Com. v. Villanueva, J.

J-S55012-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JUNIOR VILLANUEVA
Appellant No. 85 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order November 30, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0002698-2009
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 19, 2016
Junior Villanueva appeals from the order entered in the Court of
Common Pleas of Northampton County denying his petition under the Post
Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. After careful
review, we affirm.
Following trial in September 2010, a jury convicted Villanueva of rape
of a child,1 statutory sexual assault,2 involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
with a child,3 one count of sexual assault,4 aggravated indecent assault of a
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3121(c).
2
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3122.2.
3
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3124.1.
J-S55012-16
child,5 indecent assault of a person less than thirteen years of age,6
endangering the welfare of children,7 and corruption of minors.8 The
convictions stemmed from the sexual abuse of a minor child, who was the
daughter of Villanueva’s live-in companion.
On January 25, 2011, the court sentenced Villanueva to an aggregate
term of 46 to 92 years of imprisonment. Villanueva filed a direct appeal,
and this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v.
Villanueva, 53 A.3d 927 (Pa. Super. 2012). Villanueva filed a petition for
allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which was denied.
Commonwealth v. Villanueva, 64 A.3d 632 (Pa. 2013).
On March 14, 2014, Villanueva filed a timely pro se PCRA petition. The
court appointed counsel, and on January 15, 2015, counsel filed an amended
PCRA petition. Following a hearing, the PCRA court denied relief. This
appeal followed. Villanueva raises five issues, each challenging trial
counsel’s effectiveness:
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
4
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3124.1.
5
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3125(b).
6
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(7).
7
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304(a)(1).
8
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(a)(1).
-2-
J-S55012-16
1. Attorney Andres was ineffective for failing to appeal the Lower
Court’s finding that the alleged child victim was competent to
testify.
2. Attorney Andres was ineffective for failing to request that the
Lower Court order the alleged child victim to undergo a
psychiatric evaluation to assist in determining her competency to
testify.
3. Attorney Andres was ineffective for failing to request the
appointment of a certified Spanish sign language interpreter for
Appellant.
4. Attorney Andres was ineffective for failing to object to certain
leading and hearsay questions from the Commonwealth at trial.
5. Attorney Andres was ineffective for failing to properly advise
Appellant about testifying at trial.
Appellant’s Brief, at 4.
A petitioner challenging counsel’s effectiveness will be granted relief
under the PCRA if he proves by a preponderance of the evidence that his
conviction or sentence resulted from “the ineffective assistance of counsel,
which, in the circumstance of the particular case, so undermined the truth-
determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could
have taken place.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(ii); Commonwealth v.
Sportz, 84 A.3d 294, 311 (Pa. 2014).
Our Supreme Court has further stated that before a PCRA petitioner
will be deemed entitled to relief on an ineffectiveness claim, he or she must
establish:
(1) the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) no reasonable
basis existed for counsel’s action or failure to act; and (3) he
suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s error, with prejudice
measured by whether there is a reasonable probability the result
of the proceeding would have been different. Commonwealth
-3-
J-S55012-16
v. Chmiel, 612 Pa. 333, 30 A.3d 1111, 1127 (2011) (employing
ineffective assistance of counsel test from Commonwealth v.
Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 973, 975–76 (1987)). Counsel is
presumed to have rendered effective assistance.
Commonwealth v. Ali, 608 Pa. 71, 10 A.3d 282, 291 (2010).
Additionally, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to
raise a meritless claim. Commonwealth v. Jones, 590 Pa.
202, 912 A.2d 268, 278 (2006). Finally, because a PCRA
petitioner must establish all the Pierce prongs to be entitled to
relief, we are not required to analyze the elements of an
ineffectiveness claim in any specific order; thus, if a claim fails
under any required element, we may dismiss the claim on that
basis. Ali, at 291.
Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435, 445 (Pa. 2015) (footnote
omitted).
In his first issue, Villanueva argues that his attorney was ineffective for
failing to raise on direct appeal the issue of the child-witness’s competency.
Villanueva claims that the trial court applied an incorrect standard while
evaluating the child’s competency.
Generally, every witness is presumed competent; however, the court
must examine a child witness for competency. Rosche v. McCoy, 156 A.2d
307, 310 (Pa. 1959); Commonwealth v. Moore, 980 A.2d 647, 649-50
(Pa. Super. 2009). In Rosche, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that it
would presume competent a child who is over the age of fourteen. Further,
the Court set forth the following factors to consider when determining
whether a child is competent:
(1) such capacity to communicate, including as it does both an
ability to understand questions and to frame and express
intelligent answers, (2) mental capacity to observe the
occurrence itself and the capacity of remembering what it is that
-4-
J-S55012-16
she is called to testify about, and (3) a consciousness of the duty
to speak the truth.
Rosche, 156 A.2d at 310. The Court further elaborated that because
children are prone to living in the world of make-believe, a court must
exercise care since “much must be left to the discretion of the trial judge
who hears and sees the witness.” Id.
