Com. v. Wallace
Citation | 2002 PA Super 367,817 A.2d 485 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. John WALLACE, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 21 November 2002 |
Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Charles A. Banta, Easton, for appellant.
James B. Martin, Assistant District Attorney, Allentown, for Commonwealth, appllee.
Before: LALLY-GREEN, BENDER and CAVANAUGH, JJ.
¶ 1 John Wallace (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following his conviction at a bench trial of eight counts of endangering the welfare of children (EWOC). We affirm.
¶ 2 Based on the evidence presented, the trial court set forth the following recitation of the facts:
Joseph Holler, a Code Inspector for two years who had inspected hundreds of houses, responded to the scene and spent eight hours in the home on November 30, 2000 to determine if it was habitable. After working through a code checklist on that day and returning a few days later to follow up, Mr. Holler condemned the home, finding it uninhabitable. Mr. Holler testified that he based this decision on the residence's lack of a heating system, the poor structural condition of the home, and the unsanitary conditions.
John Wallace, the defendant, took the stand and testified that the residence deteriorated because they had no money when their public assistance was denied on June 7, 2000. He indicated that there was a three-year waiting list for public housing and that he could not get HUD housing because his family was too large. Mrs. Wallace worked outside the home eighty (80) to one hundred (100) hours a week, but the defendant had not been employed since August or September of 1998 because of his health problems. Specifically, the defendant stated that he had "lyphadenopathy," a chronic-fatigue type condition which he has self-diagnosed. The defendant also indicated that he was not being treated by a doctor and had not ever received disability because of the condition. The defendant claimed that because of his health problems he could not resume his work as an inventor of high technology products for companies. The defendant testified that because of his condition, he spends most of his time lying in bed trying to get his energy back. He also testified that he spends time working at his computer defending himself in cases brought by the Allentown School District. He testified that he has two (2) Hewlitt [sic] Packard computers, two (2) ink jet color printers, two (2) color scanners, a fax machine and a laser printer, which he uses for his work related activities. Joshua Wallace indicated that his father would stay on the computer from 5 p.m. to 4 or 5 a.m.
Trial Court Opinion (T.C.O.), 4/23/02, at 1-7 (footnotes omitted)2.
¶ 3 Based upon the above recitation of the facts and the rejection of Appellant's testimony regarding his disability,3 the trial court found Appellant guilty of eight counts of EWOC, and sentenced him to 36 months' probation.
¶ 4 On appeal to this Court, Appellant raises the following three issues for our review:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Tielsch, 2182 WDA 2002.
...could have found that each and every element of the crimes charged was established beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Wallace, 817 A.2d 485, 490 (Pa.Super.2002), appeal denied, 574 Pa. 774, 833 A.2d 143 ¶ 46 We may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-......
-
Commonwealth v. Lynn
...taken action so lame or meager that such actions cannot reasonably be expected to protect the child's welfare. Commonwealth v. Wallace, 817 A.2d 485, 490–91 (Pa.Super.2002) ; Commonwealth v. Vining, 744 A.2d 310, 315 (Pa.Super.1999) (en banc ); Commonwealth v. Martir, 712 A.2d 327, 328–29 (......
-
Liao v. Attorney Gen. United States
...that a child is placed in circumstance[s] that could threaten the child.Martir, 712 A.2d at 329-30.7 Citing to Commonwealth v. Wallace, 817 A.2d 485, 490 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002), the Government contends that Pennsylvania "caselaw has in fact narrowed the [child endangerment] statute to proscr......
-
Commonwealth v. Howard
...(i) and (ii) of Section 302(b)(2) be established to prove intent. See Mother's Brief at 19.Subsequently, in Commonwealth v. Wallace , 817 A.2d 485 (Pa. Super. 2002), the Superior Court held that evidence that the accused allowed his children to reside in squalid living conditions was suffic......