Commonwealth v. Reid

• Docket Number: 1427 MDA 2022,1571 MDA 2022,J-S27005-23
• Decision Date: 08 November 2023
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. COLLIN REID Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. COLLIN SCOTT REID Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. COLLIN REID Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. COLLIN SCOTT REID Appellant

Nos. 1427 MDA 2022, 1571 MDA 2022

No. J-S27005-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

November 8, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 27, 2022, September 1, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-CR-0000998-2020 CP-41-CR-0001409-2020

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM

BENDER, P.J.E.

Appellant, Collin Scott Reid, appeals from the aggregate judgment of sentence of 75 to 150 years' incarceration imposed at two criminal dockets. All convictions relate to the sexual abuse of Appellant's biological daughter, C.R., who was thirteen years old when the abuse started. Appellant raises five issues on appeal. We affirm.

C.R. testified that on Christmas Eve of 2019, she stayed in Appellant's camper as part of a scheduled custodial visit. At approximately three a.m., Appellant put his penis between her legs, grabbed her breasts and buttocks, and touched her vagina with his fingers. This sexual assault lasted until approximately 5 a.m. C.R. disclosed the incident the next day to one of her brothers. An investigation commenced, during which C.R. revealed additional incidents that had occurred at her father's apartment from roughly March through December of 2019. These incidents included vaginal touching, oral sex, and the use of sex toys.

Appellant was charged at two separate dockets, with docket 1409-2020 pertaining exclusively to the Christmas Eve crimes. Appellant was ultimately convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3123(a)(7); criminal attempt - aggravated indecent assault, 18 Pa.C.S. § 901(a); aggravated indecent assault, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3125(a)(8); two counts of indecent assault, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(8); unlawful contact with a minor, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6318(a)(1); two counts of corruption of minors, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1)(ii); endangering welfare of children, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4304(a)(1); invasion of privacy, 18 Pa.C.S. § 7507.1(a)(1); indecent exposure, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3127(a); and incest, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4302(b)(2).

At docket 998-2020, Appellant was charged with the crimes occurring between March and December of 2019. He was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent assault, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3125(a)(1) and (a)(8); corruption of minors, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1)(ii); two counts of indecent assault, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(1) and (a)(8); and two counts of criminal attempt (rape and statutory sexual assault), 18 Pa.C.S. § 901(a).

Appellant proceeded to a joint jury trial and was sentenced on May 27, 2022, which included three consecutive, mandatory minimum sentences of 25 to 50 years' incarceration due to a prior conviction. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, which resulted in the trial court's granting partial relief on September 1, 2022, as the court determined that some counts merged and amended Appellant's sentence.^[1] Appellant then filed a single notice of appeal on October 3, 2022, docketed at 1427 MDA 2022.^[2] Appellant complied with the court's order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.

Before addressing Appellant's claims, we first address the fact that Appellant's single notice of appeal listed both docket numbers in violation of Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018). On October 25, 2022, Appellant filed an application to amend, and this Court instructed Appellant to file amended notices of appeal with the trial court, while informing Appellant that this panel retained the option to quash the appeals. We decline to do so.

In Commonwealth v. Young, 265 A.3d 462 (Pa. 2021), our Supreme Court overruled Walker to the extent that it required quashing the appeal in this scenario. Id. at 478 n.19. The Young Court permitted the appellate courts to invoke Pa.R.A.P. 902(b)(1), which permits defective notices of appeal to be remedied as the appellate court deems appropriate. We accept Appellant's amended notices pursuant to Rule 902 and we now address Appellant's five issues raised in this consolidated appeal:

I. Was [the] evidence sufficient to convict [Appellant?]

II. Should the Commonwealth have been permitted to admit into evidence and play two (2) prison phone call recordings from May 14, 2020?

III. Was [Appellant]'s 1996 New York conviction an equivalent crime for the purposes of finding the twenty-five (25) year mandatory[-]minimum sentencing enhancement applied?

IV. Should the twenty-five (25) year mandatory[-]minimum sentencing enhancement have applied since [Appellant]'s prior New York conviction occurred prior to Pennsylvania's enactment of Sexual Offender Registration requirements?

