In the Interest of: M.P., a Minor ( 2016 )

J. S67012/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.P., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: M.P., A MINOR :
: No. 3117 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Dispositional Order, September 15, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Juvenile Division at No. CP-51-JV-0001519-2015
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., RANSOM, J. AND STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED October 6, 2016.
M.P. appeals from the September 15, 2015 juvenile dispositional order
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County adjudicating
her as delinquent, placing her on probation, and releasing her to the custody
of her father, after she was adjudged delinquent by the juvenile court for
recklessly endangering another person (“REAP”), possession of an
instrument of crime (“PIC”), and aggravated assault.1 We affirm.
The juvenile court set forth the following factual history:
On July 12, 2015 at approximately
2:30 [p.m.], Kashia Jones drove from work to the
area of 1530 S. 53rd Street, which is at a distance of
two blocks from her home, located at 1205 S. 54 th
Street. Ms. Jones went to said area, because she
was aware that her son’s current girlfriend and past
girlfriend were going to fight. The current girlfriend
was Lashay and the former girlfriend was Willa Dean.
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2705, 907(a), and 2702(a), respectively.
J. S67012/16
Ms. Jones’ son is named Khaleeq Williams. M.P. was
standing over top of the two girls who were fighting.
Ms. Jones was three to four feet away. M.P. had a
skinny steak knife, approximately four to five inches
long, in her hand and she was trying to hit Lashay.
M.P. appeared to be attempting to poke Lashay with
the knife. Ms. Jones grabbed M.P.’s hand, and put it
behind her back, forcing M.P. to drop the knife,
which was recovered by Ms. Jones. M.P. told
Ms. Jones to get off of her and she walked in the
direction of what appeared to be an abandoned
house.
The house was approximately six feet away.
The house had dilapidated white steps and a grassy
area in front of the steps. As M.P. walked into the
house, the two girls remained fighting. M.P.
reemerged from the house screaming and yelling,
holding a blue aluminum bat with a black base. M.P.
was yelling “Get the F away” and swinging the bat.
Ms. Jones asked her to stop swinging the bat and
M.P. told Ms. Jones to get out of her face. Ms. Jones
stepped away and M.P.’s friend approached
Ms. Jones and swung her arm toward Ms. Jones.
Ms. Jones grabbed the friend’s arm, placed the friend
on the ground, and got on top of the friend.
Ms. Jones heard a sound and then heard someone
comment that she got hit on the head with a bat.
Ms. Jones felt and saw blood on the back of her
head. Ms. Jones still saw M.P. holding the bat.
Ms. Jones asked M.P. why she hit her with the bat
and M.P. responded “that’s why I F’ed you up, that’s
why I F’ed you up.”
Ms. Jones suffered a concussion and received a
CAT scan. Ms. Jones received two to three deep
sutures and five staples in her head. Ms. Jones has
scarring from the wound and still sees a neurologist
as a result of this incident, and still suffers from
painful headaches once or twice a week. Ms. Jones
has missed work as a phlebotomist as a result of this
injury. Ms. Jones was unsure if she had told the
detectives that M.P. had a knife that day. Ms. Jones
did tell the detectives that M.P. told her “that’s why I
-2-
J. S67012/16
F’ed you up, that’s why I F’ed you up.” Ms. Jones’
son and a group of other boys were also present at
the scene. Her son was engaged in a fight with
another individual.
After the incident, Ms. Jones drove to the
hospital, accompanied by her son to make sure she
remained conscious. Two of Ms. Jones’ sons were
fighting at the scene.
Khaleeq Williams was fighting on the scene, at
which M.P. was also present fighting. Mr. Williams
had seen M.P. associating with Willa Dean prior to
the fight. M.P. was screaming and holding a knife,
while Willa and Lashay were fighting. Mr. Williams
testified consistently with his [sic] Ms. Jones, in that
Ms. Jones took the knife from M.P. and that M.P.
obtained a bat from the house. Mr. Williams testified
that M.P. was swinging the bat wildly, that M.P. hit
his brother on the head with the bat, and that M.P.
eventually hit Ms. Jones on the head with the bat.
Mr. Williams drove half of the way to the hospital,
because Ms. Jones was losing consciousness.
Mr. Williams went to the scene with three other
people to fight Willa’s brother.
M.P. testified in her own defense, but the court
did not find her credible and found that her
testimony was mostly self-serving. This court does
not believe that the knife fell out of her pocketbook
as she claimed. This court finds that Mr. Williams
and Ms. Jones testified credibly that M.P. had
brandished the knife during the fight. M.P. admitted
that she was swinging the bat and that the bat hit
Ms. Jones on the head. M.P. also confirmed that she
hit Mr. Williams’ brother with the bat. This court
does not believe that M.P. was swinging the bat to
“scare them” as she claims. This court also notes
that the appellant failed to provide notice of a
self-defense claim or defense-of-others claim.
Furthermore, although the appellant’s attorney
argued that Ms. Jones was slamming Willa’s head
into the ground, there was no evidence on the record
supporting said argument.
-3-
J. S67012/16
M.P.’s father[] testified that M.P. has a
reputation for being truthful and peaceful. This court
did not give [his] testimony any weight.
