Com. v. Boutte, S.

Opinion

J-S08006-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA :

v. :

: :

STEVEN BOUTTE :

:

Appellant : No. 1199 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 24, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0000877-2023

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. *

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED APRIL 3, 2025

Appellant Steven Boutte appeals from the Judgment of Sentence

entered in the Bucks County Court of County Pleas after a jury found him

guilty of Attempted Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (“IDSI”),

Attempted Statutory Sexual Assault, Unlawful Contact with a Minor, and

Attempted Sexual Abuse of a Child-Photographing, 1 in connection with his

sexually explicit communications with a thirteen-year-old girl. Appellant’s

counsel filed a Petition to Withdraw as Counsel and an Anders Brief.2

Following our review, we adopt the trial court’s July 10, 2024 opinion as our

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 901, 3123(a)(7), 3122.1(b), 6318(a)(1), 6312(b)(1).

2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).

J-S08006-25

own, discern no issues of arguable merit, affirm the judgment of sentence,

and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.

The trial court provided a detailed review of the factual and procedural

history, which we adopt as our own. See Tr. Ct. Op., dated 7/10/24, at 1-15.

In sum,

This case arises from Appellant Steven Boutte’s unsettling two- week long campaign to meet up with a middle-school-aged girl for sex. Specifically, between December 1 and 19, 2022, Appellant Boutte[, then-52-years-old,] exchanged hundreds of text and social media messages with who he thought to be a thirteen-year- old girl named Isabella, who was looking to meet up near her home in Bensalem for sexual activity. As Appellant ultimately discovered, however, Isabella never exists. Rather, throughout the term of Appellant’s clandestine affair, he was actually communicating with a police officer – Detective Ryan Kolb of the Bensalem Township Police Department . . . , an officer with the Pennsylvania Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, [who] was operating undercover on a social media app called MocoSpace.

Id. at 1. See also id. at 2-14 (reviewing testimony and quoting the explicit

text message exchanges between Detective Kolb as “Izzy” and Appellant that

occurred between December 2, 2022, and December 19, 2022, and the

intentional actions taken by Appellant in furtherance of his crimes). The

Commonwealth arrested Appellant on January 11, 2023, and charged him

with, inter alia, the above charges. Appellant did not dispute that the

communications occurred.

Appellant proceeded to trial on December 4 and 5, 2023. The

Commonwealth presented to the jury the text messages and testimony from

3

J-S08006-25

Detective Kolb and other police officers regarding their investigation.

Appellant testified on his own behalf. He conceded that the communications

regarding oral sex and his requests for sexually explicit photos occurred and

acknowledged that he could have been texting with a 13-year-old girl, but

averred that he was acting in the role of a fake pedophile to investigate and

trap perpetrators of on-line cyber harassment of children.

On December 6, 2023, the jury convicted him of the above offenses.

On January 24, 2024, the court sentenced him on one count of Unlawful

Contact with a Minor to a term of six to twelve years’ incarceration. The court

imposed no further penalty on the other convictions noted above. Appellant

filed post-sentence motions, which the court denied.

Appellant appealed, and both he and the trial court complied with

Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Appellant’s counsel filed an Anders Brief raising the following

issues:

1. Were the verdicts of guilty supported by sufficient evidence?

2. Were the verdicts of guilty against the weight of the evidence?

Anders Br. at 15.

***

As a preliminary matter, we address counsel’s request to withdraw as

counsel. “When presented with an Anders Brief, this Court may not review

the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to

withdraw.” Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590, 593 (Pa. Super.

4

J-S08006-25

2010) (citation omitted). For counsel to withdraw from an appeal pursuant to

Anders, our Supreme Court has determined that counsel must meet the

following requirements:

(1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with citations to the record;

(2) refer to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably supports the appeal;

(3) set forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous;

and

(4) state counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of record, controlling case law, and/or statutes on point that have led to the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009).

Counsel in the instant case has complied with the mandated procedure

for withdrawing as counsel. Additionally, counsel confirms that she sent

Appellant a copy of the Anders Brief and Petition to Withdraw, as well as a

letter explaining to Appellant that he has the right to retain new counsel,

proceed pro se, or to raise any additional points. See Commonwealth v.

Millisock, 873 A.2d 748, 751 (Pa. Super. 2005) (describing notice

requirements).

Because counsel has satisfied the above requirements, we will first

address the substantive issues raised in the Anders Brief. Subsequently, we

must “make a full examination of the proceedings and make an independent

judgment as to whether the appeal is in fact wholly frivolous.” Santiago, 978

5

J-S08006-25

A.2d at 355 n.5 (citation omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188

A.3d 1190, 1197 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc) (noting Anders requires the

reviewing court to “review ‘the case’ as presented in the entire record with

consideration first of issues raised by counsel.”).

***

Appellant challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence

underlying each of his four convictions. See Anders Br. at 19-27. “When

considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine

whether the evidence admitted at trial and all reasonable inferences drawn

therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as

verdict winner, is sufficient to establish every element of the offense beyond

a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Reaser, 851 A.2d 144, 147 (Pa.

Super. 2004) (citation omitted). “In applying the above test, we may not

weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder.”

Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 39–40 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation

omitted). “[T]he finder of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses

and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part[,] or none

of the evidence.” Id. (citation omitted). Additionally, the Commonwealth

need not establish facts and circumstances that preclude every possibility of

innocence. Commonwealth v. Estepp, 17 A.3d 939, 943 (Pa. Super. 2011).

“Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder

unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no

6

J-S08006-25

probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances.” Id.

(citation omitted). Notably, the Commonwealth may sustain its burden by

presenting wholly circumstantial evidence. Melvin, 103 A.3d at 40.

We apply the following well-settled standard of review to a challenge to

the weight of the evidence: “The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the

finder of fact, who is free to believe all, none[,] or some of the evidence and

to determine the credibility of the witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Talbert,

129 A.3d 536, 545 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). “Resolving

contradictory testimony and questions of credibility are matters for” the finder

of fact. Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910, 917 (Pa. Super. 2000).

We cannot substitute our judgment for that of the fact[-]finder. Talbert, 129

A.3d at 546. “A decision regarding the weight of the evidence is within the

sound discretion of the trial judge whose decision will not be reversed on

appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.” Commonwealth v. Dougherty,

679 A.2d 779, 785 (Pa. Super. 1996) (citation omitted).

***

Pursuant to our Crimes Code, a person commits IDSI when he commits

deviate sexual intercourse with a complainant “who is less than 16 years of

age and the person is four or more years older than the complainant and the

complainant and person are not married to each other.” 18 Pa.C.S. §

3123(a)(7). “Deviate sexual intercourse” includes “sexual intercourse per os

or per anus[.]” Id. at § 3101.

