Com. v. Grayson, P.

J-A26004-18 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. PHILLIP GRAYSON, Appellant No. 1711 WDA 2017 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 19, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0003163-2015 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 31, 2018 Appellant, Phillip Grayson, appeals nunc pro tunc from the judgment of sentence of an aggregate term of 12 years’ probation, imposed after he pled guilty to several sexual offenses committed against his step-granddaughter. Appellant contends the trial court erred when it rejected his request to withdraw his guilty plea, as he ostensibly did not anticipate the nature of the conditions of his probation. Appellant also contends the trial court erred by imposing a condition of probation that barred him from having contact with his teenage biological children. After careful review, we affirm. At his guilty plea hearing, Appellant admitted to the following facts as set forth in the affidavit of probable cause: Your affiant, Detective Teresa Gongaware, has been a police officer for approximately 13 years. I have been employed with the J-A26004-18 Penn Hills Police Department for 9 years and assigned to the Investigative unit for 3½ years. The information within this affidavit was reported to or observed by your affiant. The victim is a juvenile female, 4 years of age, and will be referred to as JANE DOE. The identity of the victim is known to your affiant and will be made available for any and all court proceedings. On 9-29-14 at 0900 hours I, Det. Teresa Gongaware, attended the forensic interview of JANE DOE located at the Child Advocacy Center (Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh). DOE was interviewed by manager Jamie Mesar and observed by myself and Josette Pickens of Allegheny County CYF. Prior to speaking with DOE, we spoke with [JANE DOE’s mother, hereinafter, “CF”]. [CF] stated that she dropped DOE off to be watched, on or about Sept. 14th 2014, while she went to work. She identified the residence as the paternal grandparents[’] house…. She stated approximately one week after the incident, DOE disclosed that “Pap pap” touched her. [CF] identified “Pap pap” as [Appellant, DOE’s step-grandfather]. … Ms. Mesar then spoke with DOE. When asked, DOE identified why she was present at the interview. DOE stated that she was watched by two other juvenile females, but they no longer take care of her. When asked, DOE stated they no longer take care of her, because their father touched her. When asked, she identifies the actor as “MR. PHIL.” When asked, DOE stated she was playing on a tablet inside the home. [Appellant] told DOE to put the tablet down. DOE did not comply at first, … then [Appellant] said it louder. DOE asked why he wanted her to put it down, he replied “because I want to touch your Coo Coo.” When asked, DOE stated she told him ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals