Com. v. Douglas, B. ( 2014 )

J-S56045-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
BRIAN DOUGLAS,
Appellant No. 267 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 19, 2013
in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-22-CR-0001362-1997
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., WECHT, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.:FILED OCTOBER 29, 2014
Appellant, Brian Douglas, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered following the revocation of his probation. On appeal, Appellant
contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the revocation of
probation and that his sentence was excessive and unreasonable. We affirm
the judgment of sentence.
We take the underlying facts and procedural history in this matter
from the trial court’s April 9, 2014 opinion.
On April 1, 1998, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to
charges of rape, statutory sexual assault, aggravated indecent
assault, and corruption of minors. Th[e trial c]ourt sentenced
Appellant to two and one-half (2 1/2) years to ten (10) years in
a state correctional institution on Count 1, forcible rape, and to
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S56045-14
five (5) years special probation to be supervised by state parole
on Counts 2, 3, 4, and 5, to run concurrent with each other but
consecutive to Count 1. Appellant’s five-year probation became
effective on January 23, 2009, with a completion date of January
23, 2014. Appellant was to attend and complete sex offender
treatment program as a condition of the special probation. On
November 20, 2013, Appellant was unsuccessfully discharged
from his sex offender treatment program. Appellant was
charged with violating the conditions of his special probation,
specifically Condition 8, as a result of having been unsuccessfully
discharged from treatment.
On December 19, 2013, Appellant appeared before [the
trial c]ourt for a hearing on his probation violation. Appellant
was found in violation of his probation and sentenced to
concurrent terms of two (2) years of special probation on the
counts of aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault, and
corruption of minors, with no further sentence on Count 2.
Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, which was
subsequently denied after consideration by [the trial c]ourt on
January 10, 2014. On February 7, 2014, Appellant filed the
instant appeal.[1]
(Trial Court Opinion, 4/09/14, at 1-2).
On appeal, Appellant raises the following questions for our review:
I. Whether the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient
evidence to revoke Appellant’s probation where it failed to
prove that Appellant malingered on his polygraph
examination and where the goal of the polygraph was to
uncover evidence of new violations?
II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying
Appellant’s [m]otion for [m]odification of [s]entence where
his sentence of two (2) years’ special probation is
excessive and unreasonable as Appellant has already
____________________________________________
1
On February 12, 2014, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Appellant filed a timely Rule 1925(b) statement on March 5, 2014. See id.
On April 9, 2014, the trial court filed an opinion. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
-2-
J-S56045-14
served extended periods of incarceration and probation
and where probation serves no further[] rehabilitative
purpose?
(Appellant’s Brief, at 6).
In his first issue on appeal, Appellant claims that the evidence was
insufficient to sustain the revocation of probation because the
Commonwealth did not prove that Appellant malingered on his polygraph
and because the goal of the polygraph was to uncover evidence of new
parole violations. (See id.).
The procedures for revoking probation and the rights afforded to
a probationer during revocation proceedings are well settled:
When a parolee or probationer is detained pending a revocation
hearing, due process requires a determination at a pre-
revocation hearing, a Gagnon I hearing, that probable cause
exists to believe that a violation has been committed. Where a
finding of probable cause is made, a second, more
comprehensive hearing, a Gagnon II hearing, is required before
a final revocation decision can be made.
The Gagnon II hearing entails two decisions: first, a
“consideration of whether the facts determined warrant
revocation.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S. Ct.
2593, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1972). “The first step in a Gagnon II
revocation decision . . . involves a wholly retrospective factual
question: whether the parolee [or probationer] has in fact acted
in violation of one or more conditions of his parole [or
probation].” Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S. Ct.
