J-S56028-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
BRIAN SANCHEZ-PADILLA, :
:
Appellant. : No. 1737 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, October 4, 2017,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0000413-2014,
CP-36-CR-0000522-2014, CP-36-CR-0000534-2014,
CP-36-CR-0003363-2015, CP-36-CR-0003671-2015,
CP-36-CR-0005530-2015.
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 12, 2018
Brian Sanchez-Padilla appeals from the judgment of sentence the trial
court imposed after finding him guilty of violating probation and parole.1
Sanchez-Padilla challenges the trial court’s determination that he was
competent to be sentenced on his probation/parole violations. We affirm.
Sanchez-Padilla was charged with probation violations following events
which transpired on April 16, 2017. While officers were citing Sanchez-Padilla
for sleeping in a public park in violation of a city ordinance, Sanchez-Padilla
became belligerent. When the officers attempted to arrest Sanchez-Padilla
____________________________________________
1 Sanchez-Padilla was serving probation for previous convictions of identity
theft and forgery, and simultaneously serving parole for aggravated
harassment by a prisoner and reckless burning or exploding and criminal
mischief.
J-S56028-18
for disorderly conduct, he attacked the officers, punching one in the head,
repeatedly slamming another officer’s head into the concrete ground, and
stabbing an officer multiple times in the face and thighs with a pen. Sanchez-
Padilla left a mental health clinic against medical advice several days prior to
the filing of these charges.
Sanchez-Padilla appeared for a hearing on a parole/probation violation
after the new criminal charges were filed against him. The court found
Sanchez-Padilla violated parole/probation and revoked them. The court
ordered a pre-sentence investigation report and deferred sentencing pending
disposition of the new criminal charges.
Sanchez-Padilla moved for a competency determination. After a
competency hearing, the trial court determined that Sanchez-Padilla was
competent to stand trial, and a jury trial was scheduled.
On September 27, 2017, the jury convicted Sanchez-Padilla of two
counts of aggravated assault and one count of resisting arrest. On October 4,
2017, the court sentenced Sanchez-Padilla on his parole/probation violations.
On the probation violation for forgery, the court reinstated probation. On the
parole violation for aggravated harassment by a prisoner, the court sentenced
Sanchez-Padilla to serve the unexpired term. On the parole violation for
reckless burning or exploding and criminal mischief, the court terminated
parole effective immediately and sentenced Sanchez-Padilla to imprisonment
in the state correctional institution for a period of 1½ - 5 years. All sentences
were made concurrent to one another. Trial Court Opinion, 1/2/2018, at 4.
-2-
J-S56028-18
This timely appeal followed. Both Sanchez-Padilla and the trial court
have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Sanchez-Padilla presents the following single issue for our review:
Did the trial court err in finding Mr. Sanchez-Padilla
competent to be sentenced for probation/parole violations
on the above-captioned information numbers, where
defense counsel proved by a preponderance of the evidence
that Mr. Sanchez-Padilla was substantially unable to
understand the nature or object of the proceedings against
him or to participate and assist in his defense?
Sanchez-Padilla’s Brief at 5.
Our standard of review for a trial court ruling on competency is abuse
of discretion. Commonwealth v. Delbridge, 859 A.2d 1254, 1257 (Pa.
2004). Our scope of our review is plenary as this Court may review the entire
record in making its decision. Id.
When reviewing a competency claim, we are guided by the following
principles:
A defendant is presumed competent and it is his burden to show
otherwise, the determination of which is within the sound
discretion of the trial court. When a competency hearing takes
place, incompetency may be established by a preponderance of
the evidence. 50 P.S. § 7402(d). The sensitive nature of
competency determinations requires the appellate courts to afford
great deference to the conclusions of the trial court, which has
had the opportunity to observe the defendant personally. When
the record supports the trial court's determination, we will not
disturb it.
Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 64 A.3d 715, 720 (Pa. Super. 2013) (some
citations omitted).
-3-
J-S56028-18
Our Supreme Court has further stated that:
[w]here there is reason to doubt a defendant’s competency,
the trial court is required to conduct a competency hearing.
Competency is measured according to whether the
defendant has sufficient ability at the pertinent time to
consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational as
well as factual understanding of the proceedings.
Commonwealth v. Davido, 106 A.3d 611, 639 (Pa. 2014) (per curiam)
(internal citations omitted).
Incompetency, is defined by statute which states that a person is
“incompetent to be tried, convicted or sentenced” if he is “substantially unable
to understand the nature or object of the proceedings against him or to
participate and assist in his defense.” 50 Pa.C.S.A. §7402(a).
Sanchez-Padilla argues that he demonstrated by a preponderance of the
evidence that he was neither substantially able to understand the proceeding
nor able to meaningfully participate and assist in his defense. In support of
his argument, Sanchez-Padilla primarily relies on his witness, Dr. Stein, a
licensed psychologist, who the trial court accepted as an expert in determining
competency. Ultimately, “Dr. Stein concluded to a reasonable degree of
psychological certainty that Mr. Sanchez was not competent to stand trial,
because he [did not] understand the role of the various members of the court,
and was unable to constructively consult with counsel for his benefit.”
Sanchez-Padilla’s Brief at 12.
In forming this conclusion, after multiple observations of Sanchez-
Padilla, Dr. Stein observed that Sanchez-Padilla did not know his attorney’s
-4-
J-S56028-18
name, and did not understand the discrepancy in his desire to plead guilty
while consistently maintaining he had done nothing wrong and was only acting
in self-defense. Id. at 13. Additionally, Sanchez-Padilla did not know what
the role of the jury was, and also believed God was in charge of the court,
Jesus was in charge of sentencing, and justice was responsible for prosecuting
the case. Id.
Sanchez-Padilla challenges the trial court’s interpretation of the
evidence, arguing that:
The trial court took some of Dr. Stein’s testimony
completely out of context, as Dr. Stein explained that Mr.
Sanchez-Padilla’s belief that he should plead guilty and
accept a maximum sentence was inconsistent with his belief
that he was justified in his actions, and was acting to defend
himself because the police were trying to kidnap him, and
that this showed an inability to assist his counsel in his
defense. The court ignored the fact that Mr. Sanchez-Padilla
gave only one-word answers to questions, and was unable
to elaborate, making meaningful communication with his
attorney impossible. Further, the trial court ignored the
uncontradicted evidence that Mr. Sanchez-Padilla suffered
from a psychotic disorder and had been having auditory
hallucinations since childhood.
Id. at 14. We disagree.
Sanchez-Padilla’s premise implies that Dr. Stein’s testimony and
examination are conclusive. However, as factfinder, the trial court is within
its province to weigh the evidence in determining a defendant’s competency.
Stevenson, supra. This includes balancing the evidence Dr. Stein offered,
against the trial court’s own account and observation of Sanchez-Padilla, his
demeanor, and testimony. In its opinion, the trial court engaged in a thorough
-5-
J-S56028-18
analysis of the evidence; it cited at length the notes of testimony and provided
a detailed discussion of its observation of Sanchez-Padilla at the probation
violation hearing and trial, in support of its determination that Sanchez-Padilla
was competent to be sentenced.
In weighing Dr. Stein’s opinion, the trial court reasoned, in part, that:
On cross examination, Stein acknowledged that
[Sanchez-Padilla] was cooperative, lucid, and oriented
during the interview. Moreover, [Sanchez-Padilla] was able
to understand and answer all of Stein’s questions through
the use of an interpreter. In terms of the medical records
he relied upon, Stein admitted they were “sketchy.”
According to Stein, “there’s a little bit there but not a lot.
But yes, there was not a lot to rely on here.”
Trial Court Opinion, 1/2/2018, at 9.
The trial court further noted that Sanchez-Padilla correctly
acknowledged that his “aggression” was the basis for the charges against him,
and accurately stated the possible sentencing range applicable to him. Id. at
10. Additionally, Sanchez-Padilla communicated effectively with the trial court
and his attorney, and responded appropriately to all questions. Moreover, the
trial court stated that Sanchez-Padilla “had a clear understanding of the legal
proceedings at sentencing, when he apologized for everything that happened
and asked for ‘the lowest possible sentence.’” Id. at 13.
Furthermore, defense counsel submitted a report prepared by Dr.
Jerome Gottlieb, a licensed psychiatrist who evaluated Sanchez-Padilla on
-6-
J-S56028-18
September 29, 2017.2 In his report, Dr. Gottlieb noted that “during the time
that [Sanchez-Padilla] refused to take his medication during his current
incarceration, there was concern that he was so ill that he may not have been
competent to proceed. By the time his evaluator saw him, he was back on
medication and apparently had improved.” Trial Court Opinion, 1/2/18, at 13.
Further, the report noted that Sanchez-Padilla’s competence to proceed was
not an issue as of September 18, 2017. Id.
We have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion by the
trial court. The record substantiates the trial court’s conclusions that Sanchez-
Padilla was sufficiently able to understand the nature and object of the
proceedings against him, and was also sufficiently able to participate and
assist his attorney in his defense. Thus, we will not disturb the trial court’s
exercise of discretion. See Stevenson, 64 A.3d at 720. We therefore affirm
Sanchez-Padilla’s judgment of sentence.
____________________________________________
2 Notably, defense counsel introduced Dr. Gottlieb’s report as mitigating
evidence in an effort to procure a reduced sentence by showing Sanchez-
Padilla could be rehabilitated with proper medication. However, defense
counsel would not concede the report simultaneously demonstrated Sanchez-
Padilla’s competence. Trial Court Opinion, 1/2/18, at 13 n.11.
-7-
J-S56028-18
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/12/2018
-8-