Com. v. Jordan, C. ( 2021 )

J-S25029-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHAZ JORDAN :
:
Appellant : No. 1575 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 24, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0000374-2016
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 21, 2021
Chaz Jordan appeals from the judgment of sentence following his nolo
contendere plea to Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse with a Person
Under 16 Years of Age (IDSI), Trafficking in Minors, and Involuntary
Servitude.1 Jordan argues that the court erred in admitting evidence of his
prior bad acts under Pa.R.E. 404(b). We affirm.
The trial court set forth the facts and procedural history of the case as
follows:
CP-51-CR-0009807-2011
[Jordan] pled guilty to charges of simple assault, terroristic
threats, and unlawful restrain before the Honorable Alice
Beck Dubow on April 26, 2013. These charges stemmed
from the assault of a domestic partner. The victim in [the]
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3123(a)(7), 3011(b), 3012(a), respectively.
J-S25029-21
case tried to end her relationship with [Jordan]. In response,
[Jordan] pulled the victim’s hair, strangled her, and threw
her out of a car. [Jordan] told the victim “Bitch, I’ll kill you
and no one will even know.” Judge Dubow sentenced
[Jordan] to an aggregate term of eleven and one half to
twenty-three months, followed by five years of probation.
Subsequently, jurisdiction over [Jordan]’s probation was
transferred to this court upon Judge Dubow’s transfer to the
Civil Trial Division.
CP-51-CR-0000374-2016
[Jordan] entered into a sexual relationship with the victim
in 2014, when seshe was fifteen years old. [Jordan] began
trafficking the victim for sex work via website
advertisements, escalating the forced sex work to seven
nights per week and up to ten encounters per night.
[Jordan] used sexual assault and threats of physical force to
control the victim. [Jordan] forced the victim to become
pregnant and threatened to kill her if she ended the
pregnancy. [Jordan] was arrested on October 16, 2015,
following a joint investigation between the [Federal Bureau
of Investigation (“FBI”)] Child Exploitation Task Force and
Philadelphia Police.
On June 7, 2018, [Jordan] entered into a no contest plea
before this court for a consolidation with his pending
probation violation under Pa.R.Crim.P. 701. Sentencing was
deferred pending a pre-sentence investigation. On August
24, 2018, this court sentenced [Jordan] to an aggregate
sentence of thirty to sixty years of incarceration followed by
ten years of probation.FN1 No post-sentence motions were
filed . . .
FN1 [Jordan] was sentenced to ten to
twenty years of incarceration on
Trafficking in Minors, ten to twenty years
of incarceration on Involuntary Servitude,
seven and one-half to fifteen years of
incarceration on Involuntary Deviate
Sexual Intercourse, consecutive to each
other. [Jordan] was sentenced on the
remaining felonies to a consecutive period
of ten years of probation. [Jordan] was
sentenced on the probation violation to
-2-
J-S25029-21
two and one-half to five years of
incarceration, consecutive to the sentence
on the new conviction.
Trial Court Opinion, filed November 20, 2020, at 1-2.
Jordan filed a notice of appealappeal, but this Court dismissed his appeal
on February 22, 2019, due to his failure to file a brief. Following a successful
petition pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-
9546, the trial court reinstated his direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc. Jordan
timely appealed.
On appeal, Jordan raises a single issue for our review: “Did the trial
court err in finding that [Jordan’s] alleged prior bad acts were admissible
under the Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b), did this finding deprive
Appellant of the opportunity to have a fair trial, and did the court err in
considering these prior acts at the time of sentencing?”
Jordan argues that the admission of four statements from women whom
he had sex-trafficked should not have been admitted because they were not
relevant. Jordan’s Br. at 6. He contends that the statements showed only that
he had committed the crime of promoting prostitution, and that they were
unsworn out-of-court statements that were not reliable. Id. He claims the
statements did not show involuntary servitude. Id. at 7.
A plea of nolo contendere has the same effect as a guilty plea and results
in the waiver of non-jurisdictional defects and defenses and the challenge of
any issue beyond the legality of the sentence and validity of the plea.
Commonwealth v. Thomas, 427, 506 A.2d 420, 422 (Pa.Super. 1986).
