Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-1769 CRIMINALCOMMONWEALTH OF P E N N SYLVANA V. MICHAEL HILL, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 00-1769 CRIMINAL IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 Before HOFFER, P.J. OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: On March 2, 2001, defendant, Michael Hill, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement with the Cumberland County District Attorney's Office, entered a plea of guilty to Robbery, a felony of the first degree in violation of Section 3701(a)(1)(ii) of the Crimes Code. The Court received notice of direct appeal to the Superior Court on March 30, 2001, and ordered the defendant to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal. In defendant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, the defendant claims the Court erred in denying the petition to decertify.~ The District Attorney filed direct criminal charges against defendant pursuant to Pa.C.S.A. [}6302. conspiracy - robbery, theft assault, theft by unlawful taking or disposition, and criminal mischief.2 These charges comprised of robbery, criminal by unlawful taking, simple assault, aggravated Defendant ] See Defendant's Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925 (b), filed April 23, 2001. 2 See The District Attorney of Cumberland County's Information against Michael Hill, filed August 23, 2000. thereafter filed a petition to decertify all the charges from Criminal Court, and return defendant to Juvenile Court.3 The charges stem from an armed robbery at a McDonald's on July 9, 2000; Hill was sixteen years old at the time with a birthdate of May 31, 1984. Subsequently, a decertification hearing was held on December 8, 2000, and the Court denied the petition on December 27, 2000. On March 2, 2001, defendant pled guilty to Robbery, a felony of the first degree in violation of Section 3701(a)(1)(ii) of the Crimes Code, in full satisfaction of all the charges against him. On that same date, defendant appeared before Judge J. Wesley Oler, Jr., in this Court, who imposed a sentence of paying the costs of prosecution, making restitution in the amount of $500.00 to McDonald's, and in the amount of $2,062.52 to Wausau Insurance Company, and that defendant undergo a period of imprisonment in a State Correctional Institution of not less than four (4) years nor more than eight (8) years4, with credit being given from July 14, 2000.5 Thereafter, defendant filed an appeal to the Superior Court. Defendant contends that (1) he established by a preponderance of the evidence that the transfer from Criminal Court to Juvenile Court would serve the public interest, (2) the Court's denial to decertify was an abuse of discretion, (3) the Court failed to set forth reasons for the denial to decertify in sufficient detail to demonstrate the question of decertification received careful consideration, and (4) the Court did See defendant's Petition to Recertify, filed September 21, 2000. This sentence is below the mandatory minimum of 5 years imprisonment. In Re: Sentence, Order of Court, dated March 2, 2001 and filed March 27, 2001. not set forth specific reasons for its conclusions that the defendant had not met his burden with regard to the factors set forth in Section 6355(b)(4)(iii) of the Juvenile Act.6 In 1995, the Juvenile Act underwent several changes. Prior to these changes, the definition of "delinquent act" in Section 6302 did not include clause (ii) and (iii), which contained the crime of robbery, and the District Attorney had the burden of proof to certify a juvenile to Criminal Court.7 After the effective date of these changes, the term "delinquent act" did not include the crime of robbery, and the District Attorney was able to directly file enumerated criminal charges against a juvenile defendant,s In determining whether to transfer a case in Criminal Court to Juvenile Court, the juvenile defendant shall be required to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the transfer will serve the public interest. 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 6322(a); Commonwealth v. Aziz, 724 A.2d 371, 378 (Pa. Super. 