J-S91034-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
Appellee :
v. :
:
ANGELA MARIE JONES :
:
Appellant : No. 526 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 18, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003758-2014
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., RANSOM, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. *
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 27, 2017
Angela Marie Jones (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County after a
jury convicted Appellant of three counts of Endangering the Welfare of
Children (18 Pa.C.S. § 4304(a)(1)).1 Appellant claims the trial court abused
its discretion in various evidentiary matters and in imposing an excessive
sentence. After careful review, we affirm.
The trial court aptly summarized the factual history of this case as
follows:
In July 2014, [Appellant] lived with her fiancé, [V.D.] and her
three children [E, H, and D] … in Ephrata, Lancaster County. At
____________________________________________
1
We refer to Appellant and her family members with their initials as this
case involves the care of minor children.
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S91034-16
the time, E was six, H was three, and D was one. [Appellant’s]
apartment building had three levels, with [Appellant’s]
apartment occupying the top two floors. Her brother, [A.J.],
lived in the same building with his fiancé [B.H.] in an apartment
directly underneath his sister’s.
On the evening of July 11, 2014, [Appellant] was at home with
her children while her fiancé was at work. She had planned to
attend an AA meeting from 7:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. at a
church located very close to her home. [FN2] [Appellant]
claimed she had arranged for a babysitter, [A.D.] but that [A.D.]
was running late. At some point that evening, [Appellant]
decided to go to the meeting, leaving her children unattended.
She testified that she left for the meeting at 7:45 p.m. and that,
by the time she left, her children had been asleep for
approximately ten minutes. She added that she returned from
the meeting at approximately 8:30 p.m. and that the babysitter
arrived shortly thereafter.
[FN2:] The church building was down an alley from
the home. The two structures were approximately
one hundred feet apart.
[A.J.] testified that, at approximately 7:30 P.M. on July 11,
2014, he was sitting on a couch in his apartment watching
television when he noticed movement on his front porch. About
fifteen minutes later, he noticed movement on his front porch
again and decided to investigate. When he opened the blinds
and looked out the window, he noticed his nephew [H.] on the
front porch crying for his mother. After consulting with his
fiancé, [A.J.] brought [H.] into his apartment and went upstairs
to [Appellant’s] apartment to check on her other two children.
He found [Appellant’s] other two children unattended on the
upper level of her apartment, and indicated that it was very
warm in the room and that the youngest child, [D.], was
sweating. There was one operating window air conditioning unit
in the apartment, located in [Appellant’s] bedroom, but the door
to that room was almost entirely closed.
During this time, [A.J.’s fiancé, B.H.], called the police and
Sergeant Philip Snavely of the Ephrata Borough police
responded. The call was made at 8:05 P.M. and Sergeant
Snavely responded at 8:07 P.M. Sergeant Snavely initially spoke
with [B.H.] in her apartment and then proceeded up to
-2-
J-S91034-16
[Appellant’s] apartment. There, he observed [Appellant’s] two
other children on the third floor of the apartment. He indicated
that the bedroom appeared to be a converted attic and was very
hot. He also observed a knife on the kitchen counter, utensils in
the kitchen sink, and an unlocked second-story exterior door,
which led to a second-floor balcony with steep stairs on the side
leading to the ground level of the building. Sergeant Snavely
then notified the Lancaster County Children and Youth Agency
that he was leaving all three children with [A.J.] and [B.H.] He
cleared the scene at 8:30 P.M. after advising [A.J.] and his
fiancé to call him immediately once [Appellant] returned and to
not allow [Appellant] to take back her children until they had
done so. They complied.
[B.H.] stated that, at approximately 8:45 P.M. that evening, she
observed a truck pull into the driveway of the apartment building
and noticed [Appellant] and [A.D.] exit that vehicle. She then
contacted Sergeant Snavely as she had been instructed to do,
after she heard [Appellant] knock on the door to [B.H.’s]
apartment. At 8:51 P.M., Sergeant Snavely was again
dispatched to the building in response to two calls. One was
from [B.H.], as described above, while the other was from
[Appellant], who indicated that her brother had taken her
children.
Upon arriving at the scene at 8:52 P.M., Sergeant Snavely spoke
with [Appellant] regarding her whereabouts that evening.
