J-S45008-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
AMY MACHALETTE :
:
Appellant : No. 654 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 2, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012069-2013
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 07, 2017
Appellant, Amy Machalette, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following her
bench trial convictions of aggravated assault, possessing instruments of
crime (“PIC”), recklessly endangering another person (“REAP”), and simple
assault.1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant
facts of this case. Therefore, we have no need to restate them.
Procedurally, on October 1, 2013, the Commonwealth charged Appellant
with aggravated assault, PIC, REAP, and simple assault. On October 3,
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1), 907(a), 2705, 2701(a), respectively.
_____________________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S45008-17
2013, Appellant filed a suppression motion, which claimed Detective Druding
continued to question her after she had asked for an attorney while in police
custody on September 9, 2013. After an April 4, 2014 hearing, the court
denied the motion on April 10, 2014. Appellant proceeded to a bench trial
on July 6, 2015. On July 9, 2015, the court convicted Appellant of
aggravated assault, PIC, REAP, and simple assault. The court deferred
sentencing pending the preparation of a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”)
report.
On October 2, 2015, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate
term of forty (40) to eighty (80) months’ incarceration, followed by five (5)
years’ probation. On October 8, 2015, Appellant timely filed a post-sentence
motion, which the court denied on February 19, 2016. Appellant timely filed
a notice of appeal on February 26, 2016. On March 2, 2016, the court
ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.1925(b), and Appellant timely complied on April
4, 2016.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
DID NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING APPELLANT’S
MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE STATEMENT THAT WAS TAKEN
FROM APPELLANT WHILE SHE WAS IN CUSTODY AND
INVOKED HER 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SPEAK WITH
COUNSEL BEFORE ANSWERING FURTHER QUESTIONS?
WAS NOT THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE
CONVICTION FOR AGGRAVATED ASSAULT UNDER
[SECTION] 2702[?] THE EVIDENCE FAILED TO ESTABLISH
THAT…APPELLANT POSSESSED A WEAPON AND
-2-
J-S45008-17
INTENTIONALLY SHOT [VICTIM] WHILE INTENDING TO
CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY INJURY. DID THE
COMMONWEALTH FAIL TO SHOW THAT APPELLANT
INTENTIONALLY SHOT [VICTIM] OR ACTED WITH MALICE
MANIFESTING AN EXTREME INDIFFERENCE TO THE VALUE
OF HUMAN LIFE?
(Appellant’s Brief at 3). 2
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Daniel J.
Anders, we conclude Appellant’s issues on appeal merit no relief. The trial
court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the
questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed October 4, 2016, at 5-
9) (finding: (1) Detective Druding interviewed Appellant on day of shooting;
prior to start of interview, Detective Druding read Appellant her Miranda
rights and asked Appellant if she understood her rights; Appellant responded
that she understood her rights and signed Miranda waiver form; when
Detective Druding asked Appellant whom she shot, Appellant replied, “My
dad said I should get a lawyer”; Detective Druding immediately stopped
interview and reiterated to Appellant that it was her decision to get attorney;
after brief silence, Appellant started talking about shooting and stated she
shot Victim; as result, Detective Druding continued interviewing Appellant;
____________________________________________
2
Throughout the trial court proceedings and on appeal, Appellant has
erroneously labeled the suppression issue as a denial of her Sixth
Amendment right to counsel. Nevertheless, Appellant’s claim actually
challenges the alleged denial of her Fifth Amendment right to counsel during
a custodial interrogation.
-3-
J-S45008-17
significantly, Appellant did not attempt to stop interview at any time or make
any other reference to attorney during interview; additionally, Appellant
reviewed and signed her statement upon completion of interview; under
these circumstance, Appellant did not “unambiguously” invoke her right to
counsel, and court properly denied suppression motion; (2) Commonwealth
presented ample evidence at trial, which established Appellant intentionally
shot Victim at close range without justification; this evidence included
Appellant’s statement to Detective Druding in which Appellant said she
aimed low and shot Victim when Victim made fist to punch Appellant; Victim
did not sustain serious bodily injury only because bullet struck her
cellphone; fact that bullet hit cellphone instead of Victim’s thigh did not
preclude finding that Appellant had specific intent to cause serious bodily
injury to Victim; thus, sufficient evidence supported Appellant’s conviction of
aggravated assault). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s
opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/7/2017
-4-
Circulated 07/14/2017 12:32 PM