After finding M.P. guilty of said charges and
reviewing her history, the court believed that M.P.
was in need of treatment, rehabilitation, and
supervision. M.P.’s mother reported that M.P. has a
history of running away on two occasions, causing
the family to file a missing person’s report. M.P. was
reported to suffer from anger issues and anxiety.
M.P. has also refused medication while in therapy.
This court acknowledges that M.P.’s behavior has
improved since living with her father; however, this
event occurred while M.P. was already living with her
father, according to Lauren McLaughlin Willias, the
Community Umbrella Agencies [sic] [] case
management supervisor.
Upon being adjudicated, M.P. stated “That’s
what I’m saying. I believe I was in the wrong place
at the wrong time. I didn’t intend to or mean to hurt
anybody. It wasn’t like on purpose. I apologize and
that’s it.” This court disagrees with M.P.’s
assessment. This court believes that M.P. still does
not realize what she did, that M.P. has failed to show
remorse for her actions, and that M.P. is in in [sic]
further need of treatment, supervision, and
rehabilitation.
Juvenile court opinion, 1/21/16 at 1-4 (citations to notes of testimony
omitted).
The juvenile court set forth the following procedural history:
On July 12, 2015, Philadelphia police arrested
[M.P.] and charged her with [aggravated assault,
simple assault, PIC, and REAP]. On September 15,
2015, M.P. went to trial and was found guilty of
[aggravated assault, PIC, and REAP]. On said date,
M.P. was adjudged delinquent and the court placed
M.P. on probation.
-4-
J. S67012/16
Id. at 1. This timely appeal followed.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
Did not the juvenile court err as a matter of law and
abuse its discretion in adjudicating appellant
delinquent where the evidence established that she
was not in need of treatment, rehabilitation or
supervision?
Appellant’s brief at 2.
“The Juvenile Act grants juvenile courts broad discretion when
determining an appropriate disposition. . . . We will disturb a juvenile
court’s disposition only upon a showing of a manifest abuse of discretion.”
In the Interest of T.L.B., 127 A.3d 813, 817 (Pa.Super. 2015) (citation
omitted). An adjudication of delinquency requires both findings “(1) that the
juvenile has committed a delinquent act; and (2) that the juvenile is in need
of treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation.” Commonwealth v. M.W., 39
A.3d 958, 959 (Pa. 2012). “In a juvenile proceeding, the hearing judge sits
as the finder of fact.” In re L.A., 853 A.2d 388, 391 (Pa.Super. 2004)
(citation omitted). “The weight to be assigned the testimony of the
witnesses is within the exclusive province of the fact finder.” Id. (citation
omitted).
Here, no dispute exists that following the adjudicatory hearing, the
juvenile court correctly found that M.P. committed delinquent acts;
specifically, the crimes of aggravated assault, REAP, and PIC. Rather, M.P.
complains that the evidence demonstrated that she is not in need of
-5-
J. S67012/16
treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation because the Commonwealth did not
present evidence that contradicted the testimony of Lauren McLaughlin
Willis, the case management supervisor at Community Umbrella Agencies.
The record reflects that although Ms. Willis testified that M.P.’s
behavior has significantly improved since she moved in with her father in
May of 2015, Ms. Willis never opined that M.P. is not in need of treatment,
supervision, and/or rehabilitation. (Notes of testimony, 9/15/15 at 80-86.)
M.P. nevertheless claims that Ms. Willis’ testimony established that she does
not need treatment, supervision, and/or rehabilitation and because the
juvenile court ignored that testimony, it abused its discretion. Contrary to
M.P.’s claim, the juvenile court found that neither this evidence, nor any
other, was persuasive enough to tip the scales in M.P.’s favor. (Juvenile
court opinion, 1/21/16 at 7.) As finder-of-fact, it was within the juvenile
court’s exclusive province to assign weight to the testimony. See in re
L.A., 853 A.2d at 319.
The record further reflects that the incident giving rise to M.P.’s
delinquency adjudication occurred approximately two months after M.P.
moved in with her father. (Id. at 84, 86.) The juvenile court took this fact,
as well as many others, into consideration before finding that M.P. needs
treatment, supervision, and rehabilitation. (Juvenile court opinion, 1/21/16
at 7.) In making its determination, the juvenile court considered the fact
that when M.P. struck the victim in the head with an aluminum baseball bat,
-6-
J. S67012/16
she could have killed the victim. (Notes of testimony, 9/15/15 at 90.) The
juvenile court also considered M.P.’s decision to become involved in the
fight, as well as her decision to escalate the situation, as opposed to calling
the police or simply walking away. (Id.) Because of that, the court
determined that M.P. needs to learn how to make better decisions in crisis
situations. (Id.) The court also determined that M.P.’s statements during
the adjudicatory hearing demonstrated her failure to realize what she did, as
well as her lack of remorse. (Juvenile court opinion, 9/15/15 at 7.) Based
on M.P.’s criminal acts, behavioral history, incredulous testimony, and how
she minimalized her criminal acts, the juvenile court was “convinced” that
M.P. needs treatment, supervision, and rehabilitation. (Id. at 7-8.)
After reviewing the record, we find no abuse of discretion.
Dispositional order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
JosephD.Seletyn,Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/6/2016
-7-