Com. v. I.T.S.

J-S08028-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
I.T.S. : No. 1299 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Order August 30, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-32-CR-0001268-2016
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 25, 2018
Our precedent restrains this Court from overturning a trial judge’s
decision to grant decertification absent a gross abuse of discretion.
Commonwealth v. L.P., 137 A.3d 6299, 635 (Pa.Super. 2016);
Commonwealth v. Ruffin, 10 A.3d 336, 338 (Pa.Super. 2010). However,
my concern is that in this case this particular juvenile may very well go on to
commit acts of violence once the juvenile court loses jurisdiction and abandons
efforts to treat and rehabilitate Appellant.
Through his statements, Appellant clearly showed involvement in and
commitment to his co-defendants’ plan to commit violence against the victims,
which ultimately resulted in two homicides. For example, Appellant
emphasized that there would be “no backing out whatever it is”; further, in
response to his co-defendant’s text message indicating that people “will be
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S08028-18
dropping tonight,” Appellant coolly asserted, “I promise we will get it done
tonight.”
The decertification directed by the trial judge shortens the time for
Appellant’s possible rehabilitation to an unworkable schedule. On the day of
the victims’ murders, Appellant was 17 years, 218 days old. Although the trial
court may not have committed a “gross abuse of discretion,” in this case the
trial court was not cautious about making certain there was time to treat
Appellant and determine whether he truly is capable of rehabilitation.
-2-