Commonwealth v. Ortiz
160 A.3d 230
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Victim (born 2012) lived with father Tex Xavier Ortiz after mother died; grandparents sought custody and obtained an interim custody order on Dec. 19, 2014.
- Ortiz was served with the custody petition on Dec. 17 and told by police he "knew about the custody order and did not care." He then absconded with the child and traveled out of county/state.
- Authorities activated a child-abduction response; Ortiz and the child were located Jan. 5, 2015; a negotiator secured the child’s peaceful release; the child was unharmed.
- Ortiz was charged with kidnapping of a minor (18 Pa.C.S. § 2901(a.1)(2)), concealment, and interference with custody of a child (ICC, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2904); convicted of kidnapping and ICC, acquitted of concealment.
- Trial court sentenced Ortiz to consecutive terms (6–18 years for kidnapping; 2–4 years for ICC) and imposed lifetime SORNA registration based on the kidnapping conviction.
- On appeal, Ortiz challenged sufficiency of the evidence for kidnapping (intent element), the SORNA order, and the discretionary aspects of sentencing; the appellate court reversed kidnapping and SORNA, affirmed ICC, vacated the ICC sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Ortiz's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of kidnapping conviction under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2901(a.1)(2) — intent to facilitate a felony or flight | Ortiz: his removal was to retain custody/act of affection; conduct fits ICC, not kidnapping; no intent to facilitate a felony or flight | Commonwealth: Ortiz removed the child to prevent enforcement of the custody order and thereby committed ICC (a felony), satisfying the intent element for kidnapping | Reversed kidnapping conviction — evidence insufficient to prove intent under § 2901(a.1)(2); parental ICC cannot be the felony satisfying that intent element in this factual context |
| SORNA lifetime registration based on kidnapping conviction | Ortiz: if kidnapping reversed, SORNA order must be vacated | Commonwealth: registration was proper because of kidnapping conviction | Reversed SORNA order (vacated) because it depended on reversed kidnapping conviction |
| Sentencing (discretionary aspects) — alleged excessive sentence/outside guidelines | Ortiz: sentence manifestly excessive; court failed to state contemporaneous reasons for aggravated/outside-guideline sentence | Commonwealth: (did not prevail on appeal point because kidnapping reversed) | Court did not reach merits of sentencing claim; vacated ICC sentence and remanded for resentencing after reversing kidnapping |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for sufficiency review and viewing evidence in light most favorable to the verdict winner)
- Commonwealth v. Barfield, 768 A.2d 343 (Pa. Super. 2001) (parental custodial interference generally addressed by ICC statute, not kidnapping under certain intent provisions)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 828 A.2d 1094 (Pa. Super. 2003) (parent can be convicted of kidnapping when intent is to terrorize or harm rather than merely retain custody)