Commonwealth v. Blazier

• Docket Number: 702 WDA 2022,J-S33044-23
• Decision Date: 09 November 2023
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RYAN L. BLAZIER Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RYAN L. BLAZIER Appellant

No. 702 WDA 2022

No. J-S33044-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

November 9, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 6, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-07-CR-0000760-2020

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

STEVENS, P.J.E.

Appellant Ryan L. Blazier appeals the judgment of sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County after a jury convicted Appellant of aggravated indecent assault as well as two counts each of institutional sexual assault, witness intimidation, and corruption of minors. We affirm.

Appellant was charged in connection with allegations that he had sexually molested two minors while serving in the capacity as the head coach of the boys' wrestling team at Bellwood-Antis Junior High School. Two male students (A.S. and E.A.) made separate allegations that Appellant had sexually assaulted them during wrestling practice.

Appellant proceeded to a jury trial at which the Commonwealth offered the testimony of numerous witnesses, including both victims. E.A., who was thirteen years old at the time of the abuse, indicated that in 2019, he would attend practices when Appellant trained him alone in the junior high wrestling room. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 10/12/21, at 177, 79. E.A. indicated that he was in the "referees' position" on his hands and knees, when Appellant pulled down E.A.'s pants, touched both the outside and inside of his butt and pushed his fingers into E.A.'s anus. N.T., 10/12/21, at 183-85.

This assault caused the victim to yell out loudly in pain, which was heard by one of the school's janitors, Thomas Gority. N.T., 10/12/21, at 185-87; N.T., 10/13/23, at 217. Mr. Gority, afraid that "somebody really got hurt," went to investigate the source of the cries and found the wrestling room door to be locked. N.T., 10/13/23, at 21.

Mr. Gority unlocked the door with his master key and discovered Appellant crouched behind E.A. Id. at 218-19. When Mr. Gority demanded to know "what the hell is going on," Appellant attempted to explain his actions as "trying to man [E.A.] up." Id. After Mr. Gority retorted that "I hope you didn't do what I think you did," Appellant left the room and could not be found at the school. Id. at 210.

E.A. indicated that Appellant subsequently told him if he revealed anything about the abuse, "he would strike me and my dad and … would end up hurting him." N.T., 10/12/21, at 188. E.A. did not tell his father about the abuse as he took Appellant's threats seriously. Id. at 189.

Another male student, A.S., alleged that Appellant assaulted him during wrestling practice when A.S. was thirteen years old. A.S. indicated that Appellant would require him to be his wrestling partner and would squeeze and pinch his groin and testicles while A.S. was in the referees' position. N.T., 10/13/21, at 117-19. Both A.S. and E.A. confirmed that pinching a wrestler's private parts were not accepted forms of competitive wrestling. N.T., 10/12/21, at 192; N.T., 10/13/21, at 117-18.

A.S. also explained that Appellant would direct him to engage in a "wrestle off" with another student wrestler in the wrestling room. When A.S. lost the "wrestle offs," Appellant allowed the winning wrestler to return to the group practice and isolate A.S. in the wrestling room. N.T., 10/13/21, at 124-26. A.S. claimed that Appellant removed A.S.'s clothing, put a shirt over A.S.'s face, and sodomized him against the wrestling room wall. Id. at 120-23. When A.S. tried to scream, Appellant would put his hand across A.S.'s mouth and would punch his head. Id. at 123-24. A.S. also indicated that he believed that Appellant penetrated him with a foreign object during one of the assaults. Id. at 121-22. A.S. claimed that Appellant threatened A.S. "not to tell anyone or he would come after me." Id. at 126.

At the conclusion of trial, the jury convicted Appellant of aggravated indecent assault (as to E.A.) as well as two counts each of institutional sexual assault, witness intimidation, and corruption of minors. On January 6, 2022, the trial court imposed a term of four (4) to eight (8) years' imprisonment for aggravated indecent assault, two terms of three (3) to six (6) years' imprisonment for institutional sexual assault, two terms of one and one-half (1½) years to three (3) years' imprisonment for corruption of minors, and two terms of four (4) to eight (8) years' imprisonment for intimidating a witness. As the trial court set all the individual sentences to run consecutively, Appellant received an aggregate sentence of twenty-one (21) to forty-two (42) years' imprisonment. On January 18, 2022, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion,^[1] which the trial court denied on May 12, 2022.

Thereafter, on June 8, 2022, Appellant filed this timely appeal and complied with the trial court's direction to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

1. Whether the trial court erred by denying the post-sentence motion for judgment of acquittal as to count 17, the offense of corruption of minors - sexual offenses, a felony of third degree, inasmuch as the evidence did not suffice to prove the element of a course of conduct beyond a reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion for new trial based upon the weight of the evidence, inasmuch as the verdicts were so contrary to the evidence as to shock the sense of justices and so that the right may be given another opportunity to prevail?

3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying discovery of confidential counseling records of a minor victim, A.S., by its order, dated September 3, 2021, and entered of record on September 8, 2021, at ¶ 8, notwithstanding that the request was reasonable and material to the defense at trial, which prejudiced [Appellant] at trial by preventing full and effective cross-examination of that minor victim and other Commonwealth witnesses and deprived Appellant of a fair trial?

4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing an aggregated sentence of not less than 21 years nor more than 42 years, consisting of minimum terms at the upper end of the aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines on three counts and exceeding the aggravated range on four counts, imposed consecutively, without an adequate basis for such departures, and doing so while fixating on the gravity of the offenses and ignoring other factors, resulting in an unreasonable sentence?

Appellant's Brief, at 11-12 (issues renumbered for ease of review, suggested answers omitted).

First, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal as to corruption of minors as it related to E.A. Before we analyze the merits of this argument, we must address whether Appellant has properly preserved this claim for review in his Rule 1925(b) statement.

It is well-settled that an appellant's court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement must concisely identify each error with sufficient detail to identify the issue to be raised for the judge. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii). This Court has held that:

Rule 1925 is a crucial component of the appellate process, which "is intended to aid trial judges in identifying and focusing upon those issues which the parties plan to raise on appeal." Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306, 308 (1998). "When an appellant fails adequately to identify in a concise manner the issues sought to be pursued on appeal, the trial court is impeded in its preparation of a legal analysis which is pertinent to those issues." In re Estate of Daubert, 757 A.2d 962, 963 (Pa.Super. 2000). "In other words, a Concise Statement which is too vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no Concise Statement at all." Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683, 686 (Pa.Super. 2001).

"In order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, an appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement must state with specificity the element or elements upon which the appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient." Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citing Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281 (Pa.Super. 2009)).

Commonwealth v. Freeman, 128 A.3d 1231, 1248 (Pa.Super. 2015). Where a 1925(b) statement raises a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a particular conviction and "does not specify the allegedly unproven elements[,] … the sufficiency issue is waived [on appeal]." Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252, 1257 (Pa.Super. 2008).

In the instant case, the trial court required Appellant to file a concise statement pursuant to Rule 1925(b). Appellant submitted a Rule 1925(b) statement containing twenty-three issues, which included challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting seven of his convictions. However, Appellant failed to identify any element of any of the crimes he was convicted which allegedly were not supported by sufficient evidence.^[2]

We emphasize that requiring "[s]uch specificity is of particular importance in cases where, as here, the appellant was convicted of multiple crimes each of which contains numerous elements that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt." Gibbs, 981 A.2d at 281. Therefore, as Appellant failed to provide any specific detail in his concise statement for his sufficiency claims to allow for proper review, these issues are waived.

Second Appellant asserts that the...