Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0002360-2015 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : CP-21-CR-0002360-2015 : CHARGE: (4) THEFT BY UNLAWFUL : TAKING OR DISPOSITION : CHRISTINA DAWN LEACH : OTN: T657140-1 : AFFIANT: PTL. CHRISTOPHER BUTLER : IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 BREWBAKER, J., July 5, 2017 Defendant Christina Dawn Leach appeals the imposition of a maximum sentence of three and a half to seven years in state prison. For the reasons that follow, the Court respectfully requests that the sentence be affirmed. On May 23, 2015, Officer Christopher Butler responded to a report of a burn victim at the Turkey Hill at 7040 Wertzville Road in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The victim was conscious at the time Officer Butler arrived and when asked what had happened, the victim, Anthony Sferlazza, stated that a female friend had set him on fire. According to Mr. Sferlazza, the female friend, identified as “Christina,” had offered to give him a massage. She tied him face down to the bed and poured a liquid on him, stating that he would feel cold but then really hot. She then allegedly lit him on fire. Mr. Sferlazza managed to free himself from the bed but was unable to open the door because Christina was holding the door shut. Mr. Sferlazza then jumped out of the second story window of the bedroom and drove a spare vehicle to the Turkey Hill. He gave the officer a cell phone he stated belonged to Christina, and indicated that Christina had stolen his white Chevrolet Express 1500 van. The officer eventually confirmed that “Christina” was Christina Leach, and a warrant was issued for her arrest. Defendant was subsequently arrested the same day around 9:30 p.m. in Harrisburg City driving the victim’s van. Evidence found inside the van, as well as a bank surveillance video, indicated that she had eaten dinner at a McDonald’s and had attempted to use the victim’s ATM card to withdraw money from his account. The victim suffered extensive burns over one third of his body, most of which consisted of third degree burns, the most serious of all burns. He spent over forty days in a medically induced coma and still undergoes treatment for his injuries. A five-day jury trial was held beginning on January 23, 2017. The Defendant presented no evidence, and did not testify herself. The jury found the Defendant not guilty as to Counts 1, 2, and 3, and guilty as to Count 4. At the sentencing hearing on March 28, 2017, Defendant was sentenced by the Court to a maximum sentence of three and a half to seven years in state prison for the conviction under Count 4, with credit for time served from and after May 28, 2015. At the time of sentencing, the Court explained the reasoning behind its decision to impose the maximum jail sentence. Defendant stole the victim’s car, cell phone, and wallet while he was on fire and burning alive, leaving him without the means to get help for his extensive injuries. While the victim was fighting for his life, Defendant stopped for food and attempted to use the victim’s ATM card while at the same time attempting to conceal her identity. Regardless of who set the fire, the evidence was undisputed that Defendant made no efforts to call for help for the victim, even after leaving the property. After being arrested, Defendant made no inquiries into the victim’s health. The evidence was clear that this was not a typical theft of a vehicle; Defendant showed a complete and utter disregard for the value of the victim’s life. As noted by this Court at the time of sentencing: The Court recognizes that this sentence is an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines but feels that it is the only lawful sentence that can 2 attempt to ensure protection of both the victim in this case as well as the public at large. The Defendant was convicted of this theft offense after she stole the victim’s car while he was on fire and burning alive in his home. In addition to stealing his car, she stole his cell phone and his wallet with no knowledge that he would otherwise be able to get help for his ongoing injuries. In addition the victim actually suffered horrific injuries burning over a third of his body and being forced into a medically-induced coma for over forty days. He still requires treatment today almost two years after the incident. It is only because the victim had the presence of mind and overwhelming urge to live that he was able to drive himself in his spare vehicle to a nearby gas station and ask for help before passing out from pain and injury. Meanwhile the Defendant had stolen his car and phone, stopped for food, and attempted to use his ATM card without calling for help for Mr. Sferlazza whom she left on fire in his burning home. Even when arrested, the Defendant never inquired into Mr. Sferlazza’s well-being. This Court has rarely seen such a strong case of callous indifference to the value of human life and is confident that the only appropriate sentence in this case is the maximum sentence allowed by law. Any lesser sentence would depreciate the consequence of the Defendant’s actions. Defendant’s sole issue on appeal is the discretionary aspect of sentencing. Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Dotter, 589 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 1991). A sentencing judge may deviate from the Guidelines, so long as he or she states on the record the factual basis and specific reasons which compelled him or her to deviate from the guideline range. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 666 A.2d 690 (Pa. Super. 1995); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b). A sentence outside of the guideline range is justifiable if the circumstances of the crime are atypical of the crime for which a defendant was convicted. Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843, 848 (Pa. Super. 2006). Moreover, when a court 3 deviates from the Guidelines, it must indicate that it understands the suggested sentencing range. Commonwealth v. Rodda, 723 A.2d 212 (Pa. Super. 1999). Finally, our Supreme Court has held that where the trial court possesses a pre-sentence report, it is presumed that the court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and that where the court has been so informed, its discretion should not be disturbed. Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988). The Court relies upon the reasons stated at the time for sentencing explaining why a maximum sentence was imposed. The Court was aware of the standard guideline sentence, and noted such at the time of sentencing, but chose to deviate due to the circumstances of the case. As the Court stated during the sentencing proceeding, based on the crime for which the Defendant was convicted by a jury of her peers, she stole the victim’s car and cell phone when she knew he was on fire, then drove to Harrisburg, got dinner, and tried to take money out of the victim’s bank account while attempting to conceal her identity. The Defendant showed a complete disregard for the life of another human being by taking the victim’s mode of transportation and mode of communication, and leaving him to die; these facts remain the same, even assuming that the victim lit himself on fire. She never called for help or attempted to notify emergency services of the fire. The Court notes that a deviation from the Sentencing Guidelines is justifiable if the circumstances of the crime are atypical. A more typical situation for the crime for which the Defendant was convicted would be a regular theft of a vehicle, parked on the street. In such a situation, a “normal” car theft would have the same standard range guideline sentence of 12-18 months, presuming a prior record score of “5” like the Defendant in the instant case. However, the circumstances of Defendant’s crime were significantly more horrific and the consequences 4 significantly more devastating than the “typical” felony theft. Because the Defendant stole the victim’s truck when he was on fire and left him to die, he suffered significant burns such that required treatment under a medically-induced coma for over forty days. Although the jury found that the evidence did not support the Commonwealth’s position that the Defendant started the fire or attempted to kill the victim, their verdict did reflect the fact that she stole his vehicle. The fact that he was on fire when she did so, and that he suffered tragic, painful, and disfiguring burns as a result, was undisputed at trial. It is interesting to note that the Defendant takes issue with the Court’s mention that it considered this sentence for a substantial period of time, arguing that the Court must have had “an emotional response” rather than being “fair and objective.” In so doing, the Defendant fails to recognize that the Court’s lengthy deliberation of the sentence was in order to ensure that any sentence was not an emotional reaction, but rather a thought-out and well-reasoned decision. It is respectfully submitted that the Court did not impose an illegal sentence or abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to the maximum sentence allowed by law. It is therefore requested that the Superior Court affirm the trial court’s Order of March 28, 2017. __________________________ Jessica E. Brewbaker, J. Scott Jocken, Esquire Assistant District Attorney John Shugars, Esquire Deputy Public Defender :rlm 5