1998); Commonwealth v. Soltis, 455 Pa. Super 218, 225, 687 A.2d 1139, 1142 (1996). When resolving whether the child has established that the transfer will serve the public interest, the Court shall 6355(a)(4)(iii) of the Juvenile Act. consider the factors contained in Section 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 6322(a). This section states: *** In determining whether the public interest can be served, the court shall consider the following factors: (A) the impact of the offense on the victim or victims; See defendant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed April 23,2001. See Act 1995, P.L. 1127, No. 33 (Spec. Sess. No. 1). Id. (B) the impact of the offense on the community; (C) the threat to the safety of the public or any individual posed by the child; (D) the nature and circumstances of the offense allegedly committed by the child; (E) the degree of the child's culpability; (F) the adequacy and duration of dispositional alternatives available under this chapter and in the adult criminal justice system; and (G) whether the child is amenable to treatment, supervision or rehabilitation as a juvenile by considering the following factors: (I) age; (11) mental capacity; (111) maturity; (IV) the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the child; (V) previous records, if any; (VI) the nature and extent of any prior delinquent history, including the success or failure of any previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the child; (VII) whether the child can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court jurisdiction; (VIII) probation or institutional reports, if any; (IX) any other relevant factors. 42 Pa. C.S.A. §6355(a)(4)(iii). On August 19, and/or 20, 1998, when defendant was fourteen and a half (14 1/2) years old, he committed two (2) counts of Burglary graded as F-l, two (2) counts of Criminal Trespass graded as F-2, and two (2) counts of Criminal Conspiracy graded as a felony.9 One of the burglars was still in the home when one of the victims returned. The other victims were on vacation during the burglary of their home. The defendant was petitioned to Criminal Court, and these charges remain open at this time. In March 1999 when defendant was almost fifteen (15) years old, he engaged in a street fight whereby he cut another person with a knife and was charged with Aggravated Assault - Attempt to Cause Serious Bodily Injury, graded as F-2 and Aggravated Assault - Attempt to Cause Bodily Injury with a Deadly Weapon, graded as F-2. These charges were reduced to one (1) count of Simple Assault, graded as a misdemeanor. Defendant was also charged with Possessing a Weapon on School Property, graded as M-l, which involved the defendant taking a metal table leg to school, in anticipation of retaliation from the street fight. He was on an Informal Adjustment Consent for these charges from June 1, 1999 until December 1, 1999. On December 31, 1999, defendant, fifteen and a half (15 1/2) at the time, was charged with Theft by Unlawful Taking (Auto) graded as F-3, Receiving Stolen Property graded as F-3, Fleeing or Attempting to Elude Police Officer graded as M-2, Recklessly Endangering Another Person graded at M-2, and Reckless Driving, Maximum Speed Limits, and Drivers Required to be Licensed each graded as a summary offense. These arose when a patroling Pennsylvania State Policeman came across the vehicle defendant was driving and attempted 9 Admissions of guilt were elicited from the defendant on June 14, 2000, by Detective David R. Fones of the Carlisle to pull it over on Interstate 81. The defendant led the trooper on a high-speed chase, going 105 miles per hour. The defendant's driving cut off several vehicles, three (3) different vehicles were almost struck, and defendant drove in the wrong direction on some streets. Once the defendant was arrested, the trooper stated he was very arrogant and uncooperative. As a result of these charges, the defendant was put on Juvenile Probation and signed a Consent Decree on June 22, 2000, agreeing to abide by the terms of probation and the Special Conditions. The Special Conditions ordered by the Court were a license suspension of one (1) year, to stay away from "Henry" at 634 Cumberland Pointe Circle, and fifteen (15) hours of community service. This probation was to be in effect for six (6) to twelve (12) months. During this time, defendant's probation officer made five (5) personal contacts with defendant, with the last three (3) being June 22, June 29, and July 7, 2000. On July 7, 2000, defendant's probation officer met with defendant at home and discussed going to summer school, gaining part-time employment, and doing community service. His probation officer also emphasized the positive aspects of defendant's life. On July 9, 2000, only two (2) days after the meeting with his probation officer, defendant committed an armed robbery of a McDonald's, the subject of this case. It is clear that the probation officer's efforts at rehabilitation did not have an effect on the defendant. Police Department. On July 14, 2000, when defendant was sixteen (16) years old, he was charged with Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana for Personal Use, Possession with Intent to Use Drug Paraphernalia, and Criminal Conspiracy, each graded as a misdemeanor. These charges remain open at this time. After the decertification hearing, Lynn Kargarise, a defense-employed