Sergeant Snavely indicated that [Appellant] told him she had
been at an AA meeting at a nearby church, that she had
arranged for a babysitter to look after the children, that the
babysitter was five minutes late and that, during that five-
minute period, [A.J.] had taken her children. After hearing
[Appellant’s] version of the events, Sergeant Snavely told her
she was lying because he was on the scene from 8:07 P.M. until
8:30 P.M. and never saw her. At that point, he stopped taking a
statement from [Appellant]. He also told her to call her fiancé,
[V.D.], so that her three children could be released to their care.
Sergeant Snavely remained at the building until 9:15 P.M. when
he coordinated the custody exchange of the children to
[Appellant] and [V.D.] and advised Lancaster County Children
and Youth accordingly. Lancaster County Children and Youth
assured Sergeant Snavely that their organization would
immediately investigate. As a result of these events, Sergeant
Snavely charged [Appellant] with two counts of Endangering the
-3-
J-S91034-16
Welfare of Children (M-1) and one count of Endangering the
Welfare of Children (F-3), one count for each of [Appellant’s]
children.
Trial Court Opinion, 6/16/16, at 1-5 (citations and some footnotes omitted).
Prior to her jury trial, Appellant filed a motion in limine, seeking to
preclude the prosecution from telling the jury that Appellant was at an
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting when she left her children unattended,
as Appellant claimed such testimony was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.
Instead, Appellant asked that the Commonwealth indicate that Appellant was
at a meeting at a church. The Commonwealth argued that using the phrase
“church meeting” was inappropriate as it would suggest the gathering had a
religious purpose. After the parties submitted briefs on this issue, the trial
court filed an order directing the parties to generally refer to the gathering
as a “meeting half a block away from the apartment.” Order, 10/1/2015.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted Appellant of all three
counts of Endangering the Welfare of Children. The trial court ordered a
presentence investigation and deferred sentencing. On February 18, 2016,
the trial court held Appellant’s sentencing hearing at which Appellant,
Appellant’s caseworker, and Appellant’s pastor testified on Appellant’s
behalf. The trial court then imposed three concurrent sentences of one year
less one day to two years less one day incarceration to be followed by a
three-year probationary tail. The trial court gave Appellant credit for time
served and determined that she was eligible for work release and pre-
release re-entry. On February 26, 2016, Appellant filed a post-sentence
-4-
J-S91034-16
motion, which the trial court subsequently denied on February 29, 2016.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on March 30, 2016 and complied with the
trial court’s direction to file a concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Appellant raises five issues for our review:
I. The trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to
present witness testimony that [Appellant] had been at an
AA meeting where the Court initially held that attendance
at the AA meeting could not be referenced.
II. The trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to play
for the jury and admit into evidence three 911 calls when
two were hearsay and one referenced the AA meeting that
the court previously ruled was inadmissible.
III. The trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth to
simply tell the jury that [Appellant] had prior crimen falsi
convictions and then further erred by admitting into
evidence what the Commonwealth purported to be certified
copies of those convictions without the Commonwealth
calling a witness to establish and authenticate [Appellant’s]
prior record.
IV. The trial court abused its discretion in denying [defense
counsel’s] request for a mistrial when a Children and Youth
Social Service Case Worker testified to another caseworker
working with [Appellant] at a time prior to the incident in
question.
V. The trial court’s aggregate sentence of one year less one
day to two years less one day of incarceration, followed by
a three year period of probation was so manifestly
excessive as to constitute too severe a punishment and
was clearly unreasonable under the circumstances of this
case, and the rehabilitative needs of [Appellant], where
the court did not impose an individualized sentence and
instead improperly based its sentence, in part, on
-5-
J-S91034-16
[Appellant’s] previous conviction for endangering the
welfare of children.
Appellant’s Brief at ii (reordered for ease of review).
The majority of Appellant’s arguments challenge the trial court’s
discretion in the admission of certain evidence. Our standard of review for
evidentiary matters is well-established:
The admission of evidence is a matter vested within the sound
discretion of the trial court, and such a decision shall be reversed
only upon a showing that the trial court abused its discretion. In
determining whether evidence should be admitted, the trial court
must weigh the relevant and probative value of the evidence
against the prejudicial impact of the evidence. Evidence is
relevant if it logically tends to establish a material fact in the
case or tends to support a reasonable inference regarding a
material fact. Although a court may find that evidence is
relevant, the court may nevertheless conclude that such
evidence is inadmissible on account of its prejudicial impact.
