Com. v. Hendricks (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A29033-12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MATTHEW LEE HENDRICKS, Appellant No. 2951 EDA 2011 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered May 3, 2011 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0003173-2009. BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON and FITZGERALD,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: Filed: January 7, 2013 Appellant, Matthew Lee Hendricks, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered May 3, 2011, as made final by the denial of his postsentence motions, sentencing him to an aggregate 20 to 40 years incarceration for a conviction of murder in the third-degree.1 We affirm. The voluminous factual history of this matter is well known to the parties and is comprehensively restated by the trial court in its opinion filed October 6, 2011; therefore, there is no need to restate it here. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/6/2011, at 2-12. Of relevance to this appeal, on March 18, 2011, a jury found Appellant guilty of one count of third-degree murder, ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. ยง 2502(c). *Former Justice assigned to the Superior Court. J-A29033-12 and not guilty of first-degree murder and criminal conspiracy to commit firstdegree murder. The trial court sentenced Appellant on May 3, 2011. Thereafter, on May 10, 2011, Appellant filed post-sentence motions seeking a new trial on, inter alia, four basis: (1) after-discovered evidence relating to a statement made by Appellant s co-defendant, Clyde Lont; (2) trial court error for having submitted the offense of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder to the jury; (3) trial court error for denying Appellant s motion for a mistrial after the improper testimonial reference to Mr. Lont s guilty plea; and (4) juror misconduct. On August 16, 2011 and September 8, 2011, the trial court held hearings on the post-sentence motions. At the conclusion of the hearings, the trial court took the motions under advisement, and on October 6, 2011, the trial court issued an opinion and order denying the motions. This timely appeal followed.2 Appellant presents four issues for appeal: Was the [Appellant] entitled to a new trial on the basis of afterdiscovered evidence, viz: testimony of Clyde Lont, which was unavailable at the time of the trial, is exculpatory, and is of such quality as to change the outcome of the trial, if it had been heard. Was [Appellant] entitled to a mistrial after the testimonial reference by the prosecuting officer, Officer William Dosedlo, to the fact that Clyde Lont pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder with this [Appellant], a reference the [trial court] had ____________________________________________ 2 The requirements of Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925 have been satisfied in this matter. -2- J-A29033-12 specifically determined and ruled to be improper, which ruling, and the reasons for same, were known to the witness. Was [Appellant] entitled to a new trial based upon juror misconduct in the form of impermissible communications by one or more jurors during jury deliberations. Was it improper to submit to the jury the offense of [first-] degree murder, where there was no evidence of a specific intent to kill by this [Appellant]. Appellant s Brief at 2. We review all four of Appellant s issues for an abuse of discretion by the trial court.3 An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or is the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, discretion is abused. Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 753 (Pa. 2000). ____________________________________________ 3 See Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381, 416 (Pa. 2011) ( Unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court's denial of an appellant's motion for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence. ); Commonwealth v. Simpson, 754 A.2d 1264, 1272 (Pa. 2000) (review of a trial court s denial of a motion for a mistrial is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion); Commonwealth v. Pope, 14 A.3d 139, 145 (Pa. Super. 2011) ( The refusal of a new trial on the grounds of alleged misconduct of a juror is largely within the discretion of the trial judge. When the facts surrounding the possible misconduct are in dispute, the trial judge should examine the various witnesses on the question, and his findings of fact will be sustained unless there is an abuse of discretion. (citation omitted)); Commonwealth v. Chambers, 980 A.2d 35, 50 (Pa. 2009) ( In examining jury instructions, our scope of review is to determine whether the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion or an error of law controlling the outcome of the case. (citation omitted)). -3- J-A29033-12 After review of the certified record, the parties briefs, and the trial court s well-reasoned opinion, we believe that the trial court fully and accurately addresses all four of Appellant s issue on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/6/2011 at 12-21. Indeed, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court s determinations that: (1) the after-discovered evidence presented by Appellant, which comprised of the testimony from Clyde Lont, Appellant s associate who had pled guilty to and had been sentenced regarding the crimes for which Appellant was charged, lacked credibility and was not of such a nature as would produce a different verdict if a new trial was granted (id. at 12-14); (2) testimony by Officer Dosedlo regarding Mr. Lont s entry of a guilty plea was not intended to, and indeed did not, deny Appellant a fair trial such that Appellant was entitled to declaration of a mistrial (id. at 18-20); (3) the alleged juror misconduct was not prejudicial and would not have affected the deliberations of an objective juror (id. at 17-18); and (4) the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to justify submission of the charge of first-degree murder to the jury (id. at 14-16), and, in any event, Appellant establishes no prejudice suffered as a result of that submission, as he was acquitted of both first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit firstdegree murder. Consequently, we affirm on the basis of the trial court s October 6, 2011 opinion, and adopt it as our own. The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court s October 6, 2011 opinion to all future filings regarding our disposition of this appeal. Judgment of sentence affirmed. -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
