SINATRA V. SUTTON, Appellant,
UNITED STATES, Appellee.
Submitted June 16, 2015
from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
(CMD-13532-13) (Hon. Harold Cushenberry, Jr., Trial Judge)
Richard S. Stolker was on the brief for appellant.
C. Machen Jr., United States Attorney at the time the brief
was filed, and Elizabeth Trosman, Nicholas G. Miranda and
Edward G. Burley, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on
the brief for appellee.
BEFORE: Fisher and Thompson, Associate Judges; and Ruiz,
case was submitted to the court on the transcript of record,
the briefs filed, and without presentation of oral argument.
On consideration whereof, and for the reasons set forth in
the opinion filed this date, it is now hereby
and ADJUDGED that the judgment on appeal is affirmed.
Sinatra V. Sutton, was convicted, following a bench trial, of
one count of misdemeanor sexual abuse of a child and one
count of attempted misdemeanor sexual abuse. On appeal, he
argues that the trial court erred by permitting the
government to amend its superseding information on the day of
trial, and by denying his motions for judgment of acquittal
and new trial. He also contends that his consecutive
sentences for the two convictions violate his rights under
the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Although
we concur with appellant that the trial court erred in
permitting the amendment to the information, we conclude that
the error does not warrant reversal. We also conclude that
the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and
that they do not merge. Therefore, we affirm.
convictions arise from a complaint made by fifteen-year-old
V.A. During the summer of 2013, V.A. was employed as part of
the Summer Youth Development Program at the Manor Village
Apartment Complex in Southeast Washington, D.C. On August 2,
2013, V.A. was assigned to assist appellant with a cleaning
project at a shopping center.
approximately 10:00 a.m.,  appellant and V.A. took a break from
their work and went to a nearby storage site. Appellant sat
in a chair, took out his cell phone, and began watching a
pornographic film. Appellant tried to show V.A. the film by
putting his phone close to V.A.'s face.
then suggested that he and V.A. move to a room at the back of
the storage site, and the two went to the room and sat near
each other on milk crates. Appellant continued to watch
pornography on his cell phone. At one point, appellant asked
V.A. to hold the phone while he left the room; when he