Appeal
from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 18, 2021 In
the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division
at No(s): CP-45-CR-0001095-2018
MEMORANDUM
OLSON
J.
Appellant
Michael Brady Owens, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on November 18, 2021. We affirm.
The
trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this
case:
on March 16, 2016, McMichael's Hunting Club members
discovered burnt human remains on State Game Lands 38, later
identified as Demetria Hughes [(hereinafter “the
Victim”)]. An autopsy on the Victim determined that the
cause of death was a gunshot wound to the head. On March 21
2016, Pennsylvania State Troopers conducted an interview with
[Appellant's co-defendant,] Randy Criste-Troutman
[(hereinafter “Co-Defendant Criste-Troutman”),]
at the Lackawanna County Prison. He related the Victim was an
associate of his in dealing heroin and owed him in excess of
$1,000.00 for illegal drugs. [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman
related that he used a ruse to lure the [Victim] into the
woods in order to kill him. Specifically, [Co-Defendant]
Criste-Troutman told the Victim they would commit a home
invasion robbery and the Victim agreed to participate.
[Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman further related that
[Appellant] helped lure the [Victim] with
the robbery ruse. [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman related that
Appellant shot and killed the Victim in the woods.
On April 26, 2016, Appellant gave sworn testimony to the
Monroe County Investigating Grand Jury. During his testimony,
Appellant admitted to knowing the Victim, and knew the Victim
and [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman to be associates.
Moreover, Appellant knew [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman was
involved in the sale of illegal drugs, specifically heroin.
Appellant related that [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman
contacted him and asked to help drop off a friend. Appellant
stated that he picked up [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman and
was advised that the Victim was that friend. Appellant
related that he drove [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman and the
Victim to a wooded area, that [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman
and the Victim exited the vehicle, and that after a period of
time [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman returned alone. Appellant
advised that he returned to the same spot with [Co-Defendant]
Criste-Troutman between one and three days later. Appellant
further advised [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman brought a gas
can filled with gasoline on the return trip.
Finally, cell phone tracking evidence supports finding that:
(1) Appellant accompanied [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman and
the Victim to the scene of the murder on the date the murder
occurred; (2) Appellant and [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman
returned to the scene of the crime that night; and (3)
Appellant and [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman returned to the
scene of the crime three days later. Moreover, Appellant and
[Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman were in frequent contact via
text message communications during this time period.
Trial Court Opinion, 2/7/22, at 36-37 (citations omitted).
A jury
found Appellant guilty of a number of crimes, including
first-degree murder, criminal conspiracy, tampering with or
fabricating physical evidence, and abuse of a
corpse.[1] On November 18, 2021, the trial
court sentenced Appellant to serve an aggregate term of life
in prison without the possibility of parole, with a
consecutive term of 256 to 552 months in prison, for his
convictions.
Appellant
filed a timely notice of appeal. He numbers four claims on
appeal:
1. Whether, pre-trial, the court erred when it ruled
[Appellant] was precluded from receiving the mental health
report evaluating [Co-Defendant Criste-Troutman,] and
containing exculpatory statements for Appellant?
2. Whether, pre-trial, the court erred when it failed to
grant [Appellant's] motion to dismiss pursuant to
[Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure] 600?
3. Whether, at trial, the court erred where it precluded
[Appellant] from cross-examining [Co-Defendant
Criste-Troutman] on statements he had made during his mental
health evaluation?
4. Whether, at trial, the court erred when it overruled
objections to [Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence] 404(b) [] that
[Appellant] had previously "beat a body," which
statements were offered through Detectives Thomas McAndrew
and Wendy Serfass, and where this evidence's probative
value did not substantially outweigh its potential for unfair
prejudice, where it was not relevant for any permissible
purpose, and where the Commonwealth had provided no notice
and failed to meet a court-imposed deadline for notice of
404(b) evidence prior to trial?
Appellant's Brief at 6-7.
