Commonwealth v. Price

• Decision Date: 02 May 2018
• Docket Number: No. 307 MDA 2017,No. 308 MDA 2017,307 MDA 2017,308 MDA 2017
• Citation: 189 A.3d 423
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Trevor Allan PRICE, Appellant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Travis Allen Price, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

189 A.3d 423

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Trevor Allan PRICE, Appellant

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

v.Travis Allen Price, Appellant

No. 307 MDA 2017

No. 308 MDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued December 5, 2017

Filed May 2, 2018

Reargument Denied July 13, 2018

Jeffrey B. Engle, Harrisburg, for appellant.

Stephanie E. Lombardo, Assistant District Attorney, York, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: OTT, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER^* , J.

OPINION BY OTT, J.:

Trevor Allan Price and Travis Allen Price ("the Price brothers") appeal from their respective judgments of sentence entered on February 3, 2017, in the York County Court of Common Pleas.¹ The trial court imposed a term of six to 23 months' imprisonment with respect to both men, following a joint non-jury trial in which the Price brothers were convicted of statutory sexual assault (4–8 years older).² On appeal, the Price brothers contend: (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to determine that the Commonwealth could not meet the statutory requirement that the Price brothers were not "four or more years older" than the victim, where such is an element of the offense of statutory sexual assault; and (2) whether the court abused its discretion when it ruled they could not argue the critical factual issue concerning the meaning of the term "four or more years older" to the jury. See Trevor Price's Brief at 6; see also Travis Price's Brief at 5. For the reasons below, we vacate the judgments of sentence.

The trial court set forth the factual history regarding Trevor Price as follows:

[Trevor Price] engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim. Trevor admitted to this conduct. The victim was born on May 5^th, 1998, at 8:16 a.m. Trevor Price was born on May 5, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. The first incident occurred in June of 2012 and subsequent instances of sexual contact occurred for the ensuing two years. It was also stipulated that Trevor was 18 years of age at the time of the first incident. Additionally, simple arithmetic indicates that the victim, having been born in May of 1998 and the first incident occurring in June of 2012, was 14 years old at the time of the first incident.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/2/2017, at 4 (record citations omitted).

With respect to Travis Price, he also admitted that he engaged in sexual intercourse with the same victim on one occasion. Id. The incident occurred in August of 2012. Id.

It was also stipulated that Travis was 18 years of age at the time of the incident. Additionally, simple arithmetic indicates that the victim, having been born in May of 1998 and the first incident occurring in August of 2012, was 14 years old at the time of the incident.

Id. at 4–5. Both men have been represented by the same counsel throughout these proceedings.

Moreover, the court recited the procedural history of these cases as follows:

[The Price brothers], who are identical twins, were charged in separate Informations with charges of a sexual nature for separate incidents involving the same victim. Trevor Price was charged with Statutory Sexual Assault,¹ Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse,² Aggravated Indecent Assault,³ Corruption of Minors,⁴ and Indecent Assault.⁵ Travis [Price] was charged with Statutory Sexual Assault,⁶ Aggravated Indecent Assault,⁷ Corruption of Minors,⁸ and Indecent Assault.⁹ Despite the cases being separate, the procedural histories of each case have, befitting twins, marched in lockstep. Ab initio , we note that we administered a colloquy to [the Price brothers] regarding their joint representation by their counsel and we were satisfied that they knowingly and voluntarily waived any potential conflict.

__________________________

¹ 18 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 3122.1(a)(1).

² 18 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 3123(a)(7).

³ 18 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 3125(a)(8).

⁴ 18 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6301(a)(1)(ii).

⁵ 18 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 3126(a)(8).

⁶ 18 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 3122.1(a)(1).

⁷ 18 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 3125(a)(8).

⁸ 18 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6301(a)(1)(ii).

⁹ 18 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 3126(a)(8).