1756, 1761, 36 L. Ed. 2d 656 (1973) (citing Morrissey, supra,
408 U.S. at 484, 92 S. Ct. 2593). It is this fact that must be
demonstrated by evidence containing probative value. “Only if it
is determined that the parolee [or probationer] did violate the
conditions does the second question arise: should the parolee
[or probationer] be recommitted to prison or should other steps
be taken to protect society and improve chances of
rehabilitation?” Gagnon v. Scarpelli, supra, 411 U.S. at 784,
93 S. Ct. 1756, (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, 408 U.S. at
-3-
J-S56045-14
484, 92 S. Ct. 2593, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484). Thus, the Gagnon II
hearing is more complete than the Gagnon I hearing in
affording the probationer additional due process safeguards,
specifically: (a) written notice of the claimed violations of
[probation or] parole; (b) disclosure to the [probationer or]
parolee of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard in
person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d)
the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses
(unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not
allowing confrontation); (e) a neutral and detached hearing body
such as a traditional parole board, members of which need not
be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) a written statement by the
factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking
[probation or] parole.
Further, we note that there is a lesser burden of proof in a
Gagnon II hearing than in a criminal trial because the focus of a
violation hearing is whether the conduct of the probationer
indicates that the probation has proven to be an effective vehicle
to accomplish rehabilitation and a sufficient deterrent against
future antisocial conduct. Thus, the Commonwealth need only
prove a violation of probation by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Commonwealth v. Allshouse, 969 A.2d 1236, 1240-41 (Pa. Super. 2009)
(some citations and quotation marks omitted). Lastly, a claim that the
evidence was insufficient to sustain revocation is
a question of law subject to plenary review. We must determine
whether the evidence admitted at trial and all reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, is
sufficient to support all elements of the offenses. A reviewing
court may not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for
that of the trial court.
Commonwealth v. Perrault, 930 A.2d 553, 558 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal
denied, 945 A.2d 169 (Pa. 2008) (citation omitted).
Initially, we note that while Appellant claims that the polygraph
-4-
J-S56045-14
examination was administered for the purpose of uncovering evidence of
new parole violations, (see Appellant’s Brief, at 6), he does not discuss this
claim within his argument. (See id. at 16-21). Therefore, we find the claim
waived. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 815 A.2d 598, 604 n.3 (Pa. 2002)
(claims raised in the Statement of Questions Involved but not pursued in the
body of the brief are waived). Also, to the extent that Appellant claims that
his right against self-incrimination was violated by certain questions raised
during therapy, (see Appellant’s Brief, at 19-21), we find the issue waived
because Appellant neither raised it below, (see N.T. Revocation Hearing,
12/19/13, at 10-12), nor in his Rule 1925(b) statement, (see Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) Statement, 3/05/14, at unnumbered page 2). See Pa.R.A.P.
302(a); Commonwealth v. Truong, 36 A.3d 592, 598 (Pa. Super. 2012)
(en banc), appeal denied, 57 A.3d 70 (Pa. 2012).
Here, Appellant did not dispute that he was “kicked out” of sex
offender treatment. (N.T. Revocation Hearing, 12/19/13, at 2). Further, the
evidence demonstrated that this was Appellant’s third discharge from the
program. (See id. at 5). The evidence also showed that the polygraph
examination in question was a routine exit maintenance polygraph of the
type that Appellant had successfully completed in the past. (See id. at 6,
16). Appellant’s therapist, John Welch, testified that Appellant admitted in
group therapy that he had attempted to manipulate the polygraph and
withhold information. (See id. at 7). Mr. Welch also testified that Appellant
-5-
J-S56045-14
was being evasive and uncooperative in group therapy. (See id.). Both of
these actions were violations of Appellant’s treatment contract. (See id. at
8). Further, Mr. Welch testified that Appellant, who had previously been
discharged from the program for using prostitutes, had recently “loan[ed]” a
woman money then later engaged in sexual activity with her, behavior which
concerned the therapist. (Id. at 7-8). While Appellant claimed that he was
unable to complete the polygraph successfully because of his mental health
issue and traumatic brain injury, the trial court did not credit this
explanation because of Appellant’s previous lack of difficulty with polygraph
tests. (See Trial Ct. Op., at 8).
