Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by King](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10808603/com-v-myers-e/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Com. v. Myers, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1024 EDA 2025
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: King

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (5.4K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by King

J-S05020-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ERIC MYERS :
:
Appellant : No. 1024 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 14, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0004336-2022

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ERIC MYERS :
:
Appellant : No. 1025 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 14, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0004343-2022

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. *

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED MARCH 13, 2026

Appellant, Eric Myers, appeals nunc pro tunc from the judgment of

sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following

his bench trial convictions for two counts each of endangering the welfare of

---

• Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S05020-26

a child and simple assault, and one count of aggravated assault. 1 We affirm.

The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this

case as follows:

This case involves [Appellant’s] physical abuse of two minor
siblings, one female and one male. The victims are the
children of [Appellant’s] girlfriend, Dawn Leary (“Ms.
Leary”), who resides [in the city of Philadelphia].
[Appellant] lived with Ms. Leary and her children when the
abuse occurred.4 At the time, the victims were ages 5
(daughter) and 9 (son).5

4 Ms. Leary’s sister and father also resided at the
home.

5 Both minor victims have N.S. as initials.[2]
Therefore, to avoid confusion, this opinion refers to
them respectively as “daughter” and “son,” or simply
as “child” or “victim.”

Ms. Leary testified that on Sunday, October 24, 2021, she
was in the hospital giving birth to her youngest child, whom
[Appellant] fathered. The morning after, October 25, 2021,
Ms. Leary spoke on FaceTime with [Appellant] and her 5-
year-old daughter. [Appellant] told Ms. Leary that on the
prior evening he “grabbed” the child and caused a mark on
her neck. [Appellant] showed Ms. Leary the mark and they
discussed whether to send the child to school because Ms.
Leary “already had an open [Department of Human Services
(DHS)] case … [a]nd didn’t want [the school] to just report
something like that.”

The victim’s older brother, N.S., testified that he had
witnessed [Appellant] grab the victim’s neck with his
thumbs on the back and the fingers around the front.
[Appellant] was “forcefully” “shaking and grabbing” the

---

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4304(a)(1), 2701(a)(1), and 2702(a)(8), respectively.

2 The record indicates that the daughter’s initials are actually N.L.

-2-
J-S05020-26

victim, who “was crying.”

Ms. Leary’s bruised daughter did in fact attend school that
Monday, and [Child Protective Services (“CPS”)] was
contacted. Zoharemella Savoy (“Ms. Savoy”), who is a
caseworker for DHS, testified she was assigned to
investigate the Leary family and went to the victim’s school
on October 25, 2021. She observed “bruising” on the child,
who was afraid to go home. The victim had “lines” on both
sides of her neck, “especially the right side,” where the
bruising was “darker.” Ms. Savoy photographed the
bruising and testified “they were not light bruises” but were
“pronounced.” She noted the victim also had “markings on
her right ear” and left hand.

When Ms. Savoy asked how the bruising occurred, the
victim attempted to explain and show her. The victim
showed Ms. Savoy how [Appellant] grabbed her neck and
shook her head back and forth.7 She stuck out her tongue,
“made gagging sounds,” and mimicked “banging her head”
onto something. When Ms. Savoy touched the dark bruising
around the victim’s right ear, the victim “winced” in pain.
When Ms. Savoy asked whether the victim wanted to go
home, she “shook her head vigorously and said, no, clearly.”
The victim’s twin brother, who attended the same school,
also said he did not want to go home.8

7 The victim told Ms. Savoy that “E” caused the
bruising. At some point, the victim’s twin brother was
brought to the room and he confirmed that “E” meant
Appellant.

8 That same day, October 25, 2021, Ms. Leary’s
children were removed from her home and taken to
the home of Ms. Leary’s cousin … where they still
resided at the time of trial.

Ms. Savoy was “concerned for child abuse” and called Ms.
Leary, who advised that [Appellant] was watching her
children while she gave birth, that [Appellant] “wouldn’t hurt
them,” and that “he loves them.” Ms. Savoy then spoke in
person with [Appellant], who claimed the victim “was
putting crayons in a socket and that he grabbed her by the
neck to move her away.” Ms. Savoy showed [Appellant] the

-3-
J-S05020-26

photographs she had taken of the victim’s bruised neck, and
he responded that “the bruises weren’t there before” and
that the victim’s “not hurt” or “scared” of him.

