Com. v. Crosby, M. ( 2018 )

J-S25004-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
MALIK CROSBY :
:
Appellant : No. 669 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 3, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0002531-2015
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and OTT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MAY 29, 2018
Appellant, Malik Crosby, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered
in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, following his negotiated
guilty plea to involuntary manslaughter (18 Pa.C.S.A. 2504(a)). We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court accurately set forth the relevant facts and
procedural history of this case. Therefore, we only summarize the incident
leading to Appellant’s criminal charges. On January 10, 2015, Appellant was
a resident at the Circle C Group Home. On that date, two other residents of
the group home, Victim and Mr. Shepard, began to argue. The verbal
altercation escalated and became physical. During the argument, Victim
picked up a vacuum and threw it at Mr. Shepard. Appellant and Mr. Shepard
then jumped on Victim and started punching and hitting him. Appellant picked
up the vacuum and began striking Victim’s stomach/rib area with it while Mr.
J-S25004-18
Shepard placed Victim in a chokehold. Joylynn Grant, the Youth Specialist on
site, witnessed the attack and shouted at Appellant and Mr. Shepard to let go
of Victim. Ms. Grant told Appellant and Mr. Shepard that Victim was turning
purple, but Appellant and Mr. Shepard continued to beat Victim. Victim died
a few days later of an anoxic brain injury due to the compression of his neck.
Appellant raises three issues for our review:
WERE [APPELLANT’S] U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV AND PA.
CONST. ART. I § 9 DUE PROCESS RIGHTS VIOLATED WHEN
HIS CASE WAS ADJUDICATED BY AN ALLEGHENY COUNTY
CRIMINAL DIVISION JUDGE RATHER THAN, AS IT SHOULD
[HAVE] BEEN, BY AN ALLEGHENY COUNTY JUVENILE
JUDGE?
DID THE ALLEGHENY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CRIMINAL DIVISION LACK SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
OVER APPELLANT’S CASE, GIVEN THAT TRANSFER TO THE
JUVENILE SECTION OF THE FAMILY DIVISION OF SAID
COURT, PURSUANT TO 42 PA.C.S. § 6322, WAS IN ORDER?
DID THE ALLEGHENY COUNTY CRIMINAL DIVISION JUDGE
WHO DENIED APPELLANT’S 42 PA.C.S. § 6322 TRANSFER
MOTION ABUSE HIS DISCRETION?
(Appellant’s Brief at 3).
Our review of this case implicates the following principles:
The issue of certification between the juvenile and criminal
divisions is jurisdictional and, therefore, not waivable.
Decisions of whether to grant decertification will not be
overturned absent a gross abuse of discretion. An abuse of
discretion is not merely an error of judgment but involves
the misapplication or overriding of the law or the exercise of
a manifestly unreasonable judgment [based] upon
partiality, prejudice or ill will.
Commonwealth v. Sanders, 814 A.2d 1248, 1250 (Pa.Super. 2003), appeal
-2-
J-S25004-18
denied, 573 Pa. 704, 827 A.2d 430 (2003) (internal citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Jeffrey A.
Manning, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion
comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented.
(See Trial Court Opinion, filed November 21, 2017, at 4-11) (finding: at
January 12, 2016 decertification hearing, Appellant presented testimony from
forensic psychologist Dr. Applegate, who opined Appellant would be amenable
to treatment in juvenile system; Dr. Applegate testified that facts underlying
criminal charges demonstrated Appellant was not particularly culpable, noting
Appellant did not start or finish altercation with Victim; Commonwealth
presented testimony from psychiatrist Dr. Wright, who discussed Appellant’s
long history of behavioral problems; Dr. Wright said Appellant was
inconsistent during Dr. Wright’s examination of Appellant, which raised
concerns about reliability of information Appellant provided; Dr. Wright opined
Appellant was not amenable to treatment in juvenile system based on
Appellant’s diminished intellectual functioning, lack of maturity, disinterest in
receiving treatment or changing his life, and magnitude of offense; Dr. Wright
noted Appellant has pattern of repeated, physical aggression, that has been
resistant to any treatment; Dr. Wright’s opinion was more persuasive; of
particular importance to court’s decision was failure of previous attempts to
rehabilitate Appellant; Appellant has had benefits of other programs before
-3-
J-S25004-18
this incident; those failed interventions, coupled with serious nature of
Appellant’s conduct and tragic result of that conduct, led court to conclude
Appellant was no longer amenable to treatment in juvenile court’s jurisdiction;
notably, Appellant’s conduct here was completely unnecessary; Appellant did
not know either of initial combatants but decided to interject himself into their
fight, which should have been of no concern to Appellant; Appellant’s actions
are consistent with Dr. Wright’s analysis of Appellant’s pattern of outbursts
and inability to control himself; transferring Appellant’s case to juvenile court
did not serve public interest). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial
court’s opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/29/2018
-4-