Commonwealth v. Kratz

• Decision Date: 30 April 2021
• Docket Number: No. 150 EDA 2020,J-S50026-20,150 EDA 2020
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SEAN KRATZ Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
SEAN KRATZ Appellant

J-S50026-20
No. 150 EDA 2020

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

April 30, 2021

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 18, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0006072-2017

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.^*

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.:

Appellant, Sean Kratz, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on November 18, 2019, after he was convicted of first-degree murder of Dean Finocchiaro ("Finocchiaro"), second-degree murder of Finocchiaro while in the commission of a robbery, voluntary manslaughter of Thomas Meo ("Meo"), voluntary manslaughter of Mark Sturgis ("Sturgis"), conspiracy to commit first-degree murder of Finocchiaro, robbery of Finocchiaro, conspiracy to commit robbery of Finocchiaro, abuse of corpse of Finocchiaro, abuse of corpse of Meo, abuse of corpse of Sturgis, possessing an instrument of a crime with intent, possession of a weapon, and theft by receiving stolen property of Finocchiaro.¹

Page 2

The penalty phase of the trial was scheduled to commence on November 18, 2019. On that date, the Commonwealth informed the trial court that it no longer wished to pursue the death penalty. N.T. (Trial), 11/18/19, at 3. Accordingly, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment without parole for the murder of Finocchiaro, five to ten years of incarceration for the voluntary manslaughter of Meo, five to ten years of incarceration for the voluntary manslaughter of Sturgis, five to ten years for robbery, and, one to two years for each count of abuse of a corpse. The trial court directed the sentences to run consecutively and imposed no further penalty on the remaining counts. This appeal followed, and after careful review, we affirm.

We need not recount the underlying gruesome details of the crimes as they are not relevant to our disposition of the issues on appeal; however, the procedural history is pertinent. In the course of an investigation of the disappearance of three young men in early July of 2017, Bucks County detectives interviewed Appellant's cousin and co-defendant, Cosmo DiNardo ("DiNardo"). Based upon information disclosed in that interview, the detectives interviewed Appellant to ascertain his involvement in the murders of Finocchiaro, Meo, and Sturgis. The trial court described that meeting, as follows:

When Appellant arrived to the police station, he was wearing a knee brace on his left knee and had two walking canes. He was not restrained with handcuffs during the interview. The detectives were in plainclothes.

Page 3

At the beginning of the nearly four-hour interview at approximately 9:15 PM, Appellant was notified of his Miranda rights, both verbally and in writing. Appellant indicated by initials and signature on the Miranda warning card that he understood each of his rights and thereby waived those rights. Appellant was made aware that the statement was being audio and video recorded, that he did not have to speak with the detectives at all, and that he could stop speaking with the detectives at any time. The detectives' primary objection was "to get the guns," or the murder weapons.

Throughout the interview, Appellant told half-truths, lies, and attempted to "disassociate himself" from the DiNardo Farm and the murders which took place there on July 7, 2017. Through several changes in his story, the detectives became aware of his deceit. Appellant's mother, Vanessa Amodei, arrived at the interview, and Appellant also lied to her, "initially tell[ing] her he doesn't know where the guns are, yet within—it took her about 40 minutes to get him to tell her where the guns are." Eventually, at his mother's urging, Appellant agreed to show law enforcement where he had hidden the murder weapons.

At no point throughout the interview did the detectives become verbally or physically abusive to Appellant. Appellant himself stated that "he was not mistreated by Detective Chief McDonough or Detective Kemmerer." Notably, Appellant also never requested that the detectives stop questioning him at any point throughout the interview.

Following his statement, Appellant led police to his Aunt Diane's house on Susquehanna Road in Ambler, Pennsylvania. At approximately 2:00 AM on July 14, 2017, they arrived to the heavily wooded lot. There were no lights on at the property. Appellant, without the use of the walking canes, led the detectives up the driveway and beyond the front deck of the house. Appellant immediately pointed to the location of the two guns, carefully hidden in the ivy and plants on the other side of the deck from the driveway. Appellant was then taken into custody.

Trial Court Opinion, 3/31/20, at 9-11 (record references omitted).

