Com. v. Hinerman, I. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S63039-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ISAAC HINERMAN Appellant No. 578 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 30, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at Nos.: CP-38-CR-0000930-2013; CP-38-CR-0000965-2012 BEFORE: BOWES, J., PANELLA, J., and PLATT, J.* MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 24, 2015 Appellant, Isaac Hinerman, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following a jury conviction of indecent assault, and guilty pleas to summary harassment, simple assault (two counts) and robbery.1 Appellant challenges the weight and sufficiency of the evidence for the jury conviction, and the trial court’s admission of testimony from the victim’s mother about ____________________________________________ * 1 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3126(a)(8), 2709(a)(1), 2701(a)(3), and 3701(a)(1)(ii), respectively. On October 31, 2013, the court amended the sentencing order, however, the sentence was computed and ran from October 30, 2013. J-S63039-14 the victim’s mental state. He also claims the sentence was excessive. We affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.2 In its February 28, 2014 opinion accompanying the order denying Appellant’s post-sentence motion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. (See Trial Court Opinion, 2/28/14, at 1-4).3 Therefore, we have no reason to restate them here. After his jury conviction, on July 11, 2013, and his guilty pleas, on July 10, 2013 and September 26, 2013, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of not less than nine years’ nor more than twenty-two years’ incarceration. This timely appeal followed the denial of Appellant’s post- sentence motion.4 Appellant raises the following issues for our review: ____________________________________________ 2 On April 23, 2014, the court entered its Rule 1925(a) opinion in which it relied on its February 28, 2014 opinion denying Appellant’s post-sentence motion. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Therefore, we will refer to the February 28, 2014 opinion. 3 On September 26, 2013, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to robbery. We note that the trial court properly cited the statute for robbery but consistently erred in mislabeling the offense as burglary. Appellant does not challenge the robbery conviction. Therefore, the mislabeling error does not affect any issues Appellant raises on appeal, the court’s reasoning, or our disposition. 4 Pursuant to the trial court’s order, Appellant filed a timely Rule 1925(b) statement on April 21, 2014. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925. -2- J-S63039-14 I. Whether [Appellant’s] motion for acquittal should be granted because there was not sufficient evidence presented at trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at [a]ction [n]umber CP-38-CR-965-2012 that [Appellant] was guilty of [indecent assault?] II. Whether [Appellant’s] [m]otion for a [n]ew [t]rial should be granted because the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence and whether the [t]rial [c]ourt’s admission of the victim’s mother’s testimony regarding the victim’s mental state was error such that [Appellant] was not afforded a fair trial[?] III. Whether [Appellant’s] [m]otion for [r]econsideration of [s]entence should be granted[?] (Appellant’s Brief, at 4). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude that there is no merit to Appellant’s issues. The trial court properly disposes of all of the questions presented. (See Trial Ct. Op., at 5-14) (finding that the trial court properly: (1) determined that evidence viewed in light most favorable to Commonwealth was sufficient to prove all elements of indecent assault; (2) admitted testimony of victim’s mother as excited utterance exception to hearsay rule; (3) rejected challenge to weight of evidence where victim and other Commonwealth witnesses were credible and jury verdict did not shock conscience of trial court; and (4) determined sentence was not excessive where sentence was within Sentencing Guidelines, and sentencing court reviewed pre-sentence investigation report and found several aggravating factors, including nature and -3- violent circumstances of J-S63039-14 offenses, and Appellant’s extensive prior record). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion (except for the mislabeling error). Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judge Panella joins the Memorandum. Judge Bowes concurs in the result. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 2/24/2015 -4- Circulated 01/26/2015 09:19 AM Circulated 01/26/2015 09:19 AM Circulated 01/26/2015 09:19 AM Circulated 01/26/2015 09:19 AM Circulated 01/26/2015 09:19 AM Circulated 01/26/2015 09:19 AM Circulated 01/26/2015 09:19 AM Circulated 01/26/2015 09:19 AM Circulated 01/26/2015 09:19 AM Circulated 01/26/2015 09:19 AM Circulated 01/26/2015 09:19 AM Circulated 01/26/2015 09:19 AM Circulated 01/26/2015 09:19 AM Circulated 01/26/2015 09:19 AM Circulated 01/26/2015 09:19 AM

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.