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 749 (Pa.Super. 2014)
(citation omitted).
In her first evidentiary challenge, Appellant claims the trial court
abused its discretion in allowing a prosecution witness to testify that
Appellant left her children unsupervised while she attended an AA meeting.
Specifically, Appellant argues that the admission of this information was
unduly prejudicial and irrelevant in her trial for unrelated charges of
Endangering the Welfare of Children. Appellant points out that this
testimony violated the trial court’s pretrial order which directed that parties
should simply indicate that Appellant was attending a “meeting half a block
away from the apartment.” Order, 10/1/2015.
-6-
J-S91034-16
While the trial court initially ruled in its pretrial order that such a
reference to the AA meeting was inadmissible, the trial court recognized that
defense counsel proceeded to tell the jury multiple times in her opening
statement that Appellant was attending a “church meeting” despite the fact
that the Commonwealth voiced its opposition to this phrasing before trial.
The trial court agreed with the Commonwealth’s concern that the defense
counsel had misled the jury by characterizing Appellant’s AA meeting as a
church meeting as it suggested that Appellant was attending a gathering
with a religious purpose. As a result, the trial court ruled that defense
counsel had opened the door to allow the prosecution to introduce evidence
to clarify the true nature and purpose of Appellant’s AA meeting.
We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the
Commonwealth to further explore Appellant’s purported explanation of her
whereabouts on the night in question. Defense counsel emphasized in her
opening statement no less than six times that Appellant was at a church,
directing the jury to “[p]ay attention to where [Appellant] was at the time.
She was at a church.” N.T. Trial, 11/16/15, at 49. Defense counsel’s
comments were in direct violation of the trial court’s pretrial order limiting
the parties to generally refer to Appellant’s attendance at a “meeting half a
block away from the apartment.” Order, 10/1/2015.
Moreover, assuming arguendo that the trial court’s decision to allow
the Commonwealth to elicit testimony concerning Appellant’s attendance at
the AA meeting was incorrect, the admission of this testimony was harmless
-7-
J-S91034-16
error in light of the overwhelming evidence against Appellant on the charges
of Endangering the Welfare of Children. “[H]armless error exists if the
record demonstrates either: (1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or
the prejudice was de minimis; or (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was
merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially
similar to the erroneously admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted
and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the
prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison that the
error could not have contributed to the verdict.” Commonwealth v. Shull,
148 A.3d 820, 846 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citing Commonwealth v. Hairston,
624 Pa. 143, 84 A.3d 657, 671–72 (2014)). Accordingly, this claim is
meritless.
Second, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in
permitting the Commonwealth to play recordings of 9-1-1 calls for the jury,
which she characterizes as inadmissible hearsay.2 Hearsay is “a statement,
other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing,
offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”
Commonwealth v. Dent, 837 A.2d 571, 577 (Pa.Super. 2003); Pa.R.E.
801(c). The trial court found the recordings were admissible under the
____________________________________________
2
Appellant also challenges the admission of the 9-1-1 call she made, telling
the operator that she came back from an AA meeting to find her children
missing. For the reasons we set forth above, we find this claim to be
without merit.
-8-
J-S91034-16
present sentence impression exception, which regardless of the availability
of the declarant to testify at trial, allows the admission of “[a] statement
describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was
perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter ....” Pa.R.E.
803(1).
Appellant specifically claims that the 9-1-1 tapes did not meet the
present sense impression hearsay exception as B.H., the declarant on the
recordings, did not go into Appellant’s apartment and find the children
unattended before making the 9-1-1 call. However, the trial court found
that B.H. made statements contemporaneous with the events she described.
In the first 9-1-1 call, B.H indicated that Appellant’s children were
unattended as B.H. observed Appellant’s three-year old child crying alone on
her front porch. In the second 9-1-1 call, B.H. reported that Appellant had
returned home as Sergeant Snavely had asked her to do. Moreover, the
information in the recordings were corroborated by B.H., who testified and
was subject to cross-examination before the tapes were played.
Accordingly, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in admitting the
9-1-1 recordings into evidence.