Page 4

In connection with ongoing guilty plea negotiations, on April 25, 2018, Appellant gave a statement confessing to his participation in the murders of Finocchiaro, Meo, and Sturgis. The trial court explained the backdrop of this videotaped statement, as follows:

On behalf of Appellant, his attorney at the time, Attorney Wm. Craig Penglase,² initiated negotiations for a plea agreement with Assistant District Attorney ("DA") Kate Kohler and First Assistant District Attorney Gregg Shore. After several weeks of discussions, a plea agreement was reached on Monday, April 23, 2018 between Attorney Penglase and First Assistant DA Shore. DA Shore wrote down the terms of the agreement on a sticky note, which he copied, then gave a copy to Attorney Penglase. The note read:
- 59 year min.
Predicated upon
1) Satisfactory mitigation report to Commonwealth
2) [Appellant] interview (truthful)
3) Commonwealth speaking to victims' families

The sticky note was not the extent of the plea agreement conversation, but it was meant to be the context for the next step in the process. For example, third-degree murder was not included on the sticky note, but it was verbally discussed and agreed upon. Finally, the agreement between DA Shore and Attorney Penglase resulted in a clear decision that "the interview was going to be used against him," barring any instance of the victims' families failing to agree with the negotiation.

On April 24, 2018, Appellant met with his mother, Attorney Penglase, and Mitigation Specialist Michael Goodwin in the DA's office to discuss the plea deal. Chief of the Bucks County Detectives, Martin McDonough, along with Detective Coyne, brought Appellant to the meeting at the DA's office. Between the two detectives, at least one was stationed outside the conference

Page 5

room throughout the day. Detective Chief McDonough testified that Appellant's mother was there when he brought Appellant in, and she was still there when he took Appellant back down to the sheriff's office.

As a result of this meeting, the April 25, 2018 proffer was scheduled. Attorney Penglase communicated to DA Shore that Appellant had accepted the terms of the Commonwealth's offer and wanted to proceed the next day with an interview under the terms of the agreement. Although no Miranda warnings were explicitly given on April 25, 2018, Appellant was accompanied by his counsel, Attorney Penglase, throughout the entirety of the interview. The first few minutes of the statement consisted of the detectives confirming that Appellant understood what was going on, that he was not being forced or coerced into giving the statement, and that if at any point he wanted to consult with his attorney, he was free to do so. Notably, the detectives also made sure to elicit Appellant's knowledge, understanding of, and acceptance of the fact that if he were to withdraw his guilty plea, Appellant's statement on this day could be used against him.

* * *
Appellant then proceeded to confess to murdering Finocchiaro and being present for, if not assisting with, DiNardo's murders of Meo and Sturgis. He further admitted to lying to the detectives in his first statement, given July 13, 2017. No transcript of this video was ever created, although the parties did discuss the possibility of doing so at several points throughout Appellant's case.

Trial Court Opinion, 3/31/20, at 11-14 (record references omitted).

On May 1, 2018, Appellant signed a guilty plea colloquy for a scheduled plea of guilty to third-degree murder to take place on May 16, 2018. However, on that date, Appellant decided that he no longer wanted to plead guilty and the matter was continued for a jury trial. Trial commenced on November 6, 2019, at the conclusion of which Appellant was found guilty of numerous offenses related to the three murders and sentenced as above-described.

Page 6

Appellant raises the following issues for review:

1. Did the lower court err when it allowed inadmissible hearsay testimony at the pretrial hearings on April 15, 2019, with respect to DA Shore's testimony as to what was told to him by [Attorney] Penglase and DA Weintraub?³

2. Did the lower court err in denying [Appellant's] Motion to Suppress his April 25, 2018 statement based upon Pa.R.E. 410(a)(4) as it was not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made, and the factual findings are not supported by the record and the legal conclusion drawn therefrom are incorrect?

3. Did the lower court err when it allowed Michael Goodwin to testify regarding communications derived from attorney-client privileged communications at the pretrial hearing, as he was part of the "Penglase" team?

4. Did the lower court abuse its discretion when it found that the uncontroverted testimony of Vanessa Amodei, [Appellant's] mother, was not credible?

5. Did the lower court err in denying [Appellant's] Motion to Suppress his April 25, 2018 statement as it was involuntarily, unknowingly and unintelligently given in the absence of Miranda warnings while in the presence of counsel, in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights since the factual findings are not supported by the record, and the legal conclusions drawn from

...