Here, during the competency hearing, the child was able to respond to
most of the questions she was asked. The child understood why she was in
court, and answered in the affirmative when asked if she knew what it
meant to tell the truth. Although the child appeared nervous in detailing
what she was going to talk about in court, she did identify Villanueva as the
subject of her testimony. N.T. Trial, 9/13/10, at 10-12. The court and the
parties extensively interviewed the child about the definition of truth, which
she correctly explained as “do not tell a lie.” Id. at 8. When asked what
happens if you lie, the child stated without hesitation that “[y]ou get in
trouble.” Id. The child was well-aware that the consequence of telling a lie is
a punishment.
The trial court observed the witness at the hearing and, following the
hearing, heard argument from defense counsel and the Commonwealth. The
court determined that the child communicated effectively, was able to recall
events to which she testified, and understood the need to be truthful. The
court stated that although the child was hesitant, “she was not abjectly
confused, nor was she unable to perceive and frame answers to the
questions put to her.” Trial Court Opinion, 11/30/15, at 8. Further, despite
-5-
J-S55012-16
the court’s estimation that “the child may not have been an ideal witness[,]”
the court accurately noted that “[c]hildren rarely are.” Id. We conclude
the court applied the correct standard, see Rosche, supra, and that its
determination of competency is supported in the record. This issue is
meritless and, therefore, counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the
issue on direct appeal. Treiber, supra.
In his second issue, Villanueva argues that because of the child’s
“manifest incompetence,” Villanueva’s trial counsel was ineffective in failing
to request the court order an independent psychiatric evaluation of the child.
In his brief, Villanueva contends that “a trial court may order a psychiatric
evaluation of the child witness to assist the court in evaluating the child’s
competency to testify where the competency hearing establishes a reason to
doubt the child’s competency.” Commonwealth v. Shearer, 894 A.2d
793, 794-95 (Pa. Super. 2009). This claim is meritless. As demonstrated
above, the court engaged in a thorough inquiry and analysis of the child’s
competency to testify. The court made the competency determination
independently, determining that there was no compelling reason or indicia of
incompetency to warrant a psychological evaluation. Therefore, counsel
was not ineffective for failing to request an independent psychiatric
evaluation. Treiber, supra.
In his third issue, Villanueva argues that because he had a hearing
deficiency, his counsel was ineffective in failing to request a Spanish sign
language interpreter.
-6-
J-S55012-16
Where the court is put on notice that a defendant has difficulty
understanding or speaking the English language, it must make
unmistakably clear to him that he has a right to have a
competent translator assist him, at state expense if need be.
Where, on the other hand, no request for an interpreter has
been made and the defendant appears to comprehend the
nature of the proceedings and the charges against him, the trial
court does not abuse its discretion by proceeding without
appointing an interpreter.
Commonwealth v. Wallace, 641 A.2d 321, 324 (Pa. Super. 1994).
Further, “a defendant does not necessarily lose his right to an interpreter by
not asserting it. It depends on the facts in each case as to whether the trial
court was effectively alerted to the need for an interpreter.” Id.In Wallace, the court found that neither appellant nor his counsel
called to the court’s attention the fact that appellant was struggling to
understand the proceedings due to his hearing impairment. The record did
not reflect that the court “was aware, or should have been aware . . . that
the appellant was unable to comprehend the nature of the proceedings, to
hear the testimony of witnesses, or to assist in his own defense. Id. at 326.
Consequently, the court in Wallace determined that since the appellant did
not make a request for an interpreter and necessity for an interpreter was
not readily apparent, the court did not abuse its discretion by failing to
assign a sign language interpreter. Id. at 327.
In this case, Villanueva’s counsel never alerted the trial court that his
client was struggling to understand any of the court’s proceedings because
of his hearing disability. In addition, the record does not show that
Villanueva’s inability to understand would have been apparent to the court.
-7-
J-S55012-16
During the proceedings, Villanueva had a Spanish language interpreter who
interpreted all the proceedings for him. In addition, the record reveals that
Villanueva had the ability to read lips and had hearing aids. According to
trial counsel, the proceedings were familiar to Villanueva, as counsel had
extensively discussed them with his client ahead of time. Trial counsel
consulted with Villanueva as to how he wanted to handle certain aspects of
his representation. In light of the record and trial counsel’s testimony,
Villanueva’s claim, which alleged that his counsel was ineffective because
counsel did not request a sign language interpreter, is without merit.
Counsel, therefore, was not ineffective. Treiber, supra.
Next, Villanueva argues that counsel was ineffective because he failed
to object to certain leading questions and hearsay during the testimony of
M.S., the teenage sister of the minor victim. He claims counsel should have
objected to the following examination of M.S. by Assistant District Attorney
Broscious :
Q: Did you shower with your sister?
A: Yes, sometimes, we used to take a shower together.
Q: I believe you previously said that sometimes he would come
in?
A: Yeah. He always – when me and my sister, we used to take a
bath together, he always came knocking on the door, say, I have
to use the bathroom, it’s an emergency, I really have to use it.
So we just open the door.
(N.T. Trial, 9/14/2010, at 91-92 (emphasis added).