Third, Appellant claims it was error for the trial court to allow the
Commonwealth to admit certified copies of Appellant’s prior crimen falsi
convictions without requiring the prosecution to call a witness to
authenticate the documents. However, Appellant seemingly ignores the trial
court’s citation to authority establishing that certified records are “self-
-9-
J-S91034-16
authenticating,” meaning that they “require no extrinsic evidence of
authenticity in order to be admitted.” Pa.R.E. 902(4). Moreover, the trial
court noted:
[i]n Pennsylvania[,] “[t]he use of prior convictions to impeach
the credibility of a criminal defendant has long been recognized
as a legitimate prosecutorial tool” as long as certain procedural
safeguards are met. Commonwealth v. King, 316 A.2d 878,
879 (Pa. 1974). Before evidence of the convictions may be
admitted, “clear proof” must be adduced that, among other
things “the record is authentic and accurate” and “that the
present defendant is the same person as that to whom the prior
convictions refer.” [Id.] While “the records custodian’s
testimony” may be used to establish the authenticity and
accuracy of the record,” a “duly certified copy of the record” will
suffice and “will be considered as competent evidence.” [Id.] at
879 n.2.
T.C.O. at 21-22. As Appellant offers no advocacy to support his bald
conclusion that the prosecution should have been required to present more
evidence of the certified records’ authenticity, we decline to review this
meritless argument further.
Fourth, Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying her motion for
a mistrial after a prosecution witness, Children and Youth Agency
caseworker Ashley Caban, testified that upon contacting Appellant for the
first time, Ms. Caban “was aware that [Appellant] had a caseworker assigned
through [the] agency.” N.T. Trial, at 103. Appellant argues that it was
extremely prejudicial for the jury to know that Appellant had an open case
with Children and Youth at the time that she was charged with the instant
counts of Endangering the Welfare of Children.
- 10 -
J-S91034-16
Our standard of review for such a challenge is well-established:
Our review of a trial court's denial of a motion for a mistrial “is
limited to determining whether the trial court abused its
discretion.” Commonwealth v. Fortenbaugh, 620 Pa. 483, 69
A.3d 191, 193 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). A trial
court may grant a mistrial “only where the incident upon which
the motion is based is of such a nature that its unavoidable
effect is to deprive the defendant of a fair trial by preventing the
jury from weighing and rendering a true verdict.”
Commonwealth v. Simpson, 562 Pa. 255, 754 A.2d 1264,
1272 (2000). A mistrial “is not necessary where cautionary
instructions are adequate to overcome prejudice.”
Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 612 Pa. 107, 30 A.3d 381,
422 (2011).
Commonwealth v. Cash, ---Pa.---, 137 A.3d 1262, 1273 (2016)
In this case, the record supports the trial court’s decision to deny
Appellant’s request for a mistrial. We agree with the trial court’s observation
that Ms. Caban’s statement that Appellant had an agency caseworker
assigned to her was “tangential[,] fleeting[, and] … in no way had the
unavoidable effect of depriving [Appellant] a fair trial.” T.C.O. at 20
(quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the trial court sustained defense
counsel’s immediate objection and promptly gave the jury a curative
instruction that they were only to evaluate Ms. Caban’s statements with
regard to [Appellant’s] alleged conduct on July 11, 2014. Appellant cannot
show prejudice resulted from Ms. Caban’s comment, as a jury is presumed
to follow a trial court’s curative instruction. See Cash, ---Pa.---, 137 A.3d
at 1273. As such, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
refusing to grant a mistrial.
- 11 -
J-S91034-16
Lastly, Appellant contends the trial court imposed a manifestly
excessive sentence. It is well-established that “[a] challenge to the
discretionary aspects of sentencing does not entitle an appellant to review as
of right.” Commonwealth v. Bynum-Hamilton, 135 A.3d 179, 184
(Pa.Super. 2016). In order to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction to address
such a challenge, the appellant must satisfy the following four-part test: the
appellant must (1) file a timely notice of appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 902,
903; (2) preserve the issues at sentencing or in a timely post-sentence
motion pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) ensure that the appellant’s brief
does not have a fatal defect as set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) set
forth a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not
appropriate under the Sentencing Code under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b). Id.
Appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, preserved his sentencing claim
before the trial court, and submitted a Rule 2119(f) statement in his
appellate brief.
