Com. v. Snyder, R. ( 2015 )

J-A10045-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ROY LEE SNYDER
Appellant No. 1423 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 18, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0005704-2013
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED JUNE 02, 2015
Roy Lee Snyder (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas following his jury trial
conviction for escape.1 We affirm.
The trial court summarized the events underlying Appellant’s
conviction as follows:
On August 21, 2013, [Appellant] was transferred from
SCI-Frackville to the [Alcohol Drug Addiction Probation Parole
Treatment ([ADAPPT[)] Halfway House for purposes of being
placed under parole supervision. Mr. Christopher Bardwell was
assigned as [Appellant’s] state parole supervisor at the time. On
September 30, 2013, [Appellant] was released to parole and
discharged with an unsuccessful completion of the ADAPPT
Halfway House program for being disrespectful to staff.
[Appellant] was held at Berks County Prison until the Board of
Probation and [P]arole made a determination in response to
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 5121(a).
J-A10045-15
[Appellant’s] discharge from ADAPPT. On November 8, 2013,
the Board of Probation and Parole made the decision to detain
[Appellant] in a secure community corrections center and to hold
the violation hearing in abeyance pending completion of the
parole violator’s program at the correction center.
On November 19, 2013, in the afternoon, [Appellant] was
transported to Wernersville Community Corrections Center
(WCCC) to complete the parole violator’s center program in
Building 30. On that date, Mr. Brandon Smith, Community
Correction Monitor for WCCC, was assigned to patrol Building 30,
which is a locked parole violator facility. At approximately 11:00
p.m., Mr. Smith heard a fire alarm sound, indicating that one of
the fire exits in Building 30 was opened. As soon as the alarm
went off, Mr. Smith notified all staff in the building that the fire
alarm had been activated. Mr. Smith then confirmed that no
members of the staff tripped the alarm. Mr. Smith immediately
went down to inspect the alarm area and reset the fire alarm.
An emergency head count was then conducted by Mr. Smith and
additional staff to make sure all parole violators were still
present inside Building 30. Each parole violator was instructed
to return to their assigned bunk for purposes of performing the
“head count.”
To determine whether or not an individual is in fact
missing, Mr. Smith utilized a checklist which spells out every
parole violator[’]s name and Department of Corrections (DOC)
number. Mr. Smith was then able to cross-reference this
checklist with the door cards located on each bunkroom door.
The door cards exhibit a photo of each violator assigned to the
room and indicate the violator’s assigned bunk number. Mr.
Smith testified that the only individual not accounted for was
[Appellant]. Mr. Smith then proceeded to inspect [Appellant’s]
wall locker next to his assigned bunk. Mr. Smith confirmed that
all of [Appellant’s] personal items were missing from his
assigned bunk. The only materials left inside [Appellant’s] wall
locker were the issued items given to him by the WCCC at his
time of entry. At approximately 11:51 p.m., Trooper Jason Hope
of the Pennsylvania State Police was then notified that
[Appellant] had pulled the fire alarm and exited the west side of
Building 30. At no time had [Appellant] returned to WCCC.
On November 22, 2013, at about 4:20 p.m., Officer David
Samsel was dispatched to Redners Warehouse Market on North
5th Street, Muhlenburg Township, Pennsylvania. Officer Samsel
-2-
J-A10045-15
proceeded to question [Appellant] regarding his identity.
[Appellant] did not have identification with him at the time, but
informed Officer Samsel that his name was Roy Lee Snyder.
[Appellant] then told Officer Samsel that he was court
committed at [WCCC]. [Appellant] was then recommitted due to
his parole violations.
Trial Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, filed October 8, 2014 (“1925(a)
Opinion”), pp. 2-4.
Following a trial conducted on June 18, 2014, a jury convicted
Appellant of escape. On July 22, 2014, the trial court sentenced Appellant to
30 months to 7 years of incarceration. After the trial court denied his post-
sentence motion on July 29, 2014, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal
on August 25, 2014. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
1. Whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a jury verdict
of guilty for the crime of [e]scape charged against [Appellant]
because a) he was on parole and not committed to a parole
violation center as required by 61 Pa.C.S.[] Section 5006 and b)
the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that [Appellant] acted recklessly when he left [WCCC]?
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the
Commonwealth to introduce evidence concerning the
circumstances that led to [Appellant’s] expulsion from ADAPPT
as that situation was not related to the charge of [e]scape for
which he was on trial?
3. Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the
definition of “official detention” excludes only “active”
supervision of probation or parole?
Appellant’s Brief at 5.
-3-
J-A10045-15
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Thomas G.
Parisi, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion
comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions
presented. See 1925(a) Opinion, pp. 4-20 (finding: (1) Commonwealth
proved Appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt where evidence
illustrated Appellant was officially detained within WCCC and consciously and
willfully removed himself from official detention; (2) trial court did not abuse
its discretion in allowing Commonwealth to elicit details of Appellant’s
expulsion from ADAPPT Halfway House where such details described
chronology of events leading to escape and explained Appellant’s detention
status; and (3) viewing jury instruction as a whole, trial court properly
instructed jury on concepts of “official detention”). Accordingly, we affirm
on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/2/2015
-4-