The second victim, Ms. Leary’s son, testified that [Appellant]
also physically assaulted him while his mom was
hospitalized and he was home. The child testified that
[Appellant] took him to an upstairs room and forcefully
grabbed his neck. He testified that [Appellant] grabbed his
neck “hard” and that he was “screaming and trying” to
breathe. The victim went downstairs after the incident and
told his aunt and grandfather. He testified that [Appellant]
assaulted him on other occasions as well. [Appellant] would
physically prevent the child from seeing his mom, and on
one occasion [Appellant] threw a television remote at his
head but missed.

(Trial Court Opinion, 6/17/25, at 2-4) (citations to the record and some

footnotes omitted).

On May 4, 2023, at the conclusion of the trial, the court convicted

Appellant of the aforementioned charges. On July 14, 2023, the court

sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 4 to 13 years’ incarceration.

Appellant did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal.

On July 11, 2024, Appellant timely filed a petition pursuant to the Post

Conviction Relief Act, alleging that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

file post-sentence motions and a direct appeal, and requesting reinstatement

of those rights. The Commonwealth did not oppose Appellant’s request. On

February 28, 2025, the court granted Appellant’s petition and reinstated his

post-sentence rights.3

---

3 The order explicitly states that the court restored Appellant’s right to file a

post-sentence motion. (See Order, 2/28/25). Nevertheless, such an order
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

-4-
J-S05020-26

On March 7, 2025, Appellant timely filed post-sentence motions nunc

pro tunc, challenging the weight of the evidence and the discretionary aspects

of sentencing. On April 1, 2025, the court entered an order denying the post-

sentence motions.

On April 22, 2025, Appellant timely filed separate notices of appeal at

each docket.4 That same day, the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. On May 1, 2025,

Appellant timely complied.

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence?

Whether the court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to
reconsider sentence?

(Appellant’s Brief at 7).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the

applicable law, we conclude that Appellant’s issues merit no relief based on

the reasoning set forth in the trial court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion.

(See Trial Court Opinion at 5-9, 10-11) (finding: (1) credible testimony

---

by inference also restores Appellant’s right to appeal. See Commonwealth
v. Reaves, No. 1474 WDA 2024 (Pa.Super. filed Sep. 19, 2025) (unpublished
memorandum) (noting that reinstatement of appellant’s post-sentence motion
rights nunc pro tunc must inferentially reinstate appellant’s direct appeal
rights nunc pro tunc). See also Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (stating unpublished
memorandum decisions of this Court, filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited
for their persuasive value).

4 On September 22, 2025, following Appellant’s application for consolidation,

this Court consolidated the appeals.

-5-
J-S05020-26

established that Appellant grabbed 5-year-old victim around neck, shook her

forcefully, and caused pronounced bruising, and established that Appellant

grabbed 9-year-old victim around neck, causing child to scream and struggle

with breathing; there were no countervailing facts or evidence to justify

undoing verdict; verdict was not against weight of evidence; (2)5 court

considered sentencing guidelines, pre-sentence investigation report, mental

health evaluation, Appellant’s prior history of crimes against children,

Appellant’s substance abuse, Appellant’s demeanor at trial, and arguments

from counsel; given victims’ ages and impact of abuse, court did not abuse its

---

5 Appellant contends that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence, where

the “bulk” of his criminal record is a 2014 robbery, and ignored the facts that
Appellant is a high school graduate who is gainfully employed, and a father
figure, which requires disciplining children. (See Appellant’s Brief at 12).

Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an
appellant to an appeal as of right. Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528,
533 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 589 Pa. 727, 909 A.2d 303 (2006)
(internal citations omitted). Rather, we conduct a four-part analysis to
determine “(1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see
Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at
sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P.
720; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and
(4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from
is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).” See
id.

Instantly, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, preserved his issue in his
post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc, and has included a Rule 2119(f)
statement in his brief. Further, his claim that the trial court imposed an
excessive sentence combined with his assertion that the court failed to
consider certain mitigating factors arguably raises a substantial question. See
Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 769-70 (Pa.Super. 2015).
Thus, Appellant has preserved his sentencing challenge for review.

-6-
J-S05020-26

discretion in imposing its sentence). The record supports the trial court’s

analysis. Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court’s opinion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 3/13/2026

-7-