We may now determine whether Appellant has raised a substantial
question for our review. “The determination of what constitutes a
substantial question must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.”
Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768, (Pa.Super. 2015). This
Court has provided as follows:
A substantial question exists only when the appellant advances a
colorable argument that the sentencing judge's actions were
either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the
Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms
which underlie the sentencing process.
- 12 -
J-S91034-16
When imposing a sentence, the sentencing court must consider
the factors set out in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b), that is, the
protection of the public, gravity of offense in relation to impact
on victim and community, and rehabilitative needs of the
defendant. And, of course, the court must consider the
sentencing guidelines.
Id. (internal citations omitted).
Specifically, Appellant claims the trial court “double-counted” her prior
2015 conviction for endangering the welfare of a child. Appellant’s Brief at
28. Appellant contends that the trial court’s reference to the prior conviction
was improper as “any prior convictions [A]ppellant had were already
accounted for when her prior record score was calculated.” Appellant’s Brief
at 28. This Court has found that an allegation that the trial court has
improperly “double-counted” a defendant’s criminal history and prior record
score is a substantial question for review. Commonwealth v. Goggins,
748 A.2d 721, 728 (Pa.Super. 2000).
Given the circumstances of Appellant’s convictions and her prior
criminal record, the sentencing guideline range for Appellant’s minimum
sentence was nine to sixteen months on each of the three convictions for
Endangering the Welfare of a Child. The trial court imposed three
concurrent standard range sentences of one year less one day to two years
less one day incarceration to be followed by three years probation.
Despite Appellant’s argument to the contrary, the record contains no
evidence that the trial court improperly considered his prior conviction for
Endangering the Welfare of a Child. Rather, the trial court discussed
- 13 -
J-S91034-16
Appellant’s prior conviction in clarifying its rationale in selecting incarceration
an appropriate sentencing alternative for the current crimes. The trial court
noted that Appellant already been “afforded the privilege of house arrest” as
a sentence for the previous conviction and was charged with the instant
offenses shortly after completing parenting classes. N.T. Sentencing,
2/18/16, at 11. As a result, the trial court felt a stronger sanction was
warranted because Appellant’s previous sentence of house arrest had been
ineffective as Appellant demonstrated a propensity to reoffend.
Moreover, the trial court fully discussed its reasons for imposing its
sentence on the record. The trial court considered Appellant’s
“comprehensive and detailed Presentence Investigation” as well as the
sentencing guidelines, Appellant’s character, counsels’ arguments, and the
testimony given at the sentencing hearing. N.T. Sentencing, at 11. This
Court has held that “where the sentencing court imposed a standard-range
sentence with the benefit of a pre-sentence report, we will not consider the
sentence excessive. In those circumstances, we can assume the sentencing
court “was aware of relevant information regarding the defendant's
character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory
factors.” Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293, 298 (Pa.Super. 2011)
(citing Commonwealth v. Devers, 519 Pa. 88, 546 A.2d 12, 18 (1988)).
Emphasizing the need to protect the public and to deter Appellant from
reoffending, the trial court also emphasized that “[i]ncarceration is
warranted because a lesser sentence would depreciate the seriousness of
- 14 -
J-S91034-16
the crimes.” N.T. Sentencing, at 11. In its 1925(b) opinion, the trial court
noted that the circumstances of the instant offenses “deserve special
mention”:
Appellant made the selfish choice to put her own interests above
those of her three children on a hot July night by leaving an
infant, a three-year old, and a six-year-old unattended in an
unlocked, converted third-story attic without a fan or air-
conditioning for well over an hour. Indeed, making the situation
even more egregious is that [Appellant] had a window air-
conditioning unit in her own bedroom, but decided not to share it
with her children. During [Appellant’s] absence, her three-year
old son opened an exterior door and made his way down a set of
steep, rickety stairs to his neighbor’s porch, where he started
crying for his mother.
***
[Appellant] left her children to fend for themselves for an
indeterminate amount of time before arriving home nearly forty-
five minutes after the meeting she claims to have attended had
concluded – a meeting that was supposedly merely steps away
from her home.
T.C.O. at 25-27. Accordingly, we find that the trial court properly exercised
its discretion in imposing Appellant’s sentence.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/27/2017
- 15 -