy had shaken the
victim so violently that he spinal cord had separated from the
lower part of her brain, resulting in respiratory arrest and cardiac
arrest. Dr. Rorke-Adams described internal trauma to the brain,
spinal cord and eyes as a result of the shaking, as well as
external trauma to the victim’s head caused by blunt impact.
The manner of death was deemed to be homicide.
Trial Court Opinion, 7/15/14 at 2-3 (unnumbered). Following a bench trial,
Savoy was convicted of third-degree murder1 and endangering the welfare of
a child by a parent or guardian.2 On April 25, 2014, the trial court
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(c).
2
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304.
-2-
J-S03019-15
sentenced Savoy to fifteen to thirty years’ incarceration. Thereafter, Savoy
filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied without a hearing
on May 7, 2014. This timely appeal followed.
On appeal, Savoy raises the following issues for our review:
I. Is appellant entitled to an arrest of judgment with respect
to his convictions for murder of the third degree and
endangering the welfare of a child by a parent or guardian
since the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdicts of
guilt as the Commonwealth failed to sustain its burden of
proving appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
II. Is appellant entitled to remand for resentencing since the
sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive,
unreasonable and not reflective of appellant’s character,
history and condition?
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
Savoy first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his
convictions. We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence as
follows.
The standard we apply when reviewing the sufficiency of
the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial
in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is
sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every
element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the
above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our
judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts
and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not
preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a
defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the
evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no
probability of fact may be drawn from the combined
circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of
proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt
by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in
applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and
all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the
-3-
J-S03019-15
trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and
the weight of the evidence produced is free to believe all, part or
none of the evidence. Furthermore, when reviewing a sufficiency
claim, our Court is required to give the prosecution the benefit of
all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.
However, the inferences must flow from facts and
circumstances proven in the record, and must be of such volume
and quality as to overcome the presumption of innocence and
satisfy the jury of an accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The trier of fact cannot base a conviction on conjecture and
speculation and a verdict which is premised on suspicion will fail
even under the limited scrutiny of appellate review.
Commonwealth v. Slocum, 86 A.3d 272, 275-276 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(citation omitted).
Savoy argues that his conviction for third-degree murder was
insufficient as the Commonwealth failed to establish that he acted with the
requisite malice. Third-degree murder is defined as all other murders that
are not first or second degree murder:
Third degree murder occurs when a person commits a killing
which is neither intentional nor committed during the
perpetration of a felony, but contains the requisite malice. Malice
is not merely ill-will but, rather, wickedness of disposition,
hardness of heart, recklessness of consequences, and a mind
regardless of social duty. Malice may be inferred from the use of
a deadly weapon on a vital part of the victim's body. Further,
malice may be inferred after considering the totality of the
circumstances.
Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation
omitted).
Although Savoy admits on appeal that he shook his infant daughter,
he purports to justify his actions as a necessary attempt to save the child.
-4-
J-S03019-15
He also argues that while his actions may have been “extremely foolish, they
were no more than utterly negligent.” Appellant’s Brief at 22.
We find Savoy’s argument to be unavailing. It defies the scientific
evidence. As noted by the trial court, the Commonwealth’s expert witness
testified that Savoy shook the infant with such violence that the victim
suffered both internal injuries, resulting in the separation of the spinal cord
and brain, and external injuries in the nature of blunt force trauma to the
victim’s head. See N.T., Trial, 10/17/13 at 23-24, 37-38. It was reasonable
for the trial court to conclude that grabbing and shaking the victim – and
infant – with enough violence to result in non-accidental internal and
external trauma constituted, at a very minimum, extreme recklessness of
consequences such that sufficient evidence of malice existed to support
Savoy’s conviction of third-degree murder. See Commonwealth v. Hardy,
918 A.2d 766, 774-775 (Pa. Super. 2007) (evidence sufficient to find malice
where appellant shook infant victim with enough violence to fracture ribs,
shaking him and/or otherwise causing his head to strike an object), appeal
denied, 940 A.2d 362 (Pa. 2008). We therefore hold that there was
sufficient evidence to establish malice.
Savoy additionally argues that the evidence was insufficient to support
his conviction of endangering the welfare of a child by a parent or guardian.
Our review of the record reveals that Savoy does not develop this claim in
any meaningful manner or provide pertinent legal authority in support
thereof. Therefore, we find this claim waived for lack of development. See
-5-
J-S03019-15
Commonwealth v. Delvalle, 74 A.3d 1081, 1087 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(finding undeveloped claim to be waived).
Savoy’s remaining claim raises a challenge to the discretionary aspects
of his sentence. Preliminarily, we must determine whether Savoy has the
right to seek permission to appeal the sentencing court’s exercise of its
discretion. See Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super.
2010). When an appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his
sentence, we utilize a four-part test to determine:
(1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.
R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly
preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify
sentence, see Pa. R. Crim. P. [720]; (3) whether appellant’s
brief has a fatal defect, Pa. R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether
there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from
is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42
PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. § 9781(b).
Id. (internal citations omitted).
In the present case, our review of the record reveals that although
Savoy raised in his Rule 1925(b) statement all of the arguments he now
seeks for us to review in support of his discretionary aspects of sentencing
claim, he failed to raise these specific arguments either at sentencing or in
his post-sentence motion. See Petition for Reconsideration of Sentence,
4/28/15 at ¶¶4-5 (challenging only that sentence will “lead to deterioration
of Defendant’s ability … to become a useful and productive member of
society” and constitutes extreme hardship on Defendant’s family). As Savoy
preserved none of the arguments he now raises in support of his
-6-
J-S03019-15
discretionary aspects of sentencing claim either at sentencing or in his post-
sentence motion, they are not subject to our review. See Commonwealth
v. Tejada, --- A.3d ---, ---, 2015 WL 62931, *9 (Pa. Super., filed 1/6/15).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/19/2015
-7-