J. S76030/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.C.E., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: J.C.E., A MINOR :
:
:
:
:
:
: No. 1258 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Dispositional Order April 8, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-JV-0000045-2016
BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. *
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED DECEMBER 12, 2016
Appellant J.C.E. appeals from the adjudication of delinquency entered
by the Juvenile Division of the Bucks County of Common Pleas on April 8,
2016. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
determination that he was in need of supervision. After careful review, we
affirm.
On December 4, 2015, when he was seventeen years old, Appellant
and a co-conspirator brutally beat a juvenile in the 900 block of Avenue B in
Middletown Township, Bucks County. The victim sustained a concussion, a
cut near his right eye requiring stitches, swelling in both eyes, and
numerous minor lacerations and scrapes on both sides of his face. Several
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J. S76030/16
students in a nearby school bus videotaped the incident with their cell
phones. Appellant was charged with Conspiracy, Simple Assault,
Harassment, Disorderly Conduct – Engage in Fighting.1
The juvenile court held a non-adversary proceeding on April 8, 2016,
at which Appellant admitted to his involvement in the assault, and stated
that it had resulted from the victim throwing eggs at Appellant’s house, and
once wearing a shirt with a confederate flag on it and trying to shake
Appellant’s hand while “flaunting his shirt.” N.T. Hearing, 4/8/16, at 16.
The Commonwealth stated that “it would be willing to agree to expunge the
incident from Appellant’s record if he were to successfully complete the
[Youth Service Progress] program.” Id. at 3.
To assist the court in determining whether he was in need of
supervision, Appellant testified that he had turned 18 years old, that he had
been expelled from Neshaminy High School during his senior year as a result
of the incident, and was attending Brandywine Virtual Academy. He further
testified that he works 20 to 28 hours per week at Foot Locker, and that he
saw a licensed social worker who prepared an evaluation indicating that he is
not “really in need” and does not have “any psychological problems” Id. at
8. He further testified that he does not use drugs or alcohol, id., and that
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 903; 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1); 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(1); and
18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(1), respectively.
-2-
J. S76030/16
“nothing justifies” his involvement in the fight that he “regrets [] every day.”
Id. at 16.
After argument from Appellant’s counsel, the court found Appellant to
be in need of supervision and adjudicated him delinquent. The court
imposed indefinite probation, directed Appellant to complete six ACT 2
weekends as needed, and participate in the Youth Service Progress program,
including 30 hours of community service work. The court also directed
Appellant to write a letter of apology to the victim and to have no contact
with the victim or his family.
Appellant timely appealed. Both Appellant and the juvenile court
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant presents the following question for review: “Did the Juvenile
Court err in adjudicating Appellant delinquent?” Appellant’s Brief at 3.
Appellant avers that the trial court “erred in determining that [he] was
in need of treatment and supervision” because “[a]side from the serious
nature of injuries, no evidence was presented by either the Assistant District
Attorney or the assigned Probation Officer to demonstrate that any services
were warranted, or how the specific case plan adopted was designed to aid
the juvenile.” Id. at 4. He also implies that the court overstated the
seriousness of the offenses because the District Attorney “only” charged him
with misdemeanors. See Appellant’s Brief at 7.
2
Assertive Community Treatment (“ACT”)
-3-
J. S76030/16
We note the relevant standard of review:
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 re T.L.B., 127 A.3d 813, 817 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 138 A.3d
6 (Pa. 2016) (citation omitted).
Abuse of discretion is defined as:
It is not sufficient to persuade the appellate court that it might
have reached a different conclusion; it is necessary to show an
actual abuse of the discretionary power. An abuse of discretion
will not be found based on a mere error of judgment, but rather
exists where the court has reached a conclusion that overrides or
misapplies the law, or where the judgment exercised is
manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice,
bias or ill-will.
Commonwealth v. Brown, 134 A.3d 1097, 1105–06 (Pa. Super. 2016),
appeal denied, 145 A.3d 161 (Pa. 2016).
An adjudication of delinquency requires the juvenile court to find that
the juvenile (1) has committed a delinquent act, and (2) is in need of
treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation. Commonwealth v. M.W., 39
A.3d 958, 959 (Pa. 2012).
In the instant case, the trial court addressed Appellant’s claim that
supervision is not needed as follows:
We rejected counsel’s assertions that due to the ‘atypical’
characterization of Appellant’s conduct in this specific incident
that services were not required. In addition to the need for
rehabilitation, supervision and other services related to issues
discussed below, the nature of the seriousness of the beating is
-4-
J. S76030/16
sufficient to require treatment in an effort to prevent repeated
behavior of that nature.
***
At the time of our Adjudication, Appellant raised the issue of the
need for supervision and services by urging us to consider the
positive nature of [ ] Appellant’s family life; his positive work
ethic; his lack of a prior criminal history; his educational
endeavors and a determination by his psychologist that there
was no need for psychotherapy. We took those factors into
account but found that the lack of mitigating factors in the
attack; the sheer brutality of the attack; the exceptional severity
of the physical injuries suffered by the victim; the nature and
causative factors that led to the attack; the conspiratorial nature
of the attack; the unapologetic, sport-like nature of the attack;
as well as that the denigration of the seriousness of the offenses
would result in an appearance of condonation and
encouragement of future similar behavior, all of which would be
to the ultimate detriment of the juvenile and the community.
The totality of the circumstances warranted our adjudication of
delinquency based on the admitted facts and the demonstrated
need for treatment, rehabilitation and supervision for the
protection of the [ ] Appellant as well as the protection of the
community.
Trial Court Opinion, dated June 9, 2016, at 5-6.
Appellant has not provided any case law to support the same argument
that he presented to the trial court, and which the trial court rejected.3 Our
review of the record supports the trial court’s disposition and we cannot
3
In fact, Appellant notes that “[s]tudies have shown that adolescents are
less likely to consider the consequences of their actions, understanding the
perspective of others or restraining impulses,” behavior which has been
“attribute[d] … to slow development of the frontal lobe in late teens.”
Appellant’s Brief at 9, n.3 (citation to amicus brief filed in Roper v.
Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 561 (2005) omitted). Because Appellant is still in
his “late teens,” the information cited by Appellant actually supports the trial
court’s conclusion that supervision is needed.
-5-
J. S76030/16
conclude that the trial court’s imposition of supervision “overrides or
misapplies the law,” or that “the judgment exercised is manifestly
unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.” Brown,
supra.
Dispositional Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/12/2016
-6-