This evidence, particularly Appellant’s admission to Mr. Welch that he
was trying to manipulate a polygraph test required as a condition of the sex
offender treatment program, was sufficient to sustain a revocation of
probation. See Perreault, supra at 557-58 (evidence sufficient to sustain
revocation of probation where Appellant made out-of-court statement
admitting he violated condition of sex offender treatment program).
Appellant’s first claim lacks merit.
In his second issue, Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of
his sentence.2 In a recent decision, Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d
____________________________________________
2
We note that Appellant preserved his discretionary aspects of sentence
claim by filing a timely post-sentence motion for reconsideration of
sentence. See McAfee, infra at 275.
-6-
J-S56045-14
1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc), an en banc panel of this Court held that
“this Court’s scope of review in an appeal from a revocation sentencing
includes discretionary sentencing challenges.” Cartrette, supra at 1034.
Thus, Appellant’s claim is properly before us.
The right to appeal the discretionary aspects of a sentence is not
absolute. See Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270, 274 (Pa. Super.
2004), appeal denied, 860 A.2d 122 (Pa. 2004). When an appellant
challenges the discretionary aspects of the sentence imposed, he must
present “a substantial question as to the appropriateness of the sentence[.]”
Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830 A.2d 1013, 1017 (Pa. Super. 2003)
(citations omitted). An appellant must, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 2119(f), articulate “a colorable argument that the
sentence violates a particular provision of the Sentencing Code or is contrary
to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing scheme.”
Commonwealth v. Kimbrough, 872 A.2d 1244, 1263 (Pa. Super. 2005)
(en banc), appeal denied, 887 A.2d 1240 (Pa. 2005) (citation omitted). If
an appellant’s Rule 2119(f) statement meets these prerequisites, we
determine whether a substantial question exists. See Commonwealth v.
Goggins, 748 A.2d 721, 727 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en banc), appeal denied,
759 A.2d 920 (Pa. 2000). “Our inquiry must focus on the reasons for which
the appeal is sought, in contrast to the facts underlying the appeal, which
-7-
J-S56045-14
are necessary only to decide the appeal on the merits.” Id. (emphases in
original).
Here, Appellant has included a Rule 2119(f) statement in his brief.
(See Appellant’s Brief, at 13-15). Appellant argues that the sentence was
manifestly excessive and unreasonable because he had already served the
vast majority of his extensive sentence at the time of his discharge from the
sex offender program. (See id. at 14-15). This claim raises a substantial
question. See Commonwealth v. Schutzues, 54 A.3d 86, 98 (Pa. Super.
2012), appeal denied, 67 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2013).
[T]he imposition of sentence following the revocation of
probation is vested within the sound discretion of the trial court,
which, absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be disturbed
on appeal. . . . Once probation has been revoked, a sentence of
total confinement may be imposed if any of the following
conditions exist: (1) the defendant has been convicted of
another crime; or (2) the conduct of the defendant indicates that
it is likely that he will commit another crime if he is not
imprisoned; or, (3) such a sentence is essential to vindicate the
authority of court.
Commonwealth v. Edwards, 71 A.3d 323, 327 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal
denied, 81 A.3d 75 (Pa. 2013) (citations omitted).
Here, as discussed by the trial court, Appellant’s sentence was less
than the maximum allowed by law. (See Trial Ct. Op., at 5). Further, the
sentence imposed was less than that recommended by the probation officer,
who requested reincarceration. (See N.T. Revocation Hearing, 12/19/13, at
8). Further, the trial court felt that sentence was
-8-
J-S56045-14
warranted as Appellant has repeatedly violated the conditions of
his probation and is in need of continued therapy, as evidenced
by his inability to successfully complete the therapy requirement.
Extending the period of special probation will enable Appellant to
seek further treatment in order to rehabilitate his sexually
related behaviors so that he may no longer be a threat to young
girls and society.
(Trial Ct. Op., at 5-6). Thus, the record amply supports Appellant’s sentence
of two more years of special probation and his claim that the sentence was
excessive and unreasonable is meritless.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/29/2014
-9-