7

J-S08006-25

Further, a person will be found guilty of Statutory Sexual Assault if he

“engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant under the age of 16 years,

and that person is 11 or more years older than the complainant, and the

complainant and the person are not married to each other.” Id. at § 3122.1.

With respect to the crime of Sexual Abuse of Children-Photography,

“[a]ny person who causes or knowingly permits a child under the age of 18

years to engage in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such act

commits an offense if such person knows, has reason to know or intends that

such act may be photographed, videotaped, depicted on computer or filmed”

is guilty of sexual abuse of children. Id. at § 6312(b)(1).

A person commits the offense of Unlawful Contact with A Minor if he “is

intentionally in contact with a minor, or a law enforcement officer acting in the

performance of duties who has assumed the identity of a minor or of another

individual having direct contact with children . . . for the purpose of engaging

in an activity prohibited under [Chapter 31-sexual offenses] and either the

person initiating the contact or the person being contacted is within this

Commonwealth[.]”Id. at § 6318(a)(1).

Finally, the Commonwealth charged each of Appellant’s offenses as

criminal attempts. “A person commits attempt when, with intent to commit a

specific crime, he does any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the

commission of that crime.” Id. at § 901.

***

8

J-S08006-25

Here, the court thoroughly addressed the sufficiency and weight of the

evidence supporting each offense with reference to legal authority; it

discussed in detail the evidence presented at trial, and analyzed each element

of each offense before concluding that sufficient evidence supported each

conviction and the jury’s verdict was not against the weight of the evidence

so as to shock the court’s conscience. Following our review, we adopt the trial

court’s opinion as our own. See Tr. Ct. Op. at 19-26 (addressing the

convictions of Attempted IDSI and Attempted Statutory Sexual Abuse and

concluding that the evidence—“the vast bulk of which being Appellant’s own

words”— proved that Appellant “had every intention of meeting with ‘Izzy’

near the Scottish Inn” or in his car to engage in the explicit sexual activity

about which he and “Izzy” had been communicating for over two weeks); 26-

27 (reviewing the evidence relevant to the sexual abuse charge that showed

that Appellant requested “Izzy” to send him a photograph of her vagina—

corroborated by Appellant’s own testimony—and concluding that the text

“messages’ plain meaning[] amply support[ed the] jury’s finding that

Appellant intended to obtain child pornography and sent this message as a

substantial step in furtherance of that intent”); 27-29 (concluding the

Commonwealth “carried its burden in spades” where “there was no dispute

that Appellant was in direct contact with Detective Kolb—a police officer

portraying a minor online[;]” Appellant contacted “Izzy’s” profile with a user

name “OnThaHunt” connected with a profile picture of Appellant; the phone

9

J-S08006-25

that initiated contact with “Izzy” was registered to Appellant; and “the

messages and testimony presented by the Commonwealth proved beyond a

reasonable doubt that Appellant intended to meet up with [‘]Izzy[’] and

engage in both deviate and ordinary sexual activity with her[,] … acts

prohibited by Chapter 31 of the Crimes Code as IDSI and Statutory Sexual

Assault”); 29-35 (addressing Appellant’s theory as presented during his

testimony and concluding that the jury’s verdict was not against the weight of

the evidence: the jury reasonably weighed his testimony against the

contradicting evidence to discredit Appellant’s claims that he was conducting

his own investigation to “scam[] the scammers.”)

Following our review, we conclude the record, viewed in the light most

favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, is sufficient to establish

every element of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt and the court

properly exercised its discretion in denying Appellant’s weight claim. In

addition, following our independent review, we discern no meritorious issues

to be raised on appeal. We, thus, affirm the judgment of sentence.

We direct the parties to annex the Opinion of the Honorable Jeffrey L.

Finley, dated July 10, 2024, to any future court filings.

Judgment of Sentence affirmed. Counsel’s petition to withdraw granted.

10

J-S08006-25

Date: 4/3/2025

09:04 AM

Circulated 03/12/2025 09.04

IN THE COURT OF OF SUCKS OIL COMMON PLEAS OF BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, CP-09-CR-0000877-2023 Appellee Appellee

"'""�·"

_+LEG IN

c

V.

,:SUPEoRcoumr

SUPEPIOR COURT

J, IONAL OF TONAL

U! 18 074 :

STEVEN BOUTTE, Ia STEVEN llOUTIE, Appellant. EAsTrew EASTERN pugtscr

DISTRICT

OPINION OPINION

Steven Boutte ("Appellant")

("Appellant") appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania from his

on December 6, 2023. Pursuant to convictions before this Court on to Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Appellate

Procedure 1925(a), this Court files this Opinion in support support thereof.

thereof

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case arises from Appellant Steven Boutte's unsettling two-week long campaign to

meet up with with aamiddle-school-aged middle- school-aged girl for sex.

sex. Specifically,

Specifically, between December I1and December

19, 2022, Appellant Boutte exchanged hundreds of text and social media messages with who he

thought to be aathirteen-year-old thirteen-year- old girl named Isabella, who was looking to meet tip up near her home

in Bensalem for activity. As Appellant ultimately discovered, however, Isabella never for sexual activity

existed. Rather, throughout the term of Appellants existed. Appellant's clandestine affair, he was actually

communicating with aapolice officer --— Detective Ryan police officer Ryan Kolb of the Bensalem Township Police

Department. Department

On December 1, I, 2022, Detective Kolb, an officer with the Pennsylvania Internet Crimes Crmes

Against Children Task Force, was operating undercover on aasocial media app called MocoSpace.

MocoSpace

N.T. N,T 12/4/2023, pp.

pp. 24-25, 32. According to the Detective, Moco is a a social media site used

1

I

information, such as their photograph, age, and dating preferences.

preferences, .1d. Moco will then sonnet A Moeo connect

age, sex, and geographic criteria programmed by the account owners. Id. at pp.

users based on the age,

28-29. 28-29

As part part of his investigation, investigation, Detective Kolb was operating a aMoco account under the guise

Isabella, aa thirteen-year-old of Isabella, thirteen-year-old Middle Eastern female who lived alone with her mother in

Township. Id. at pp.

Bensalem Township. 29-30. The account's profile pp. 29-30, profile picture seemingly depicted aayoung young

girl in a High School Volleyball shirt at a a Bensalem High a middle school football game.

game. Id.

Id. at p. 27. That

p. 27. That

image, however, was in reality aaphoto of Detective Kolb's partner, Detective Amal Yasin, who image,

had been de- aged using been de-aged using the photo-editing photo-editing software FaceApp. Id.

