Com. v. Stehley, G.

J-S21009-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
GARY STEHLEY
Appellant No. 861 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 4, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-07-CR-0000200-2013,
CP-07-CR-0000465-2014
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MAY 16, 2017
Gary Stehley appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the
Court of Common on Pleas of Blair County, following his conviction of
multiple sex offenses against two of his children.1 After our review, we
affirm.
On December 4, 2015, the court sentenced Stehley to fifteen to thirty
years’ imprisonment. That judgment of sentence was entered on May 4,
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
Stehley was convicted of two counts of rape of a child, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
3121(c); two counts of involuntary sexual intercourse with a child, 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 3123(b); three counts of indecent assault of a person less than
13 years of age, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(7); two counts of corruption of
minors-sexual offense, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(a)(1); and incest, 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 4302.
J-S21009-17
2016, and Stehley filed a timely notice of appeal. He raises the following
issue for our review:
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to
amend the criminal information at CR 465-2014 multiple times
both prior to and during trial and whether the trial court erred in
determining that the serial amendments of the criminal
information by the Commonwealth prior to and during trial did
not prejudice [Stehley]?
Appellant’s Brief, at 4.
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 564 permits amendment of an
information “when there is a defect in form, the description of the
offense(s), the description of any person or any property, or the date
charged, provided the information as amended does not charge an additional
or different offense.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 564. “[T]he purpose of Rule 564 is to
ensure that a defendant is fully apprised of the charges, and to avoid
prejudice by prohibiting the last minute addition of alleged criminal acts of
which the defendant is uninformed.” Commonwealth v. Sinclair, 897 A.2d
1218, 1221 (Pa. Super. 2006).
Here, the complaint alleged the sexual assaults occurred on or about
January 1, 2012 to March 1, 2012. The criminal information at 465-2014
charged that the sexual offenses against the younger victim, who was seven
years old at the time, occurred on or about Sunday, January 1, 2012. On
October 9, 2014, the Commonwealth sought amendment pursuant to
Pa.R.Crim.P. 564 to reflect that the sexual abuse occurred on or about
January 1, 2012 to March 1, 2012. Stehley did not object to this motion.
-2-
J-S21009-17
At the start of trial, on September 8, 2015, the Commonwealth filed a
second motion to amend the information. The Commonwealth argued that
the testimony would reflect that the weather was hot when the abuse
occurred against the younger victim, that the younger victim had turned
seven years old in September 2011, and that the victims and their mother
had moved out of the family home by January 27, 2012. The court deferred
its ruling until after it heard the evidence. Thereafter, the court granted the
Commonwealth’s motion to amend the information.
Stehley argues that the court erred in permitting the Commonwealth’s
amendment because it enlarged the dates between which the criminal acts
allegedly occurred against the younger victim, from January to March of
2012, to September 2011 to January 27, 2012, and, therefore, he was
prejudiced. Stehley claims that this expanded time period affected his alibi
defense -- that he was at work every weekday between the hours of 3:00
p.m. and 11:30 p.m. from January 1, 2012 through March 1, 2012. This
claim is meritless.
At the start of trial, the Commonwealth and Stehley entered into a
stipulation with respect to Stehley’s alibi. Stehley’s counsel stated the
following on the record, and in the presence of the jury:
I just want to indicate, as Judge Milliron mentioned, there is a
stipulation that has been entered into between the defense and
the Commonwealth. I appreciate the Commonwealth’s agreeing
to this. It makes things a lot easier and timely for everyone
involved. My client was employed with the Altoona Area
School District at the relevant time frames involved in the
Criminal Complaint involving [D.S]. Specifically, the
-3-
J-S21009-17
Commonwealth is alleging that these incidents occurred
between September of 2011 and January 27, 2012. The
stipulation is that my client worked. Margaret McMinn from the
Department of Human Resources at the Altoona School District
would testify, if called upon, that my client worked every
single day Monday through Friday from 3 p.m until
approximately 11:30 p.m. during this time period. That is,
again, September of 2011 through and including January
27, 2012.
N.T. Jury Trial, 9/10/15, at 54 (emphasis added).
This Court has stated:
When a challenge is raised to an amended information, the
salient inquiry is [w]hether the crimes specified in the original ...
information involve the same basic elements and evolved out of
the same factual situation as the crimes specified in the
amended ... information. If so, then the defendant is deemed to
have been placed on notice regarding his alleged criminal
conduct. If, however, the amended provision alleges a different
set of events, or defenses to the amended crime are materially
different from the elements or defenses to the crime originally
charged, such that the defendant would be prejudiced by the
change, then the amendment is not permitted.
Commonwealth v. Samuel, 102 A.3d 1001, 1008–09 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(internal citations omitted). Further, “relief is warranted only when the
amendment to the information prejudices a defendant.” Commonwealth v.
Page, 965 A.2d 1212, 1224 (Pa. Super. 2009).
In Page, we stated that the factors to be considered when
determining whether a defendant was prejudiced by the Commonwealth's
amendment include: “whether the amendment changes the factual scenario;
whether new facts, previously unknown to appellant, were added; whether
the description of the charges changed; whether the amendment
-4-
J-S21009-17
necessitated a change in defense strategy; and whether the timing of the
request for the amendment allowed for ample notice and preparation by
[defendant].” Id. The purpose of Rule 564 “is to ensure that a defendant is
fully apprised of the charges, and to avoid prejudice by prohibiting the last
minute addition of alleged criminal acts of which the defendant is
uninformed.” Commonwealth v. Davalos, 779 A.2d 1190, 1194 (Pa.
Super. 2001).
Here, the amendment clearly did not affect Stehley’s alibi defense.
The Commonwealth agreed to a stipulation that accommodated the
expanded timeframe. Further, the amendment brought no new charges and
changed no elements of any of the charges. The amendment did not alter
the fact that Stehley was on notice of the criminal conduct charged, nor did
it alter his defense strategy. See Commonwealth v. J.F., 800 A.2d 942,
945 (Pa. Super. 2002) (informations charging defendant with rape and other
sexual offenses against minors was properly amended to change dates of
majority of charges; neither additional charges nor different set of events
was added to informations). Further, in light of the special difficulties in
ascertaining specific dates in cases of ongoing sexual abuse, the
Commonwealth is afforded a measure of latitude, particularly when the
cases involve a young child. See Commonwealth v. Groff, 548 A.2d 1237
(Pa. Super. 1988).
-5-
J-S21009-17
We agree with the trial court’s determination that Stehley was not
prejudiced by the amendments, and we conclude no relief is warranted.
Page, supra. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/16/2017
-6-