We have
reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the
certified record, the notes of testimony, and the opinion of
the able trial court judge, the Honorable Margherita
Patti-Worthington. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled
to relief in this case, for the reasons expressed in
President Judge
Patti-Worthington's August 16, 2021 and February 7, 2022
opinions. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of President
Judge Patti-Worthington's thorough opinions and adopt
them as our own. In any future filing with this or any other
court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a
copy of President Judge Patti-Worthington's August 16,
2021 and February 7, 2022 opinions.
Although
we adopt the trial court's opinions as our own, we
specifically address Appellant's first and third claims
on appeal which challenge the trial court's rulings
precluding Appellant from receiving the mental health
evaluation reports of Co-Defendant Criste-Troutman, and
further precluding Appellant from cross-examining
Co-Defendant Criste-Troutman on statements he made during the
mental health evaluations. In its opinion, the trial court
thoroughly and ably explained why Appellant's claims
fail. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/7/22, at 3-20. We
further note that our opinions in Commonwealth v.
Nuzzo, 284 A.3d 1243 (Pa. Super. 2022) and
Commonwealth v. Segarra, 228 A.3d 943 (Pa. Super.
2020) foreclose Appellant's ability to obtain relief on
these claims.
In the
case at bar, the trial court ordered Co-Defendant
Criste-Troutman to undergo incompetency evaluations, pursuant
to 50 P.S. § 7402 of the Mental Health Procedures Act
("MHPA"). Section 7402 of the MHPA declares:
§ 7402. Incompetence to proceed on criminal
charges and lack of criminal responsibility as
defense
(a) Definition of Incompetency.--Whenever a
person who has been charged with a crime is found to be
substantially unable to understand the nature or object of
the proceedings against him or to participate and assist in
his defense, he shall be deemed incompetent to be tried,
convicted or sentenced so long as such incapacity continues.
. . .
(c) Application for Incompetency
Examination.--Application to the court for an order
directing an incompetency examination may be presented by an
attorney for the Commonwealth, a person charged with a crime,
his counsel, or the warden or other official in charge of the
institution or place in which he is detained. A person
charged with crime shall be represented either by counsel of
his selection or by court-appointed counsel.
(d) Hearing; When Required.--The court,
either on application or on its own motion, may order an
incompetency examination at any stage in the proceedings and
may do so without a hearing unless the examination is
objected to by the person charged with a crime or by his
counsel. In such event, an examination shall be ordered only
after determination upon a hearing that there is a prima
facie question of incompetency. Upon completion of the
examination, a determination of incompetency shall be made by
the court where incompetency is established by a
preponderance of the evidence.
(e) Conduct of Examination; Report.--When
ordered by the court, an incompetency examination shall take
place under the following conditions:
(1) It shall be conducted as an outpatient examination unless
an inpatient examination is, or has been, authorized under
another provision of this act.
(2) It shall be conducted by at least one psychiatrist or
licensed psychologist and may relate both to competency to
proceed and to criminal responsibility for the crime charged.
(3) The person shall be entitled to have counsel present with
him and shall not be required to answer any questions or to
perform tests unless he has moved for or agreed to the
examination. Nothing said or done by such person during the
examination may be used as evidence against him in any
criminal proceedings on any issue other than that of his
mental condition.
(4) A report shall be submitted to the court and to counsel
and shall contain a description of the examination, which
shall include:
(i) diagnosis of the person's mental condition;
(ii) an opinion as to his capacity to understand the nature
and object of the criminal proceedings against him and to
assist in his defense;
(iii) when so requested, an opinion as to his mental
condition in relation to the standards for criminal
responsibility as then provided by law if it appears that the
facts concerning his mental condition may also be relevant to
the question of legal responsibility; and
(iv) when so requested, an opinion as to whether he had the
capacity to have a particular state of mind, where such state
of mind is a required element of the criminal charge.
. . .
50 P.S. § 7402.
In
Nuzzo, this Court held that a competency petition
and its attached materials...