Id. at pp. 27-28. Using this procedure,

produced a

Detectives Kolb and Yasin produced acatalogue of photos depicting "Izzy"

photos depicting "Izzy" in numerous scenarios scenarios

poses, like touching and poses, touching her nose or ear.

ear Id. p. 27.

ld. at p. 27 Detective Kolb testified that these were created

in case aasuspect requested additional photographic verification of the account's authenticity. Id.

Id

A. December 4. 1-2, 2022

December 1-2, 2022-— First Contact Contact with

with Appellant.

Appellant

Shortly the Izzy Shortly after the Izzy account went live, another Moco user with the screen name

"OnThaHunt" contacted Izzy OnThaHunt" asking to be her "sugar Izzy asking "sugar poppy."

poppy." Id.

Id. at pp. 32-33; Commonwealth's

Exhibit C1(C.1").

C-1 ("C-1"). The account's profile profile picture

picture depicted Appellant standing in front of aahorse.

horse

C-1. Izzy'

See, C-I Izzy' indicated that she indicated that she was

was interested

interested in

in Appellant's

Appellant's proposal and supplied proposal and supplied Appellant Appellant

with aaphone phone number to continue their communication via text message. Id.

Id

In In the the morning

morning hours of December December 2, 2022,

2022, Izzy

Izzy received aa text

text message from

"OnThaHunt" introducing himself as "Erie." On ThaHunt" introducing "Eric." N.T.

N,T, 12/4/2023, p.

p. 38. A

A search of this number

through reported the number as registered to Appellant Steven Boutte. through law enforcement databases reported

Detective Kolb was the only Detective only officer in control of Izzy's account throughout the term of his investigation. investigation. Accordingly, Accordingly, this Court will refer to to any action taken by the Detective through the Izzy account as Izzy account being taken as being taken by

by Izzy.

Izzy.

Id. the following Id. at p. 48. Once introductions were made, Izzy sent the following text message to Appellant message to Appellant at

at

12:47pm: 12:47pm: "Uh Uh idk ur ok w idk if ur w it

it but

but I'm only 13.

13. If

If not it's biggie IIunderstand. [sic]"

it's no biggie [sic]" Id. at at p.

p.

39; Commonwealth's Exhibit C-2 C-2 ("C-2"), 12/2/2022, 12:42:09pm-12:42:19pm.

(C-2"), 1202/02022, According to 12:42.09pm-12:42:19pm. According

Detective Kolb, his practice is to make his persona's age clear to a suspect as early a suspect early as possible possible to

ensure he is talking only with with persons seeking sexual encounters persons seeking encounters with N.T. 12/4/2023, with children. N.T p.

12/4/2023, p.

31. 31.

After requesting and receiving an initial verification photo of Izzy touching touching her nose,

Appellant Appellant responded at 2:S0pm responded at 1:50pm with a nervous -face emoji, followed anervous-face followed by by "I

"I just read what

just read sent

what you sent

earlier about your age, age, I

I missed that in the mix of doing doing stuff

stuff .... very

very sorry

sorry can't do." N.T.

12/4/2023, p.p. 40; C-2 at 12/2/2022, 1:50:46pm.

1:50:46pm. Five

Five minutes later, at 1:55pm, 1:55pm, Izzy responded "Ok Izzy responded Ok

understand." understand." N.T.

N.T. 12/4/2023, p.

12/4/2023, p. 40; 1:55:06pm.

40; C-2 at 12/2/2022, 1:55:06pm.

Two hours hours later, at 3:41pm, later, however, at 3:41pm, Appellant abruptly resumed contact with Appellant abruptly with the Izzy Izzy

account, directing her to check her Moco messages. N.T.

N.T, 12/4/2023, pp. 40-41, 40-41; C-2 at 12/2/2022,

34156pm. In 3:41:56pm. In those those messages, Appellant Izzy have Appellant and Iery have the the following exchange:

following exchange:

APPELLANT: So if IIsay yes, what can we do IZZY: Imean in IZZY [mean in down for whatever whatever tbh

tbh

APPELLANT: You got APPELLANT· got me like on a do, don'ti a do, don't i

APPELLANT: APPELL Your people don't have you on lock like that?

ANT.Vour You can get out that2Vu out?

APPELLANT: Like if I APPELLANT· I met up with you, we chill a a bit, I

I give you head' only

you head only for

start in the car, what would you you need from me to do this [sic] [sic]

C-1. Appellant further messaged Izzy that he came C-1 "came back on on [Moco] because [he]

[Moco] because [he] didn't want to

get in any any trouble,"

trouble," and

and then asked Izzy where asked Izzy where in Bensalem Bensalem she lived.

lived. N.T.

N.T, 12/4/2023,

12/4/2023, pp.

pp. 42-43;

42-43;

C-1. Izzy responded that C-I that she lived next next door to the Scottish Inn on Bristol Pike. N.T. 12/4/2023, 12/4/2023,

'Detective Kolb understood this to be a aeuphemism for oral sex. N.T. 12/4/2022, p.

N.T, 12/4/2022, p. 41,

41.

J3

p. 43,C-I. "[y]ou gonna pick me up? Obvi 43; C-1. Izzy then asked "[yJou Obi [ can'tt drive for three stc] Ican [sic]I three years lot."

years IoL."

Id. Id. Appellant responded responded "[y]es,

"[yJes, aapickup. Can't wait until you you drive." 1d. Appellant then asked Id. Appellant

Izzy for another photograph.

photograph. Id.

Id. Just before 7:00pm,

7.00pm, Appellant

Appellant and

and Izzy

Izzy had planned by

had planned by text

text

message to to meet meet the

the next day,

day, December 3,

3, while

while Izzy's

Izzy's mother

mother was

was at work. See,

at work. See, C-2 at

12/2/2022, 6:50:1lpm-6:55:55pm. 12/2/2022, 6:50:11pm-6:.55.55pm

At 8:1 1pm, Izzy texted Appellant asking At8:11pm, asking "[s]o "[s]o lik wat u

u lookin to do tomorrow I'm down

prob prob but but lik lik I I jus would

would feel less

less nervous

nervous if I knew M.

I knew [sic]" C-2 at 12/2/2022, 8:11:37pm.

b4. [sie] 8:11.37pm. After

some discussion on the subject, Appellant responded at 8:20mn 8:20pm that "I

"Ilove to please

please aa woman. it

[sic] may sound strange strange to you

you but you

you have power

power to do what you

you want with me." C-2 at

8:20:07pm. Izzy responded that she was excited. Id.

12/2/2022, 8.20:07pm. Id. Finally, 8:24pm, Appellant Finally, at 8.24pm, Appellant

followed up with aamessage asking "[c]an message asking "[clan I get a I get a peek

peek at

at what I'll be eating,"

what ['I eating," which which Detective

Kolb Kolb understood understood to seek a to seek aphoto

photo of

of Izzy's vagina. C-2

Izzy's vagina. C-2 a1

at 12/2/2022,

12/2/2022, 8:24:26pm;

8.24.26pm; N.T.