__________________________

On July 17, 2014, [the Price brothers] separately filed their Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Motion to Quash Information. Subsequently, on August 13, 2014, the Commonwealth's Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was docketed. The Commonwealth filed a motion on August 12, 2014 to consolidate the cases for trial, which was denied by this Court on December 1, 2014 as the charges against [the Price brothers] involved two separate incidents and, thus, two separate crimes had been alleged. On December 23, 2014, we reserved our decision on the habeas corpus motions. Then, on April 16, 2015, we issued an Order and an Opinion denying [the Price brothers]' motions for habeas corpus relief. On December 28, 2015, the Commonwealth filed a Motion in Limine seeking to preclude counsel for [the Price brothers] from arguing to a jury the same age-gap theory that had undergirded [the Price brothers]' habeas corpus petitions and which this Court had denied. One day later, we granted the Commonwealth's Motion in Limine . Then, on January 19, 2016, we received Notice from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that [the Price brothers] had submitted Petitions for Writ of Prohibition. These petitions were ultimately denied on May 5, 2016. On February 3, 2017, [the Price brothers] proceeded to a bench trial with each Appellant convicted of Count 1 of their respective Informations for Statutory Sexual Assault with all other counts against the Appellants being nolle prosequid . [The Price brothers] proceeded to sentencing immediately following trial and each received a sentence of six to twenty-three months followed by four years of probation and with the attendant costs of prosecution assessed against each of them.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/2/2017, at 2–3. This appeal followed.³

Based on the nature of their claims, we will address both issues together. In their first argument, the Price brothers argue the court "committed an abuse of discretion [as] a matter of law when it denied [their] pre-trial motion for habeas corpus relief and instead determined that the Commonwealth could meet its legal statutory requirement to prove that [the Price brothers] w[ere] four (4) years older than the victim." Trevor Price's Brief at 15, citing 18 Pa.C.S. § 3122.1(a)(1) ; see also Travis Price's Brief at 14. Second, the Price brothers contend the court abused its discretion when it ruled they could not argue the critical factual issue of what "four years older" meant to the jury and the failure to do so "violated [their] constitutional rights under the 6^th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution and Art. 1, § 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (notice and jury trial guarantees)." Trevor Price's Brief at at 20 (citation omitted); see also Travis Price's Brief at 19.

Our scope and standard of review regarding a habeas corpus petition⁴ is as follows:

We review a trial court's grant [or denial] of a pre-trial habeas corpus motion de novo and our scope of review is plenary. SeeCommonwealth v. Dantzler , 2016 PA Super 59, 135 A.3d 1109, 1112 (Pa. Super. 2016) (en banc ).

As this Court explained in Dantzler :

A pre-trial habeas corpus motion is the proper means for testing whether the Commonwealth has sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. To demonstrate that a prima facie case exists, the Commonwealth must produce evidence of every material element of the charged offense(s) as well as the defendant's complicity therein. To meet its burden, the Commonwealth may utilize the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing and also may submit additional proof.

Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Commonwealth v. Carper , 172 A.3d 613, 620 (Pa. Super. 2017).

In reviewing a trial court's order granting [or denying] a defendant's petition for writ of habeas corpus , we "must generally consider whether the record supports the trial court's findings, and whether the inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those findings are free from error." ... Notably, the Commonwealth does not have to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth so that inferences that would support a guilty verdict are given effect.

Commonwealth v. Santos , 583 Pa. 96, 876 A.2d 360, 363 (2005) (citations omitted).

Here, the statute at issue provides, in pertinent part:

(a) Felony of the second degree. — Except as provided in section 3121 (relating to rape), a person commits a felony of the second degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant to whom the person is not married who is under the age of 16 years and that person is either:

(1) four years older but less than eight years older than the complainant[.]

18 Pa.C.S. § 3122.1(a)(1) (emphasis added).

Turning to the present matter, [the Price brothers] argue that "the crucial wording of the statute refines the basic question to what does ‘four years older’ mean and is it subject to a determination by a jury?" Trevor Price's Brief at 22; see also Travis Price's Brief at 21. They contend the language of the statute of is not free from ambiguity and therefore, pursuant to the rule of lenity, the benefit should go to the accused. Trevor Price's Brief at 22–23; see also Travis Price's Brief at 21–22. Specifically, they state:

It is with this understanding that [Trevor Price] believes that he is less than four years older than the victim. He was born May 5, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. [Travis Price also believes he is less than four years older the victim because he was born on May 5, 1994, at 6:50 p.m.] The victim was born May 5, 1998, at 8:16 a.m. Accordingly, [they are] 3 years, 364 days, and approximately 10 hours older than the victim. These facts are not disputed. What is disputed is what a "year" means as it relates to its calculation in terms of "days." A "day"⁷ is twenty-four (24) hours. These facts, [the Price brothers] conte

...