-8-
J-S55012-16
Villanueva contends the question assumed facts not in evidence.
Generally, leading questions are prohibited on direct examination except as
necessary to develop the witness’s testimony. See Pa.R.E. 611(c).
Arguably, therefore, this claim has merit. When questioned at the PCRA
hearing as to why he did not object, trial counsel stated that he knew the
witness would be testifying as to the events in the bathroom, and he knew
that had he objected, the Commonwealth’s attorney, whom trial counsel
characterized as “an experienced attorney,” would elicit that testimony by
simply rephrasing the question. See N.T. PCRA Hearing, 5/29/15, at 56.
Trial counsel believed an objection would not “have gotten me very far[.]”
Id. We are satisfied that counsel’s decision not to object was reasonable
under the circumstances. See Commonwealth v. Wells, 521 A.2d 1388,
(Pa. 1987).
Villanueva also challenges the statement M.S. made when describing
the incident where a naked Villanueva had entered the bedroom she shared
with the victim and that M.S. ordered him to be gone from the room when
she returned from using the bathroom. M.S. testified:
I still could feel like someone was pulling the blanket. So when I
turned the light on like really fast, I saw [Villanueva] was like in
the middle [of me and my sister]. And I saw him like bare
naked. And then he turned the lights off really fast. . . . So I’m
like, I told him, so what you doing here, you’re supposed to be
sleeping in your room. That’s why you have your own bedroom.
And he was like, oh, you should turn the light off, your sister is
sleeping. When I look at my sister, my sister had her eyes
open. So I told him, what you talking about, she is awake. So
I’m like, well, I’m going to use the bathroom. So when I come
-9-
J-S55012-16
back, you should be like in your room. And so when I went to
the bathroom, my sister came running after me when I was
using the bathroom. She told me that I save her from
[Villanueva]. And I’m like, what are you talking about? She’s
like, oh, you just save me, that’s all.
N.T. Trial, 9/14/10, at 87.
Villanueva claims this is inadmissible hearsay and that counsel was
ineffective for failing to object. Counsel explained at the PCRA hearing that
he did not object because, although it may have been hearsay, the witness’s
testimony fell within either the excited utterance or present sense
impression exceptions to the hearsay rule. N.T. PCRA Hearing, 5/29/15, at
59.
“`Hearsay’ is a statement that (1) the declarant does not make while
testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to
prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Pa.R.E. 801(c). We agree with
counsel’s reasoning that the statement could fall within either the excited
utterance exception to the hearsay rule, see Pa.R.E. 803(2) (“a statement
relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was
under the stress of excitement that it caused” not hearsay), or the present
sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. See Pa.R.E. 803(1) (“a
statement described or explaining an event or condition, made while or
immediately after the declarant perceived it” not hearsay).
Again, we are satisfied that counsel’s decision not to object was
reasonable under the circumstances. Wells, supra. Further, we find no
prejudice, as this information had already been presented through the
- 10 -
J-S55012-16
victim’s testimony. This claim of ineffectiveness, therefore, also fails.
Treiber, supra.
Finally, Villanueva argues that counsel was ineffective due to his
failure to advise Villanueva of the benefits of testifying.
The decision whether or not to testify on one’s own behalf is made by
the defendant after full consultation with counsel. Commonwealth v.
Breisch, 719 A.2d 352, 355 (Pa. Super. 1998). Where counsel’s decision
not to call the defendant was reasonable, counsel was not ineffective.
Commonwealth v. Whitney, 780 A.2d 471, 476 (Pa. 1998). In order to
sustain a claim that counsel was ineffective for “failing to call the appellant
to the stand,” the appellant must demonstrate either: (1) that counsel
interfered with his right to testify, or (2) that counsel gave specific advice so
unreasonable as to vitiate a knowing and intelligent decision to testify on his
own behalf. Breisch, supra, at 355.
The record reveals that counsel’s decision not to call Villanueva was
reasonable. Counsel explained that he advised his client of the advantages
and disadvantages of testifying, he explained to Villanueva what the
anticipated cross-examination would be, as well as his constitutional right to
remain silent, and the court’s jury instruction when a defendant invokes his
right to remain silent. Counsel also stated that he explained that despite the
court’s jury instruction, the jury might make a negative inference from a
defendant’s failure to testify. Counsel explained that a jury likes to hear
what the defendant has to say. He also explained that even though
- 11 -
J-S55012-16
Villanueva chose not to take the stand, there were categorical denials from
the investigators and child services that would inform the jury of his position
without having to testify. Counsel pointed out that ultimately it was
Villanueva who made the decision against testifying. N.T. Trial, 5/29/2015,
at 67-71. There is nothing to suggest that counsel in any way interfered
with Villanueva’s right to testify or that he gave any specific advice that
would be unreasonable. Because Villanueva did not establish either that trial
counsel interfered with his right to testify, or that trial counsel gave him
unreasonable advice as to invite an intelligent decision as to whether to
testify on his own behalf, his final claim of ineffectiveness is meritless.
Treiber, supra.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/19/2016
- 12 -