V. Was the sentence entered by the Sentencing Court of 75 - 150 years manifestly excessive and an abuse of discretion?

Appellant's Brief at 8-9.

Appellant's first issue generically challenges every element of every conviction. The trial court concluded that Appellant has waived this issue and, in the alternative, that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain all convictions. The Commonwealth argues that the claims have been waived, but asks this Court to affirm in the alternative.

We agree that Appellant waived any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, and we decline to address in the alternative whether the evidence was sufficient.

Appellant's concise statement did not specifically challenge any particular conviction, let alone any specific elements. He merely alleged "that the evidence submitted at Appellant's [t]rial was insufficient to meet the Commonwealth's burden of proving … Appellant guilty of the offenses he was found guilty of, beyond a reasonable doubt." Concise Statement, 10/24/22, at 1 (unnumbered). His brief slightly elaborates upon that argument, asserting that "the Commonwealth did not establish every element of every crime charged through the uncorroborated testimony of C.R., and the Commonwealth did not rule out simple transference between people who resided in the same space and were wearing the same clothing at times." Appellant's Brief at 17.

We conclude that Appellant's concise statement was excessively vague to the degree that Appellant failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. To "preserve a sufficiency claim, the Rule 1925(b) statement must specify the element or elements upon which the evidence was insufficient." Commonwealth v. Widger, 237 A.3d 1151, 1156 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted). The failure to do so waives the claim for appellate review, even if the trial court correctly guesses which issues the appellant wanted to raise. Commonwealth v. Bonnett, 239 A.3d 1096, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2020). Appellant's statement did not specify any element or any crime, thereby waiving this claim.

We further decline to address whether the evidence was sufficient as an alternative holding. Appellant was convicted at two separate dockets of eighteen separate crimes. The elements of each crime vary and the dockets concern both the specific incident date of Christmas Eve 2019 as well as crimes occurring over a nine-month period. We will not comb through the record to determine if portions of the record corroborate every element of every crime charged. See id. (concluding that a weight claim was waived on appeal due to a "blanket statement wherein [the appellant] declares the evidence was insufficient to convict him of all charges. … This failure is especially significant herein, where the crimes were comprised of multiple elements and arose from two informations."). Moreover, while we cannot overlook Appellant's vague concise statement, we add that his brief fares no better, as he asks this Court to do his job. Appellant's Brief at 16 ("Appellant asks the Superior Court to review the evidence and find that it was insufficient to convict him of these offenses."). That responsibility lies with Appellant, not this Court. "It is [the a]ppellant's obligation to sufficiently develop arguments in his brief by applying the relevant law to the facts of the case, persuade this Court that there were errors below, and convince us relief is due because of those errors. If an appellant does not do so, we may find the argument waived." Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 284 (Pa. Super. 2009). See also Commonwealth v. Williams, 782 A.2d 517, 532 (Pa. 2001) (Castille, J., concurring) (stating that appellate courts are "neither obliged, nor even particularly equipped, to develop an argument for a party. To do so places the Court in the conflicting roles of advocate and neutral arbiter.").

Appellant's second claim challenges the admission of two recorded phone conversations between Appellant and C.R. During these conversations, Appellant discussed whether he should accept the Commonwealth's plea offer of four to ten years of incarceration. C.R. told Appellant that if he did not take the plea she would have to testify, and Appellant stated he did not know what to do. The Commonwealth argued that the calls were indicative of consciousness of guilt, as it showed he was considering a guilty plea and did not profess his innocence.

Appellant submits that the prejudicial aspect of this evidence derives from his incarceration. "Generally, no reference may be made at trial in a criminal case to a defendant's arrest or incarceration for a previous crime, [but] there is no exact rule in Pennsylvania which prohibits reference to a defendant's incarceration awaiting trial or arrest for pending charges." Appellant's Brief at 18.

We agree with the Commonwealth that this claim has been waived as Appellant did not raise this objection at trial. "To preserve an...