Commonwealth v. Smith, J-S06022-15
| Decision Date | 06 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 277 EDA 2014,J-S06022-15,277 EDA 2014 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ENOCH SMITH Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Enoch Smith appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County following his jury trial and conviction on charges of Corrupt Organizations,1 Promoting Prostitution,2 Criminal Use of Communication Facility,3 Manufacture, Delivery or Possession with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance,4 Conspiracy,5Rape6 and Sexual Assault.7 After our review, we affirm the judgment of sentence and rely on the opinion authored by the Honorable Wallace H. Bateman, Jr.
The trial court's opinion sets forth the facts of this case in detail. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/16/14, at 1-10. To summarize, Smith conducted a prostitution enterprise in Bensalem Township, Bucks County, and in Philadelphia County, preying upon and exploiting young women who were addicted to drugs. Smith provided the women with heroin to feed and maintain their addiction, and in exchange required them to serve as prostitutes. At trial, four of Smith's "employees" testified; they stated that they were paid in drugs and if they did not have sufficient dates they had to have sex with Smith or suffer withdrawal. One woman testified that at the time she started working for Smith she had just turned 19 and had never done this type of thing before; after her second "client" she told Smith she would no longer work for him. In response, Smith became angry and raped her.
Following Smith's convictions and a determination that he was a sexually violent predator (SVP), Judge Bateman sentenced him to a term ofimprisonment of 40 to 80 years. Smith filed post-sentence motions, which Judge Bateman denied. This appeal followed. Smith raises the following issues for our review:
1. Did the trial court commit an error of law or abuse of discretion by improperly considering and failing to disregard in total a presentence investigation report produced from the Bucks County Adult Probation and Parole Department wherein the conclusions and averments in the report were tainted by the inclusion of an interview with the appellant conducted in violation of his privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?
2. Whether the sentencing court's imposition of an aggregate sentence of not less than forty years nor more than eighty years' incarceration on information numbers 4422/2012 and 7731/2012 was unreasonable and manifestly excessive in that the aggregated sentences exceeded the aggravated range of sentencing [guidelines] and violated the fundamental norms of sentencing in that the sentencing court failed to properly consider the rehabilitative needs of the appellant under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b)?
3. Did the trial court commit an error of law or abuse of discretion in declining to approve the appellant's presentence request for the retention of a forensic psychologist/psychiatrist expert to assess the appellant's mental condition, mental health considerations in sentencing, drug and alcohol assessment, drug and alcohol considerations in sentencing, psychosocial history, educational history, vocational history, the appellant's potential for rehabilitation and to rebut the presentence investigation and SVP report relied upon by the court in imposing sentence?
4. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion in granting the Commonwealth's motion to consolidate information numbers 4422/2012 and 7731/2012?
5. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying the appellant's pretrial objection to venue in criminal information number 7731/2012?
6. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion in denying the appellant's post-sentence motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial on the grounds that the verdict of guilt as to the charges of rape by forcible compulsion and sexual assault was against the weight of the evidence as the convictions improperly rested upon the contradictory and uncorroborated testimony of Commonwealth witness J.S.?
We have reviewed the transcripts, briefs, relevant law and Judge Bateman's opinion, and we find that Judge Bateman's opinion thoroughly and correctly disposes of the issues Smith raises on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, at 13-25. Specifically, the record supports the court's determination that ordering Smith to submit to a presentence interview for the presentence investigation report did not violate Smith's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See Commonwealth v. Carrillo-Diaz, 64 A.3d 722 (Pa. Super. 2013) (); see also Commonwealth v. Moore, 583 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 1990), quoting Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951) ().
Further, with respect to the court's sentence beyond the aggravated range of the guidelines, we point out that Judge Bateman explained his sentence in detail at the sentencing hearing. See Sentencing Hearing, 7/22/13, at 85-95. Judge Bateman considered the sentencing guidelines, the nature and circumstances of the offenses, the impact on the victims and their families, Smith's history and character, his rehabilitative needs, the presentence investigation and the report of a forensic psychologist. Judge Bateman also noted that this was the worst case of parasitic and exploitive behavior he had seen in thirty years and that Smith showed a complete lack of remorse, stating:
Your life has been based upon drugs and theft and selling women. Again, quoting Dr. Shanken-Kaye, this parasitic lifestyle is something that has continued and will continue if you are not dealt with either by me or another Judge, or if by some rehabilitative setting. I don't think you're capable of changing your ways as Dr. Shanken-Kaye indicates, intensive lifetime treatment. . . . You exploited [these women]. You degraded them. I have to say, this is perhaps one of the worse cases I've been around in over 30 years as a lawyer and a judge. The exploitation and the degradation of women to the point where they were locked in a room and given their morning wake-up call for drugs. The morning wake up. They got no money. They just got drugs, and the drugs made their condition worse and worse. . . . That is how you kept them. . . . So you've demonstrated through your conduct that this is a serious offense and you have no regard and in my judgment, for anyone else, and the likelihood of you re-offending is in my judgment virtual certainty without proper treatment.
Id. at 92-93. We find no manifest abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Bowen, 975 A.2d 1120 (Pa. Super. 2009).
With respect to Smith's claim that the court erred in failing to approve his request, prior to sentencing, for retention of a psychologist to assess his mental condition, the court notes it did approve this request at sentencing and considered the psychologist's report in determining Smith's motion for modification of sentence. With respect to his challenges to venue, the court's consolidation of the criminal informations, and the court's determination that the sexual assault and rape convictions were not against the weight of the evidence, Smith has failed to establish that Judge Bateman abused his discretion.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence based on Judge Bateman's opinion. We direct counsel to attach a copy of the trial court opinion in the event of further proceedings in this matter.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
/s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
ENOCH SMITH
No. 7731/2013
No. 4422/2012
OPINIONDefendant Enoch Smith (hereinafter "Appellant") appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from this Court's denial of Appellant's Motion to Modify and Reconsider Sentence as well as this Court's Denial of Appellant's supplemental post-sentence Motion for Judgment of Acquittal entered on December 24, 2013. We file this Opinion pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure (Pa.R.A.P.) 1925(a).
In 2011, 23 year old Erin O'Connell-began working for Appellant (N.T. 4/24/13, p. 7). She testified that she was already working as a prostitute on Kensington Avenue in Philadelphia when she met Appellant. According to Erin, Appellant would go up and down Kensington Avenue looking for girls that were "posted up" (N.T. 4/24/13, p. 7). The girls would stand on certain corners or specific spots on Kensington Avenue and Appellant would stop and talk to them and let them know what he could offer if they were to work for him (N.T. 4/24/13, p. 9). At the time Erin O'Connell encountered Appellant, she had been thrown out of her family home due to her addiction to drugs (N.T. 4/24/13, p. 9). Appellant told Erin that he could provide her with a place to stay, food, and clothes, if she were to work for him (N.T, 4/24/13, p. 10)....
To continue reading
Request your trial