N.T 12/4/2023,

12/4/2023,

p. p. 47. y, of course, rebuffed Appellant's request, appealing to aasupposed parental control app 47. Izzy, app

that allowed that allowed her her mother

mother to

to monitor

monitor Izzy's photos. C-2 at Izzy's photos. at 12/2/2022, 8:25:20pm.

12/2/2022, 8.25.20pm.

B. December 3, 2022 B 2022 — The The First

First Planned Meeting.

Planned Meeting

On the day day of their first meet-up, however, first scheduled meet-up, however, Appellant seemingly got Appellant seemingly got cold cold feet.

Specifically, at 3:40pm, 340pm, he told Izzy tthat hat he was no longer going to pick her up, and that he had to

stop messaging messaging her. N.T.

N.T 12/4/2023, p.

p. 49.

49. When

When Izzy

Izzy asked

asked why,

why, Appellant

Appellant directed her to "[ g]o "[glo

to Moco." C-2 at 12/3/2022, 3:43:12pm. Once there, Izzy observed the following messages, following messages,

Appellant earlier that day:

presumably sent by Appellant

APPELLANT: APPELLANT· Hey...

Hey.IIhave

have to stop texting with with you, [sic] what

you, its [sic] what I

I been thinking

thinking

over and over over[.]

and over[.J

APPELLANT: APPELLANT:IIapologize, apologize, please

please take care of

of yourself, say no

yourself, and say no to

to the

the weirdos[.]

weirdos[.J

C-1. Back on text, Izzy responded " C-I. "IIjus I get it jus read it's ok I Igess. Lemme kno if u itIgess. u change ur mind

[sic]," C-2 at 12/3/2022, 3:43:14pm. After this, [sic]." this, contact with Appellant ceased and Detective Kolb Kolb

investigation. N.T.

prepared to close his investigation, N,T, 12/4/2023, p. 50.

Later that day, however, Appellant reopened communication on Moco by by sending

sending Izzy

Izzy a

a

photo of aa young Middle Eastern girl holding an art art project.

project. Id. at pp. 50-51.

50-5. Detective Kolb

suspected that this this photo was

was taken from Snyder Middle School's webpage, webpage, which Appellant

Appellant later

confirmed during his testimony. Id. at pp. 51; N,T pp. S1, N.T. 12/5/2023, p. 149-50 From there, Izzy p. 149.50 Izzy and

Appellant Appellant had had the following exchange:

IZZY: IZZY· Hi APPELLANT: APPELLANT; Hey,that was your artwork? IZZY: IZZY Huh APPELLANT: The picture I

I sent here

IZZY: Creepy lol APPELLANT: Sony Sorry let me explain, you're just too young and I I was researching

researching

to to find you and see what was real, your real name is [REDACTED]'??

[REDACTED??

IZZY: Huh IZZY: No my name is Isabella lol

APPELLANT: Hold on APPELLANT: Not

Nor u?

IZZY: I'd hav sent u IZZY·Id umy

my [Instagram]

[lnstagram] but seems pointless now IZZY: Thts not me ewshes IZZY·Its ew shes ugly APPELLANT: Ooo wow I APPELLANT· I thought this was was you and

and she's like younger

APPELLANT: crazy APPELLANT· Same school, Snyder, lives same area by Scottish suite, crazy IZZY: Ya Igoto IZZY:Yal go to Snyder how u uknow tht

APPELLANT: APPELLANT; The pic you sent before has the logo on your hoodie IZZY: O Ididnt even realize IZZY:OIdidnt APPELLANT: Ima be honest, age difference has me terrified so IIjust cant can't

IZZY: IZZY· It's ok Igess. Jus bummed Igess.

3 The student's name has The has been redacted herein in the interest of privacy.

privacy

5

5

i

[sic] [sic]

C-1. See, also, 12/4/2023, C-I 12/4/2023, pp.

pp. 51-54.

51-54.

C. December 4, C S, and 6-

4, 5, 6 — Appellant

Appellant and Izzv

Plan Iy Plan a

a Second

Second Meeting.

Meeting

Like Like before, before, however,

however, Appellant

Appellant could

could not stay away

away for

for long. The very next

next day — -

December 4, 4. 2022 -

— Appellant travelled to the Bristol Pike Scottish Inn and sent Izzy a aphoto of

its sign sign on Moco. See, N.T. p. 54. Attached was a N.T, 12/4/2023, p. amessage saying, "Iget you out of my saying. "I

head" — presumably a a typo

typo for "I

I cannot get you out of my head." Id. During the ensuing

conversation, Appellant disclosed that he lived only ten minutes from the Inn.

Inn. Id. at p.

p. 55. He then

made further attempts to get get Izzy

Izzy to disclose her specific address but relented when she expressed

discomfort. Id.

Id. at pp. 55-56.

55-56. The two spent the rest of the day rescheduling their meet-up, working

around Izzy's Izzy's mother's work schedule.

schedule. Id. at pp. 57-58. Appellant also sought to confirm whether

guarantee "the situation will never be Izzy could guarantee be found out." Id.

Id. at p. 56

56.

On December 5, 2022, Appellant and Izzy exchanged flirtatious banter over Moco

throughout the day, including aamessage from Appellant that he had been thinking of her every "every

moment" since he found her. Id.

Id. at p.

p. 59. Appellant also drew Izzy's attention to his profile picture,

which he had changed changed to a

asoft drink called

called "Izze." Id. at p.

p. 59. He indicated that this was to si signify

gnify

that he was only on Moco for her. Id.

Id

These communications continued in the morning morning hours of December 6, 2022, where

Appellant Appellant sought to confirm via Moco whether Izzy was comfortable with with "not being able to be

together but just getting together to have fun." Id. at p. 6I.

61. Izzy indicated that she was, and the two

spent spent the rest of the day exchanging suggestive messages and planning their meeting. See, id. at

pp. 65.67 65-67. Ultimately, they decided to meet at some point the following week while Izzy's mother

was at work. See, C-2 at 12/6/2022, 4.25.23pm-4:34:49pm.

4:25:23pm-4:34:49pm. Appellant stated that that he could not

believe they were actually going to meet, and that although he had originally tried to convince

7

himself to stay away, to stay away, that that he just could not say no to he just to Izzy. N.T.12/4/2023, NT 12/4/2023, pp.

pp. 66-67. The evening

concluded with another volley of sexually-charged messages wherein Appellant, inter alia,

fantasized about rubbing rubbing Izzy's feet and described his lips as "[f]ull, "[fJull, soft, and always needing aa

bedtime snack." Id.

Id. at pp.

pp, 70-71.

