Com. v. Machalette, A. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S45008-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. AMY MACHALETTE Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 654 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 2, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012069-2013 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.* MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 07, 2017 Appellant, Amy Machalette, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following her bench trial convictions of aggravated assault, possessing instruments of crime (“PIC”), recklessly endangering another person (“REAP”), and simple assault.1 We affirm. In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts of this case. Therefore, we have no need to restate them. Procedurally, on October 1, 2013, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with aggravated assault, PIC, REAP, and simple assault. On October 3, ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1), 907(a), 2705, 2701(a), respectively. _____________________________ *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S45008-17 2013, Appellant filed a suppression motion, which claimed Detective Druding continued to question her after she had asked for an attorney while in police custody on September 9, 2013. After an April 4, 2014 hearing, the court denied the motion on April 10, 2014. Appellant proceeded to a bench trial on July 6, 2015. On July 9, 2015, the court convicted Appellant of aggravated assault, PIC, REAP, and simple assault. The court deferred sentencing pending the preparation of a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”) report. On October 2, 2015, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of forty (40) to eighty (80) months’ incarceration, followed by five (5) years’ probation. On October 8, 2015, Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion, which the court denied on February 19, 2016. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on February 26, 2016. On March 2, 2016, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.1925(b), and Appellant timely complied on April 4, 2016. Appellant raises the following issues for our review: DID NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE STATEMENT THAT WAS TAKEN FROM APPELLANT WHILE SHE WAS IN CUSTODY AND INVOKED HER 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SPEAK WITH COUNSEL BEFORE ANSWERING FURTHER QUESTIONS? WAS NOT THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION FOR AGGRAVATED ASSAULT UNDER [SECTION] 2702[?] THE EVIDENCE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT…APPELLANT POSSESSED A WEAPON AND -2- J-S45008-17 INTENTIONALLY SHOT [VICTIM] WHILE INTENDING TO CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY INJURY. DID THE COMMONWEALTH FAIL TO SHOW THAT APPELLANT INTENTIONALLY SHOT [VICTIM] OR ACTED WITH MALICE MANIFESTING AN EXTREME INDIFFERENCE TO THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE? (Appellant’s Brief at 3). 2 After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Daniel J. Anders, we conclude Appellant’s issues on appeal merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed October 4, 2016, at 59) (finding: (1) Detective Druding interviewed Appellant on day of shooting; prior to start of interview, Detective Druding read Appellant her Miranda rights and asked Appellant if she understood her rights; Appellant responded that she understood her rights and signed Miranda waiver form; when Detective Druding asked Appellant whom she shot, Appellant replied, “My dad said I should get a lawyer”; Detective Druding immediately stopped interview and reiterated to Appellant that it was her decision to get attorney; after brief silence, Appellant started talking about shooting and stated she shot Victim; as result, Detective Druding continued interviewing Appellant; ____________________________________________ 2 Throughout the trial court proceedings and on appeal, erroneously labeled the suppression issue as a denial Amendment right to counsel. Nevertheless, Appellant’s challenges the alleged denial of her Fifth Amendment right to a custodial interrogation. -3- Appellant has of her Sixth claim actually counsel during J-S45008-17 significantly, Appellant did not attempt to stop interview at any time or make any other reference to attorney during interview; additionally, Appellant reviewed and signed her statement upon completion of interview; under these circumstance, Appellant did not “unambiguously” invoke her right to counsel, and court properly denied suppression motion; (2) Commonwealth presented ample evidence at trial, which established Appellant intentionally shot Victim at close range without justification; this evidence included Appellant’s statement to Detective Druding in which Appellant said she aimed low and shot Victim when Victim made fist to punch Appellant; Victim did not sustain serious bodily injury only because bullet struck her cellphone; fact that bullet hit cellphone instead of Victim’s thigh did not preclude finding that Appellant had specific intent to cause serious bodily injury to Victim; thus, sufficient evidence supported Appellant’s conviction of aggravated assault). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 8/7/2017 -4- Circulated 07/14/2017 12:32 PM
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.
