Commonwealth v. Leatherby
116 A.3d 73
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Leatherby was convicted by jury of three counts unlawful contact with a minor, three counts endangering the welfare of a child, three counts corruption of the morals of a minor, and two counts indecent assault, for abusing his wife’s three daughters aged 9 to 14 over several years.
- The trial court bifurcated sentencing, found Leatherby to be a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP), and sentenced him to 7.5 to 15 years, with SVP registration for life.
- Post-sentence motions were filed pro se by Leatherby, but defense counsel failed to file timely post-sentence motions or a notice of appeal within 10 and 30 days respectively, raising preservation issues.
- The trial court did not timely appoint replacement counsel, and Leatherby filed a pro se post-sentence motion during a period of apparent representation confusion, which the court treated as tolling the appeal period.
- The majority held Leatherby’s pro se filing tolled the 30-day appeal period due to administrative breakdown, thus the appeal was timely; the court affirmed the sufficiency of evidence for several convictions, vacated/modified certain rulings, and remanded for resentencing consistent with their opinion.
- The dissent would have dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely notice of appeal, rejecting the tolling basis used by the majority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of unlawful contact with minor as to each victim | Leatherby argues insufficient evidence for all three | Commonwealth contends sufficient proof of unlawful contact | Sugfficient as to F.G. and S.G; insufficient as to M.S. |
| Sufficiency of endangering the welfare of a child | Leatherby claims no duty of care established for M.S. | Commonwealth asserts duty exists due to living with the family | Sustained; evidence supported duty and endangerment |
| Sufficiency of indecent assault convictions | Leatherby asserts no intent to arouse sexual desire | Statute covers acts for purposes of sexual contact | Sufficient evidence for two complainants (S.G., F.G.) |
| Convictions for corruption of minors—merger and sufficiency | Leatherby argues merger with indecent assault; sufficiency challenge | Convictions based on separate acts; not necessarily lesser-included | Convictions upheld; no merger required; acts supported CMOM |
| Classification as a sexually violent predator (SVP) | N/A | Challenge to SVP determination | SVP finding upheld; clear and convincing standard met based on Dr. Ziv’s testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rose, 960 A.2d 149 (Pa. Super. 2008) (unlawful contact may be inferred from nonverbal cues or pattern of abuse)
- Commonwealth v. Velez, 51 A.3d 260 (Pa. Super. 2012) (unlawful contact can be proven by nonverbal or verbal communication)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 931 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2007) (merger and multiple acts; separate offenses may both be punished)
- Commonwealth v. Pankraz, 382 Pa. Super. 116, 554 A.2d 974 (Pa. Super. 1989) (corruption of minors defined by community standards)
- Commonwealth v. Randall, 183 Pa. Super. 603, 133 A.2d 276 (Pa. Super. 1957) (definition guiding corruption of minors)