70.71 See, also, C-2

C-2 at 12/6/2022,

12/6/2022, 9:36:12pm-9:46:49pm 9.36:12pm-946:49pm

D. December 8-12, 2022

December8-12 2022 — Appellant Appellantand

and Izzy

Izzy Confirm Their

Their Second Meeting.

Meeting

On December 8, 2022, conversation between Appellant Appellant and Izzy very

very deliberately turned

to discussing discussing what the meet-up would look the nature of their meet-up look like.

like. Id.

Id. at p.

p, 71. In particular,

71, [n particular, Appellant Appellant

indicated that "Next week is all [n]ext all I

I think about," and inquired what Izzy found out about her

mother's work schedule. Id. at p. 72.

72. Ultimately, it

it was decided that the two would meet up up at the

Scottish Inn in the evening of Tuesday, December 13, 2022, 2022, while Izzy's mother was at work. Id.

at pp. 72-73. Appellant would rent a a room at the Inn, and Izzy would meet him there when her

mother left. Id.

Appellant and Izzy

From December 9-10, 2022, Appellant Izzy exchanged exchanged idle conversation and and traded

selfies. See, C-2 selfies. C-2 at at 12/9/2022, 8:39.57am-12/10/2022, 8:39:57am-12/10/2022, 12:40:30pm.

12:40:30pm. Then, on December 11, 2022,

at almost 200am, 2:00am, Appellant

Appellant texted Lzzy

Izzy "I'm in bed

bed and so like thinking IIwish you were here

pushing your pushing your body up up against mine." C-2 at 12/11/2022, 1:50:03am. p.

1250:03am. See, also, N.T. 12/4/2023, p

74. 74, Izzy did not read this message until later that morning, morning, after which the following following ensued:

IZZY: Omg I IZZY·Omg I want tht. Sounds so hot IZZY: Wat else u u wana do w

w me

me" 4

APPELLANT: Caress you, nibble on your ear, suck your neck and bite your lips lips

APPELLANT: APPELLANT: As As you get moist you you put

put your

your hand

hand down

down inside

inside your panties

panties and

then bring bring your

your hand up

up for

for us to

to lick

lick your

your fingers

fingers

IZZY: omg this is makin IZZY·omg Makin me crazy readin it

4 Detective Kolb testified that as part Detective part of his training, training, he never initiates the escalation of sexual topics suspects. See, N.T. topics with suspects. pp. 46-47. In N,T, 12/4/2023, pp. In these cases, he keeps keeps his responses openresponses openended

and only only escalates when the suspect does. Id.

89

APPELLANT: and what are yo what are you going to do

IZZY: Icant do anything IZZY leant anything in w my my mom!

IZZY: Tell me wat else u IZZY:Tell ugona gona do w me

APPELLANT:1 APPELLANT: I flip you up to sit on my chest as lim laying on my back, our fingers are interlock and you push push my arms back pinning pinning me down, and you

you push

push yourself

yourself

into my my face and grind

grind as you yell

you yell at me to eat it

[sic] [sic]

C-2 at 12/11/2022, 9:24:36am-1106:56am C-2at 9:24:36am-11:06:56am (emojis omitted). See, also, N.T.

(emojis omitted). N.T 12/4/2023, pp.

pp. 74-76.

On December 12, 2022, Appellant and Izzy discussed aaslight slight change

change in their meet-up

meet -up plan.

N.T. 12/4/2023, p. 77. N,T 12/4/2023,p. 77. Following Appellant's research of the the Scottish

Scottish Inn, he determined it it was

was an

location. Id.

unsuitable location. pp. 77.78.

Id. at pp. 77-78. Accordingly, Accordingly, he and Izzy agreed agreed instead to use Appellant's Appellant's

the back seats car, the scats of which he would convert into a make- shift bed. Id. at pp.

a make-shift pp, 78 -79.

78.79,

Appellant Appellant then noted that this would limit them to "two things,"

things," and sent Izzy

Izry an image

image of

several Kama Sutra- styled sexual positions.

Sutra-styled positions. Id. at at p.

p. 80. See, also, Court's Exhibit CRT- 6 ("CRT-

CRT-6(CRT.

6"), Slide 10. Two of these positions positions -— an oral sex position and a a vaginal sex position -— were

checked off in red to indicate the ones Appellant in red Appellant was was referring

referring to. CRT-6at

to. CRT-6 at Slide 10.

10

E

E. December 2022 -

December 13, 2022 — The

The Second Planned

Planned Meeting.

Meeting

On December 13, 2022, Appellant Appellant confirmed he would pick Izzy up pick Izzy up at 11:00pm

11:OOpm that

evening. evening. N.T.

N. T, 12/4/2023, p.

p. 82.

82. From there, he proposed proposed to stay close to Izzy's to stay Izzy's home and park park in

the lot across the street. Id.

Id. at 83. According to Appellant, Appellant, this arrangement would allow Izzy Izzy to

get home quickly get quickly in case her mother came home early.

early. See, C-2 at

at 12/13/2022,

12/13/2022, 2:45:36pm-

2145.36pm-

2:57:15pm. Izzy agreed with the proposal, 2:57.15pm. proposal, and the plan plan was set. Id. At 7:03pm, Appellant At7:03pm, Appellant initiated

the following the following exchange:

APPELLANT: APPELLANT I[ want to fulfill all your needs tonight tonight

IZZY: Iam IZZY:I am lik so ready ready for

for tht

tht fr

IZZY:Wat I7- Wat about ur needs APPELLANT: Are you into licking and sucking like me?

I

wantutoblik

IZZY: Ya Iwant IZZY:Yal u to b lik happy too

APPELLANT: T APPELLANT. To be with you at all for me is like like [fire

[fire emoji]

IZZY: IIwant ur needs to b b fulfilled too

APPELLANT: APPELLANT You know what happens to to me if we

we are ever found out?

IZZY: Igess we would both get IZZY:Igess get in trouble but I'm so careful APPELLANT: Very true, it's the only part of this that got me like [nervous [nervous emoji],

but my want for you, got me like like [heart-eyes emoji]

APPELLANT: APPELLANT·m I'm going to be totally honest with you, I've never struggled so much with aadecision in my Life life

will be

APPELLANT: My satisfaction will be to see you get off and and make swallow every

drop drop [sic] [sic

C-2 at 12/13/2022, 7:03:49pm-7:19:28pm C-2at 7.03:49pm-7.19.28pm (emojis (emojis omitted). N.T. 12/4/2023, pp. 83-84.

omitted). See, also, N.T,

At 7.29pm, 7:29pm, Izzy Izzy noted that she wished the two had a a bed, to which Appellant replied "[y]o....

"[y]o.

exactly my exactly my feeling, feeling, I

I didn't like that we don't, but I I made our situation comfortable as possible,

you'll see." C-2 at 12/13/2022, 7:29:04pm-7:30:36pm.

