J-S54020-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
LISA J. KNECHT
Appellant No. 1766 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 29, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-65-CR-0002916-2012
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
Lisa J. Knecht appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on May
29, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County. A jury
convicted Knecht of 11 counts of endangering the welfare of children
(EWOC).1 The trial court sentenced Knecht to an aggregate term of 13½ to
27 years’ imprisonment. Knecht raises six claims, challenging (1) the denial
of her motion for recusal, (2) the denial of her pre-trial motion in limine, (3)
the admission of irrelevant or hearsay testimony,2 (4) the denial of her
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 4304(a)(1).
2
Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) provides that “[n]o question will be considered unless it
is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested
thereby.” We note Knecht’s challenge to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings
regarding the admission of testimony is framed as a single issue in the
Statement of Questions Involved. However, the Argument section is
comprised of sub-arguments regarding various witnesses that were
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S54020-16
motion for judgment of acquittal as to all counts and the separate request
for dismissal of Count 11,3 (5) the discretionary aspects of sentencing, and
(6) the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the element of knowledge
required for EWOC. Based upon the following, we affirm on the basis of the
trial court’s sound opinion.
The EWOC convictions against Knecht resulted from Knecht’s actions in
allowing Donald Knecht, her husband, whom she knew had previous
convictions involving minors and “at the very least, had fondled his
daughter,”4 to be alone with children at her daycare facility, and to be alone
with their two grandchildren at their home. The Honorable Rita Donovan
Hathaway has set forth a full procedural history as well as an extensive
discussion of the facts underlying Knecht’s convictions in her Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a) opinion, and, therefore, we need not restate the background of this
case herein. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/31/2015, at 1–14.
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
previously raised in Knecht’s concise statement as separate issues. While
we do not condone Knecht’s format, we have considered these claims, which
have been separately addressed by the trial court in its opinion, as they are
fairly encompassed within the issue identified in the Statement of Questions
Involved.
3
We note Knecht’s concise statement only preserves the issue with regard
to the court’s denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal as to Count 11.
See Knecht’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, 11/5/2015, at ¶¶ 21–22.
4
Trial Court Opinion, 12/31/2015, at 26.
-2-
J-S54020-16
Moreover, the trial court’s opinion provides a well-reasoned discussion
that thoroughly addresses and properly rejects the issues raised in this
appeal.5 See Trial Court Opinion, supra, at 15–336 (explaining: (1) The
trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for recusal
where the fact that the trial court recognized it was already familiar with the
case, and that it would be able to hear the case in April, 2015, was a
showing of judicial efficiency; (2) The trial court did not abuse its discretion
in denying Knecht’s pre-trial motion in limine seeking to preclude admission
of Donald Knecht’s convictions where the Commonwealth introduced
witnesses who stated Knecht was aware of his convictions; (3)(a) The
testimony of Erica Wilson, who stated that she observed Donald Knecht
looking at a young girl at the daycare in a strange way, was relevant to
Knecht’s knowledge, and Wilson’s testimony that Knecht was present when
the behavior took place advanced the inference that Knecht placed children
____________________________________________
5
On October 29, 2015, the trial court ordered Knecht to file a Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Knecht
complied with the trial court’s order by filing a concise statement on
November 5, 2015. On December 22, 2015, the trial court issued an opinion
pursuant to Rule 1925(a).
6
We note that, in this appeal, Knecht does not present the separate claim
that the trial court abused its discretion by rejecting a negotiated guilty plea,
which was an issue raised by Knecht in her concise statement and addressed
by the trial court. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/31/2015, at 14–15. We
further note that Knecht does not challenge the weight of the evidence,
which was also raised in Knecht’s concise statement, and discussed by the
trial court in its opinion. See id. at 33–36.
-3-
J-S54020-16
in Donald Knecht’s care knowing that he was a danger, and this testimony
was not so prejudicial to distract the jury, nor to outweigh its probative
value; (3)(b) The testimony of Barbara Huff, a caseworker for the
Westmoreland County Children’s Bureau, regarding the prior inconsistent
statement of Kristine Melville, Knecht’s daughter, was properly admitted as a
statement to impeach a witness; (3)(c) Detective Weaver’s testimony
regarding items recovered from the marital residence (including
pornographic images of Knecht’s two grandchildren) was certainly relevant
although the Commonwealth could not establish that Knecht had
constructive knowledge that these items existed: It supported the inference
that Knecht knew she was endangering both the children at the daycare as
well as her own grandchildren by allowing her husband to watch both groups
unsupervised, made clear Knecht allowed her grandchildren to be
unsupervised in her own home with Donald Knecht, and the prejudice to
Knecht was outweighed by its probative value in establishing Knecht’s
knowledge she was violating a duty of care, an element of the EWOC charge
at Count 11; (3)(d) The Commonwealth’s cross-examination questioning of
Knecht to clarify the record regarding the year when Knecht first met her
husband, which was based upon information set forth in a pre-sentence
report, without any mention of the pre-sentence report that had been
prepared as a result of Knecht’s withdrawn guilty plea, was not error; (4)
The trial court did not err in denying Knecht’s request for judgment of
acquittal as to Count 11 (pertaining to Knecht’s grandchildren) because the
-4-
J-S54020-16
Commonwealth sustained its burden of proving the elements of the crime
under Count 11, the court set out the correct elements for the charge of
EWOC, and nothing in the record suggests the jurors were confused by the
different charges; and (5) There was a plethora of evidence that Knecht did
not act after being informed that Donald Knecht was not legally permitted
around children unsupervised; the same would apply to Count 11 and
Knecht’s grandchildren who were sometimes present in the daycare, and
also often visited Knecht’s home.)7 As our review leads us to conclude no
____________________________________________
7
Although Knecht has presented a challenge to the discretionary aspects of
sentence in her appellate brief, Knecht did not identify this issue separately
in her Rule 1925(b) statement, alleging only in the “Wherefore” clause that
the trial judge “abused her discretion in sentencing [Knecht] to 13½ to 27
years[’ imprisonment]. Knecht’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, 11/5/2015.
See also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement
and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) are
waived.”).
Even if Knecht’s discretionary sentencing claim is regarded as
preserved by the concise statement, Knecht has failed to include a Pa.R.A.P.
2119(f) statement in her brief, and the Commonwealth has lodged an
objection to this omission. See Commonwealth’s Brief, at 33–35. See also
Commonwealth v. Trinidad, 96 A.3d 1031, 1039 (Pa. Super 2014)
(“Because Appellant neglected to include a separate Rule 2119(f) statement
in his brief and because the Commonwealth has objected to this omission,
we deem Appellant’s challenge to be waived.”). Accordingly, the
discretionary sentencing issue has been waived.
In any event, we would find no relief is due. The trial court had the
benefit of a pre-sentence report and explained the reason for its sentence,
and the record supports the aggregate sentence fashioned by the trial court.
Accordingly, we would find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in
imposing 10 standard range sentences of 1 to 2 years’ imprisonment on the
first 10 charges, and the maximum sentence of three-and-one-half to seven
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-5-
J-S54020-16
further elaboration is warranted by this Court, we affirm on the basis of
Judge Hathaway’s December 31, 2015 opinion.8
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/20/2016
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
years’ imprisonment on Count 11, with all sentences made to run
consecutively.
8
To protect the privacy of the children involved in this case, we have not
attached a copy of the trial court’s opinion, which cannot be feasibly
redacted.
-6-