Com. v. Harris, W.
1405 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- Wayne Harris pled guilty (after mistrial on rape charge) to unlawful contact with a minor, endangering the welfare of a child, and corruption of a minor; sentenced to 2–4 years plus 8 years reporting probation and designated an SVP. Jurisdiction of probation assigned to the trial court.
- Harris participated in sex-offender treatment (TAP) and had been stepped down to monthly after passing a maintenance polygraph; he later underwent an annual polygraph on Dec. 30, 2014.
- He failed the annual polygraph, showing significant reactions to questions about recent contact with minors; when confronted, Harris admitted accidentally seeing his daughter nude but began denying his original offense and was deceptive in group treatment.
- TAP discharged Harris from treatment on Jan. 26, 2015 due to deception and denial, and Dr. Russell testified Harris was a high risk to reoffend.
- The trial court found Harris violated probation for failing to participate/adhere to mandated treatment, revoked probation, and imposed 6–24 months’ incarceration followed by five years’ probation; Harris appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Harris) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in finding Harris failed to admit his original offense and thus violated probation | TAP discharge and polygraph/deception show failure to comply with treatment condition and justify revocation | Harris contends he was not in denial, had literacy difficulties, admitted to his probation officer, and immediately enrolled in other treatment | Court affirmed: ample record (polygraph, TAP testimony, dictated letter) supports finding of denial/deception and unsuccessful participation; revocation proper |
| Whether revocation was based improperly on statements to probation officer | Commonwealth: revocation based on treatment noncompliance, not solely probation officer statements | Harris: argued he had admitted offense to probation officer and was in acceptance | Court: rejected Harris’s claim; participation in treatment (not officer letter) was the basis for revocation |
| Preservation/waiver of issues on appeal | Commonwealth: trial court accepted late Rule 1925(b) statement and addressed issues | Harris: raised some arguments late/unclearly | Court: allowed consideration of issues but found many waived for inadequate preservation/undeveloped briefing |
| Abuse of discretion / sufficiency of evidence standard | Commonwealth: preponderance of evidence of probation violation and ineffective rehabilitation | Harris: argued no violation because he sought other treatment and claimed acceptance | Court: applied abuse-of-discretion standard and concluded no abuse; record supports revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Perreault, 930 A.2d 553 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard for probation revocation and proof required)
- Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 81 A.3d 103 (Pa. Super. 2013) (untimely Rule 1925(b) statement does not automatically waive issues if trial court addresses them)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428 (Pa. Super. 2009) (trial court opinion addressing untimely issues permits appellate review)
- In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellant must develop arguments with citations; failure may result in waiver)