7:29.04pm-7.30.36pm.

In the meantime,

meantime. Detective Kolb enlisted the assistance of Detectives Brian Oliverio and

Greg Smith to stablish Greg establish surveillance over the meeting location. N.T.

N,T, 12/4/2023, p. 86.

86. Because

was no supervisor

there was supervisor on duty duty that night,

night, the Detectives planned to take photos and videos of

Appellant Appellant at the scene to support a a later arrest.

arrest. Id. at pp. 86-87. To accomplish this, each Detective

was was in an unmarked police police vehicle,

vehicle, which they positioned at at various points around the Scottish

Inn. See, id.at pp. 86-87. Detective Kolb positioned himself in the Scottish Inn's rear parking lot

while Detective Oliverio took position on Gray Oray Avenue and Detective Smith parked across the

street. Id. street. Id. at pp.

pp. 87-88. Detective Kolb remained in constant contact with the other Detectives while

messaging messaging Appellant. Id. at p.

p. 89.

At 10:42pm,

10:42pm, Appellant

Appellant texted Izzy confirming that he was five to ten minutes away, and

asking if she had her coat on. N.T. asking N.T, 12/5/2023, p.

p. 24. Izzy responded that she had butterflies to see

i

hiin, him, to which Appellant Appellant replied

replied "[1]ol..

"[IJol.. more like scared ASF for me." C-2 at 12/13/2022, me," €-2

10:43:27. See, also, N.T. 10:4327. p. 25.

N,T 12/5/2023, p. 25. Izzy pointed out that they did not have to meet if

Appellant Appellant did not want to, but Appellant affirmed that he had every every intention of meeting.

meeting. N.T.

12/5/2023, 12/502023,p.p. 25.

25

At or around 10:45pm,

10:45pm, Detective Oliverio observed a a dark station wagon

wagon with New Jersey

Jersey

plates pull pull into the Scottish Inn. Id. at pp.

pp. 12-13. The vehicle drove passed Detective Oliverio's

position position on Gray Avenue, turned around in the Scottish Inn parking parking lot, and sped

sped out of the area

onto Bristol Pike. Id.

Id. at pp.

pp. 12-14. Later investigation revealed that Appellant owned a ablack

Mercedez-Benz station wagon, which Detective Oliverio identified as the vehicle he observed that

night. Id.

Id, at pp. 15-16,27-28.

15-1b, 27-28. After the vehicle sped away, Appellant stopped responding responding to Izzy's

Izzy's

text text messages.

messages. Id. at pp.

pp. 27.

F. E December 14-15, 2022

December 4-15, 2022-— Appellant Appellant Seeks to

Seeks to Schedule

Schedule a

aThird

Third Meeting.

Meeting

Detective Kolb received no further messages on December 14, 2022. On December 15,

2022, Detective Kolb texted Appellant as Izzy asking if he was okay okay.' The two then had the

following exchange. following exchange

APPELLANT: I'm ok. When IIpulled on Grey's there was was aacop sitting

sitting right there!

I'm not sure what to think APPELLANT At that moment IItook it as a APPELLANT: At a sign that we can't be.

be. And tried to not

text you anymore.. But I

I can't stop thinking about you IZZY: A cop?????

A cop222

IZZY: On my IZZY: my street?

street

APPELLANT: Yes! Parked APPELLANT right in front of the house with the red car and Parked right

motorcycle APPELLANT: APPELLANT He watched me pull in, in. I I pretended

pretended to ignore

ignore him went

went around the

back of Scottish and turned around and went back out like II was lost or something something

' ' When When asked asked why he

he reinitiated contact, Detective Kolb Kolb noted

noted that

that although Appellant

Appellant had

had

vanished, he never formally repudiated his relationship with Izzy.Ly. N.T.

N,T 12/5/2023, p. 30

30.

Accordingly, he reached out to investigate what happened to him.

him. Id.

Id

IZZY: Iwas lookin out my window but I [Zy·was I didnt see ur car come down the steeet APPELLANT: Oh IIdid.

did. I

I felt like I

I was on that show to catch aapredator Omgggg IIheard

IZZY: Omgggg heard about tht tht show lol

lol but

but I

I never seen it

it

APPELLANT: APPELLANT· At that moment I I seen that cop I I texted you

you ""almost

almost there, I'm totally speeding ."" I speeding I was making the loop through and speeding away. away. II felt like it was aa set up, but now thinking

up, but thinking it all all through I I know it

it wasn't

wasn't

APPELLANT: And like I said , I I said, I just can't stop thinking of you, it's making me nutzo nutzo APPELLANT: APPELLANT Can we try again APPELLANT: please IdY I IZZY: wecanmaybtry.Fmjus a little hurt still tht u mean Igess we can mayb try. I'm jus a little hurt still tht u dint Imeanlgess say uthin

didnt say nuthin

APPELLANT: Well I

I blew that

IZZY: It's

Its ok Igess I

Igess I understand tht u

u wer scared

APPELLANT: Yup[ ... ] of jail Yup[...]

[sic] (site

C-2 at 12/15/2022, 2:06:50pm-6:17:37pm C-2at 2.06.50pm-6:17.37pm (emojis omitted). Appellant further noted (emojis omitted).

APPELLANT: And I'm supposed to be like this adult that knows better and tells you you"no"

no" but IIjust can't seem to. Tell me why that is?

APPELLANT: There's not one thing wrong with you! Who could not like you APPELLANT: You KNOW IIlike APPELLANT. Hike uu [sic]

C-2 at 12/15/2022, 6:21:15pm-6:24:23pm. C-2at 6:21:15pm-6.24.23pm.

Ultimatcly, it was decided that the two Ultimately, two would meet the following day, December 16, 2022,

6:00pm. C-2 at 12/15/2022, 6:27:33pm-6:48:22pm;

at around 6.00pm. 6:27:33pm-6:48.22pm; id. at 12/15/2022, 8:42:59pm-

8:46:21pm. 846.:21pm. Appellant then sent Izzy several Google Street View photos of the homes near the

Scottish Inn and again asked her to indicate which one was hers. N.T.

NT 12/5/2023, pp. 36.37

36-37. Izzy

lry

once again rebuffed Appellant's inquiry. Id.

Id. Appellant closed the evening's communications by by

sending Izzy a sending a message message showing

showing his live location near the Scottish Inn to which he attached the

message "kissing you message you [good [good night]." Id. at pp. 38-39.

11

I

Prior to receiving this final message, Detective Kolb suspected suspected that stop that Appellant would stop

by the Scottish Inn that night. Id.

