Com. v. Henry, S. ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • J-A14022-20
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    v.                             :
    :
    :
    SHANELL MARIE HENRY                        :
    :
    Appellant               :   No. 1408 WDA 2019
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 12, 2019
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
    No(s): CP-02-CR-0012442-2018
    BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
    MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                       FILED NOVEMBER 10, 2020
    Shanell Marie Henry appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on
    August 12, 2019, following her non-jury trial conviction for Hindering
    Apprehension or Prosecution.1 At Henry’s bench trial, the parties agreed to
    submit the Affidavit of Probable Cause attached to the Criminal Complaint in
    lieu of witness testimony. Henry claims that the statements in the affidavit
    were not sufficient to support her conviction. We affirm.
    The affidavit of probable cause stated that while he was on duty one
    night in August 2018, Officer Joseph White saw a man and a woman get out
    of a silver Camaro shortly after midnight and walk into a Sheetz. They later
    identified the woman as Henry. Officer White ran a check of the Camaro’s
    license plate and learned that the Camaro was registered to Corey
    ____________________________________________
    1   See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5105(a)(2).
    J-A14022-20
    Washington, a suspended driver with an outstanding warrant. Officer White
    identified the driver of the Camaro as Washington from Washington’s driver’s
    license photo. While Officer White attempted to verify the warrant and radio
    for backup, Washington “sneaked out the back of Sheetz” and left the area.
    Police Criminal Complaint, 8/15/18, at 2.
    The officers then entered the Sheetz, unaware that Washington had fled.
    When they were unable to find Washington, the officers approached Henry,
    who initially told them that she had not gone into the store with another
    person. Officers detained Henry because of this false statement while they
    searched   the   surrounding   area   for   Washington.   When   that   proved
    unsuccessful, they released her from custody and at approximately 1 a.m.,
    they called off the search. See id.
    Officer White then remained in the area “to watch for Henry to return
    and pick up Washington.” Id. Approximately 20 minutes after the search
    ended, Officer White learned Washington’s address, and when he drove past
    the home, he saw lights on inside. A short while later, another officer saw the
    silver Camaro near Washington’s home, at the intersection of Moon Clinton
    Road and Wiltshire Drive. He stopped the car and Officer White asked Henry
    why she was in the area. She responded that Moon Clinton Road was the
    shortest way to her home in Aliquippa. The officers doubted her story,
    however, because it was nearly an hour after the incident at the Sheetz, the
    Sheetz is “less than half of a mile from 376 Business loop,” which leads to
    -2-
    J-A14022-20
    Aliquippa, and Henry “had no explanation for coming from the area of
    Lockheed or why she was in the area almost an hour later.” Id.
    Officer White then again asked Henry about the incident at Sheetz.
    When he confronted her with the fact that the Sheetz store was only a few
    minutes from major highways providing an easier and quicker route to her
    home in Aliquippa, Henry admitted that she had entered the Sheetz with
    Washington, but said that he disappeared when she was waiting in line while
    her back was to him. She denied having seen him since that moment and said
    she could not make contact with him. Id.
    Police charged Henry with Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution, and
    on August 12, 2019, the court found Henry guilty and sentenced her to 18
    months of probation. This timely appeal followed. Henry raises one issue:
    Whether the evidence [is] insufficient to convict [Henry] of
    hindering apprehension or prosecution where the Commonwealth
    failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that [] Henry intended
    to hinder the apprehension of [Washington] by communicating
    with, or providing transportation to, him after her interaction with
    police at Sheetz, as required by 18 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 5105(a)(2)?
    Henry’s Br. at 4.
    Our standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the
    evidence is de novo, but our scope of review is limited to
    considering the evidence of record, and all reasonable inferences
    arising therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the
    Commonwealth as the verdict winner. Evidence is sufficient if it
    can support every element of the crime charged beyond a
    reasonable doubt.
    Commonwealth v. Robinson, 
    128 A.3d 261
    , 264 (Pa.Super. 2015) (en
    banc) (citations omitted).
    -3-
    J-A14022-20
    Pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5105, the Commonwealth can obtain a
    conviction for Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution, by establishing beyond
    a reasonable doubt that: 1) the defendant had the intent to hinder the
    apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of another; and 2) the
    defendant provided or aided in providing a weapon, transportation, or other
    means of avoiding apprehension. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5105(a)(2). Section
    5105 provides in relevant part:
    § 5105. Hindering apprehension or prosecution
    (a) Offense defined.—A person commits an offense if, with
    intent to hinder the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or
    punishment of another for crime or violation of the terms of
    probation, parole, intermediate punishment or Accelerated
    Rehabilitative Disposition, he:
    ***
    (2) provides or aids in providing a weapon, transportation,
    disguise or other means of avoiding apprehension or
    effecting escape. . . .
    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5105(a)(2).
    Henry maintains that the evidence was insufficient to prove that she
    intended to hinder the apprehension of Washington by communicating with
    him or providing transportation to him after the incident at the Sheetz. This is
    so, she argues, because after the incident, Officer White never saw her with
    Washington, never saw her on the phone, and never confirmed that
    Washington was in his residence when Officer White saw the lights on in
    Washington’s home. She further argues that there was no evidence that
    Washington told her that he was subject to an open arrest warrant. She
    -4-
    J-A14022-20
    contends that the only circumstantial evidence of her guilt was that police
    stopped her “in the vicinity of Washington’s home about an hour after the
    events at Sheetz.” Henry’s Br. at 17. Henry argues that her conviction is based
    on mere conjecture, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
    We disagree. The evidence against Henry was not limited to the fact
    that police stopped her near Washington’s house an hour after the incident.
    Rather, the evidence also included her failure to give police any reasonable
    explanation for being there an hour later. She offered no good reason why she
    was at the intersection of Moon Clinton Road and Wiltshire Drive when there
    was a much shorter and faster way to her home in Aliquippa – i.e., Route 376
    – that did not take her through that intersection. In addition, she also lied to
    police during the traffic stop, telling them that she had not gone into the
    Sheetz with Washington, only to then admit that such was not the case.
    All of the evidence together – Washington’s eluding police at the Sheetz,
    Henry’s presence near Washington’s home an hour after the incident, her
    inability to explain her presence there, and her lying to police about being with
    Washington at the Sheetz – was sufficient to prove Henry’s guilt beyond a
    reasonable doubt. This evidence established that Henry had intended to hinder
    Washington’s apprehension, and that with that intent, she had transported
    and/or communicated with him.
    Judgment of Sentence affirmed.
    -5-
    J-A14022-20
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 11/10/2020
    -6-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1408 WDA 2019

Filed Date: 11/10/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/10/2020