psychologist, testified on defendant's behalf. Mr. Kargarise stated that he spent approximately four (4) to five (5) hours with defendant, and conducted a psychological examination of defendant. His findings were that defendant possessed a Iow-average intelligence, was below normal in common sense and judgment, but was able to think logically, to plan and organize his activities in advance, and was not prone to impulsiveness. Mr. Kargarise testified that defendant displays a moderate degree of criminal sophistication and is a mature person. He additionally testified to different programs available to defendant in the juvenile justice system, and encouraged the Court to decertify. The Court heard evidence that defendant's grades in school fell and that he did not enjoy attending school. His teachers called defendant's home a few times regarding his grades and projects that were not completed. Defendant had several unexcused absences and failed courses which he needed to repeat in summer school. This evidence lends the Court to believe defendant did not take advantage of school opportunities while he was attending school. As indicated by defendant's conduct, he has continued to exhibit delinquent and criminal behaviors. The Court believes defendant possesses significant criminal sophistication. It was defendant's idea to plan the robbery and use a written note to the victims during the robbery in order for the victims not to identify the voices of the perpetrators. Defendant knew the restaurant's security procedures and exploited his knowledge to accomplish his aim. Defendant waited until after the restaurant was closed before he and his accomplices began their armed robbery. Defendant and his accomplices arranged for a getaway car. Moreover, the use of masks and a gun demonstrates that defendant used logical thinking in order to plan the robbery of the McDonald's. Furthermore, defendant had the benefit of juvenile supervision in previous instances, and did not benefit from it. Additionally, because defendant turns twenty-one (21) on May 31, 2005, the duration of the juvenile system can only be for a period slightly over three (3) years. A similarly situated adult offender convicted of the offenses charged, would mandatorily be under supervision for a minimum period of ten (10) years. Based on the seriousness of the crimes lodged against defendant, as well as the juvenile supervision previously afforded to him, from which he did not benefit, the Court finds that decertification is inappropriate. As part of the District Attorney's evidence in this case, a photograph of defendant and his friends showing each other a gun was admitted. By engaging in and planning the robbery with Henry Ferrer, defendant violated his Special Conditions of probation ordered by the Court. According to the evidence presented in this case, defendant does not suffer from any mental disability. Additionally, defendant admits to using illegal drugs and using the robbery money to purchase illegal drugs. The determination whether a juvenile is amenable to treatment under the juvenile system is to be made only after a careful scrutiny of the factors involved in Section 6355(a)(4)(iii). According to these factors, the Court does not believe the defendant carried his burden of proof in establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the transfer will serve the public interest,l° The Court took into consideration all of the Section 6355(a)(4)(iii) factors and weighed each one of them.~ Additionally, the Court considered the nature of the armed robbery as it impacted the victims and society, the high-level of planning and sophistication engaged in by defendant, and the fact that this crime is not the first violent act engaged in by defendant. Consequently, the Court believes the public interest will be best served by keeping this case in Criminal Court. lo In Commonwealth v. Jackson. 555 Pa. 37, 722 A.2d 1030 (1999), the defendant was a minor who had no previous contact with the adult or juvenile criminal system. Defendant and three (3) other men, all bearing firearms, robbed the patrons of an occupied bar, took money from the cash register, and subsequently fled the scene. Defendant was fifteen (15) at the time. In Jackson, the Supreme Court upheld a determination by the trial court of certification of that defendant for adult prosecution. Given the facts in the case subjudice compared to the facts in Jackson, it is evident that the defendant in this case has exhibited greater delinquent and criminal behaviors. Because the facts in Jackson are very similar to those in our case, we rely on the Supreme Court's determination of certification for adult prosecution in an armed robbery committed by a juvenile. ~ See, e.~g., Commonwealth v. Jackson, 555 Pa. 37, 722 A.2d 1030 (1999).