Id. at p. 40,

40. At approximately 10:15pm, the Detective arrived on-

scene to conduct surveillance, surveillance. Id. Shortly Shortly before Appellant

Appellant shared his location with Izzy, Izzy, the

Detective observed aagreen Jeep Jeep Wrangler

Wrangler pull onto Gray

Gray Avenue before driving driving away

away out of sight

sight.

Id. Id. at pp. 40-41. This vehicle matched the description of a pp. 40-41. a vehicle vchicle Appellant had previously told

Izzy he owned. lazy owned. See, id. at p.

p. 40; C-2 at 12/15/2022, 8:37:38pm-8:43:14pm.

837.38pm-8:43:14pm.

G. December 16. O. 16, 2022

2022 — The Third Planned Meeting

On December 16, 2022, communication between Appellant and Izzy lazy remained sparse

sparse.

Appellant indicated that this was to keep a "low profile" before he made his "escape." C-2 at "escape." C.2

12/16/2022, 12/16/2022, 4:42:43pm-4:45:55pm.

4:42:43pm-445:55pm. At

At 5:36pm,

5:36pm, Izzy

Izzy informed

informed Appellant

Appellant that her

her mother

mother had left,

left,

to which Appellant responded "[i]t's Appellant responded "[ilt's on." Id. at 5:36:48pm-5:44:45pm.

5:36.48pm-5:4445pm.

5:30pm -

Detective Kolb arrived on-scene to begin surveillance at or around S:0pm —aahalf-hour

prior to the planned meeting. N.T.

,T, 12/5/2023, p.

p. 54.

54. By the time the Detective arrived, however,

Appellant was already there sitting in his black Mercedez Mercedez station wagon

wagon across the street from the

Scottish Inn. Id.

Id. at pp. 55-57. Accompanying pp. 55.57. Accompanying Detective Kolb was Detective Tom Jackson and

patrol officer Francis McColgan. patrol McColgan. Id.

Id. at p.

p. 55.

55. As before, there was no supervisor supervisor on duty

duty that

evening, so evening, Detective Kolb so Detective Kolb planned planned to have Officer

to have Officer McColgan

McColgan make contact with make contact with Appellant Appellant to

to

identify him via camera. Id.

via body camera. d Detective Kolb Kolb would wt would maintain text communication with

Appellant in the meantime and observe his movements. Id.

At approximately 6:30pm, Detective Kolb Kolb instructed Officer McColgan Mccolgan to approach

approach

Appellant's vehicle. Id. pp. 69.70.

Id. at pp. 69-70. As he drew near, Officer McColgan McColgan observed Appellant Appellant in

the driver's seat. Id. at p.

p. 72. However, because it was late in the day, day, it was too dark in the vehicle

to see much else.

else. Id. The Officer then asked to see Appellant's driving paperwork and inquired as

to what he to what he was doing there.

was doing there. Id.

Id, Appellant complied, stating Appellant complied, that he stating that he was

was there

there to

to pick

pick up

up food from

from

the nearby seafood the nearby seafood restaurant, restaurant, but

but that

that he had not

he had not yet ordered. Id, yet ordered. Id. Obtaining Obtaining Appellant's consent, Appellant's consent,

Officer McColgan Mccolgan aimed his flashlight flashlight into the back of the vehicle and observed the seats seats to

to have

been laid flat. Id. at flat. Id, at pp. 72-73.

pp. 72-73

In the end, however, no meeting meeting ever occurred.

occurred. Rather, Izzy meeting this Izzy called off the meeting

time, time, claiming her her aunt was coming

coming over to

to watch

watch her

her while her

her mother was away. Id. at was away. at p.p. 45.

45,

Thereafter, the two f hereafter, the two exchanged exchanged idle chatter via idle chatter via text

text message

message until communications terminated until communications terminated at at

10:16pm. See, C-2 10:16pm. C-2 at 12/16/2022, 10:16:59pm.

10:16.59pm

11. December 19, LL 2022 — Appellant Discovers the Truth.

19,2022-Appellant Truth Appellant's Appellant's messages messages to Izzy were

to Izzy were less

less frequent

frequent over

over the

the next

next few days but

few days but retained

retained their

their

flirtatious character. flirtatious character. See, See, e.g., at 12/17/2022, e.g., id. at 12/17/2022, 11:12:59am 1E:12.59am ("[w]hen

("[w]hen we

we finally get together

finally get it's together it's

going to be explosive"); id. at 12/18/2022, 5:59:24pm explosive"); id. 5:59:24pm (referring as "Habibi"

(referring to Izzy as Habibi" — an Arabic

endearment). In the early morning term of endearment). morning hours of December December 19, 2022, however, Appellant's tone 19,2022,

abruptly changed: abruptly

APPELLANT: APPELLANT: So l'm I'm tired tired of

of playing

playing with

with you,

you, the moment you your 13 you said your 13 I

I

knew you knew you were were either

either aacop

cop or

or some

some whole

ahole trying to lure

trying to lure men

men out

out to

to rob

rob them

them oror

worse. I worse. I made sure to made sure message all to message all those guys on those guys on Moco

Moo several

several weeks ago to

weeks ago to not

not

attempt to to meet with

with you. Whoever

Whoever youyou are you're you're sick.bye

sick.bye

IZZY: IZZY Ummm Ummm liklik wtf?

wf

IZZY: Las nite u IZZY:Las u call me habibi n nnow ur lik bein a huge dick if u a huge u dont wana hang hang

out anymore it's fine lik IItold out told u u so many times.

times. U

U dont need

need to b

b mean

APPELLANT: APPELLANT: Listen here Fella, Listen here Fella, buddy, buddy, Pal.

Pal. Keep

Keep up

up the

the fakery.

fakery. Next will be

Next will be

drone footage.

footage.

IZZY: Wat is tht wat r ru u talkin about???

about7

APPELLANT: These APPELLANT· These are are obviously the kitchens kitchens at

at 1048

1048 gray

gray

IZZY: Inever told IZZY:Inever told u umy

my address once

address once

i

APPELLANT: APPELLANT I I think think you're

you're an old guy

an old guy that

that walks

walks aa dog

dog that

that canvases the

canvases the

neighborhood. neighborhood. Uses that area to lure people people to the seedy motel.

motel. You stole the

identity of a identity agirl.

girl. Shameful to use

IZZY: How would someone steal my identity u IZZY· u dont make any sense APPELLANT: It's APPELLANT· It's very easy...... You're very easy You're still still saying you're actually aagirl named Isabel Isabel IZZY: My

My name is isabella not isabel ur lik a a huge jerk idk y

y ur bein lik this

APPELLANT: Just APPELLANT Just aalot of pics, lot of times, people pics, times, doesn't match up people doesn't up with with what

what I've

I've seen,

seen,

and it's

it's know

know how so so called concerned citizens citizens of Bensalem

Bensalem make

make fake profiles

trouble. It's well known

trying to get Philly guys in trouble. [Appellant [Appellant sends several screen-shot photos of news stories reporting Bensalem child sex offender stings] APPELLANT: APPELL ANT·If are a

If you are real girl,

a real girl, you need to stop.

stop

[sic] [sic]

C-2 at 12/16/2022,2:26.07am-1:14.53pm. C-2at 12/16/2022, 2:26:07am-1:14:53pm. See, See, also, Slide 25-26 also, CRT-4, Side 25-26.