-3-
J-S25029-21
Jordan’s issues are waived for purposes of appeal, and even if he had not
waived them, they are meritless.
We review the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion.
Commonwealth v. Elliott, 80 A.3d 415, 446 (Pa. 2013). “An abuse of
discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but is rather the overriding or
misapplication of the law, or the exercise of judgment that is manifestly
unreasonable, or the result of bias, prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as shown by
the evidence of record.” Commonwealth v. Santos, 176 A.3d 877, 882
(Pa.Super. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 749-
50 (Pa.Super. 2014)). Rule 404(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence bars
admission evidence of prior bad acts to establish a person’s character and to
prove that the person acted on a particular occasion in conformity with that
character. Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1). However, evidence of prior bad acts is
permissible for some other, proper purpose, such as to prove “motive,
opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of
mistake, or lack of accident.” Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2).
To establish a common plan, scheme, or design, the proponent of the
evidence need only show “that there are shared similarities in details of each
crime.” Commonwealth v. Newman, 598 A.2d 275, 278 (Pa. 1991); see
also Commonwealth v. Aikens, 990 A.2d 1181, 1185-86 (Pa.Super. 2010)
(fact pattern of prior assault was markedly similar such that evidence was
admissible under common-scheme-design-or-plan exception and probative
value of evidence outweighed its prejudicial impact). These similarities may
-4-
J-S25029-21
include the perpetrator’s actions, location of the crimes, and commonality in
the relationship between the accused and his victims. See id. In a criminal
case, “this evidence is admissible only if the probative value of the evidence
outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.” Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2).
In the instant case, the statements from Jordan’s other victims were
obtained pursuant to an FBI investigation. At the hearing on the motion in
limine, Jordan did not challenge their reliability. N.T., 4/5/18, at 9. The trial
court granted the motion in limine because the evidence in question was
admissible to show a common plan, scheme, or design. See N.T., 4/5/18, at
18. The court observed that “it’s the same pattern, the same ways they
hooked up, and the same conduct on the defendant’s behalf.” Id. at 17-18.
Jordan met each young female victim on an online dating site, used verbal
and physical abuse to force her into prostitution, each woman used the same
language to describe Jordan’s business practices, set the cost for each
encounter and kept anywhere between half to 100% of the profits. All of the
victims were trafficked during the same time period, between October 2014
and March 2015. Finally, the court noted that the probative value outweighed
the prejudicial impact of the evidence. Id. at 17. Thus, the evidence showed
shared similarities in the details of each crime, including the actions, location
of the crimes, and commonality in the relationship between the accused and
his victims, and the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it. Elliott,
80 A.3d 415, 446; Newman, 598 A.2d at 278; . Aikens, 990 A.2d at 1185-
86.
-5-
J-S25029-21
Jordan’s argument that the statements had a chilling effect on his
decision to testify at trial is likewise inapposite. Jordan’s Br. at 8. He cites
Commonwealth v. Aguado, 760 A.2d 1181 (Pa.Super. 2000) to argue that
he felt no choice but to plead to the crimes charged. Jordan’s Br. at 8. In
Aguado, this Court held that the possibility of the admission of prior bad acts
if the defendant testified deprived him of a fair trial. Id. 1186-87. However,
unlike Aguado, the trial court made a definitive ruling that the evidence was
admissible prior to trial to establish a common scheme or plan. N.T., 4/5/18,
at 18. Accordingly, the analysis in Aguado was not applicable. See, e.g.,
Commonwealth v. Kinard, 95 A.3d 279, 285-86 (Pa.Super. 2014) (analysis
not applicable where trial court made definitive ruling that evidence was
admissible to prove common plan, scheme, or design).
Finally, Jordan argues the trial court should not have considered the
prior bad acts evidence at sentencing because the statements themselves
were never entered into evidence at sentencing but, rather, were condensed
by the Commonwealth. Jordan’s Br. at 9. However, because Jordan did not
object at sentencing, he has waived this argument for purposes of appeal.
See Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 172 (Pa.Super. 2010)
(defendant’s failure to object at sentencing resulted in issue’s waiver for
appellate purposes); Pa.R.A.P. 302 (“Issues not raised in the lower court are
waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”). Accordingly,
Jordan is not entitled to relief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-6-
J-S25029-21
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/21/2021
-7-