Although it seemed unlikely Although unlikely Appellant Appellant would reengage after this conversation, Detective

Kolb noted at Kolb noted at trial trial that

that it

it is not uncommon

is not uncommon for

for a suspect to

a suspect reinitiate contact to reinitiate even after contact even after becoming becoming

suspicious. N.T. 12/5/2023, suspicious. 12/5/2023, p. Accordingly, he p. 84. Accordingly, he decided to to give Appellant

Appellant aaweek

week or two to see

see

if he would do the same. Id.

Id. In the end, no contact came.

came. On January 11,

11. 2024, Detective Kolb

secured a a warrant, and Appellant

Appellant was arrested the same day.

day. Id. at p. 85

85.

LL Procedural History

Procedural History

On January On January 11,

I1, 2023,

2023, the Commonwealth filed the Commonwealth filed aaCriminal Criminal Complaint charging Appellant Complaint charging Appellant

with, inter alia, Attempted Attempted Indecent

Indecent Deviate Sexual Intercourse, Intercourse,"6 Attempted Statutory Sexual

Assault,' Assault,' Attempted Attempted Sexual Abuse of Children,"

Children,' and Unlawful Contact with aaMinor."

Minor.' Discovery

exchanged, and was exchanged, and Appellant Appellant proceeded

proceeded to jury trial

to jury trial before this this Court

Court on

on December 4-5,

4-5, 2023.

2023.

6 901(a) (Criminal Attempt) and 18 Pa.C.S. §3123(a)(7)

18 Pa.C.S. §$901(a) '18Pa.CS. $3123(a)7) (Involuntary (Involuntary Deviate Sexual Deviate Sexual

Intercourse). '18 Pa.C.S. §$901(a)

18Pa.C.S. 901(a) (Criminal (Criminal Attempt) PA.C.S. §3122.1(b)

Attempt) and 18 Pa.C.S. $3122.1(b) (Statutory Sexual Assault).

(Statutory Sexual Assault).

s 18 Pa.C.S. §$901(a) '18Pa.C.S. 901(a) (Criminal Pa.C.S. §6312(b)

(Criminal Attempt) and 18 Pa.C.S. 56312(b) ((Sexual Sexual Abuse

Abuse of Children).

of Children).

'18 Pa.C.S. §$6318(a)X1)

18Pa.CS. 6318(a)(1).

14

I4

convicted of each of the

On December 6, 2023, Appellant was convicted the offenses offenses mentioned

mentioned above. Sentence Sentence

deferred.

was deferred

On January 24, 2024, Appellant was sentenced on the the Unlawful Contact charge charge to aaperiod

period

of not les six (6) years' to no more les than six more than than twelve

twelve ((12)

12) years'

years' incarceration

incarceration at

at a

a state

state correctional

institution. institution. No further penalty penalty was

was assessed

assessed on the

the remaining counts. On

remaining counts. On February 2, 2024, February 2,

Appellant filed aaMotion for Reconsideration Reconsideration of Sentence, which this Court denied on March 25,

2024, On February 26, 2024, Appellant was determined not to meet the criteria to be designated designated aa

sexually violent predator.

predator. On April 24, 2024, Appellant filed a a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Superior

Court. Finally, on April 25, 2024, this Court issued an Order directing Court. directing Appellant Appellant to file aaConcise

Statement of Errors Complained Complained of on

on Appeal.

Appeal.

II. CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL

On May

May 16, 2024, in

in accordance with

with Pennsylvania Rule

Rule of Appellate Procedure of Appellate Procedure 1925(b), 1925(b),

Appellant filed his Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, set set forth verbatim

herein: herein

1. • The verdict

The of guilty

verdict of guilty of

of Unlawful Contact With Unlawful Contact With aa Minor Minor -- Involuntary

Involuntary

Deviant Deviant Sexual Intercourse was not supported by not supported by sufficient evidence because because the

Commonwealth failed to establish beyond aareasonable doubt that Appellant Appellant had

contact with

with the

the detective for the

the purpose

purpose of engaging

engaging in involuntary

involuntary deviant sexual sexual

intercourse. Intercourse 2. The verdict of guilty of Unlawful Unlawful Contact With

with aaMinor- Statutory Sexual Assault was not supported by sufficient evidence because the Commonwealth failed to establish beyond aareasonable doubt that Appellant Appellant had contact with the detective detective for the purpose purpose of engaging in statutory statutory sexual

sexual assault.

assault

3. The verdict of guilty of Criminal Attempt Attempt — Statutory Sexual Assault was not supported by sufficient evidence because the Commonwealth failed to establish beyond a a reasonable doubt that Appellant had the intent to commit the the crime of

assault.

statutory sexual assault 4.4. The verdict of guilty guilty of Criminal Attempt Attempt — Statutory

Statutory Sexual Assault was not supported by

by sufficient

sufficient evidence

evidence because the

the Commonwealth failed toto establish beyond aa reasonable doubt that Appellant took took a step towards the a substantial step

commission of the crime of statutory sexual assault.

55. The verdict of guilty of Criminal Attempt Attempt - — Involuntary Deviant Sexual Intercourse Intercourse was was not supported by sufficient not supported sufficient evidence evidence because the Commonwealth because the Commonwealth

failed to establish beyond beyond a a reasonable doubt that that Appellant

Appellant had

had the intent to

commit the crime of involuntary deviant sexual intercourse.

intercourse

6.6. The verdict of guilty of Criminal Attempt Attempt — Involuntary

Involuntary Deviant Sexual Intercourse was not supported supported by

by sufficient evidence because the Commonwealth failed to establish beyond beyond a

a reasonable doubt that Appellant Appellant took aa substantial step step

towards the commission of the crime of involuntary deviant sexual intercourse.

intercourse

7. 7 The verdict of guilty of Attempting to Secure Pornographic Photographs from aaMinor was not supported by sufficient evidence because the Commonwealth failed to to establish beyond aareasonable doubt that Appellant took a asubstantial step

towards the commission towards the commission of of the crime of

the crime of securing

securing aapornographic

pornographic photograph

photograph from

from

a minor. a nor B. 8, The verdict of guilty Attempting to Secure Pornographic guilty of Attempting Pornographie Photographs Photographs

from aa Minor Minor was was against

against the

the weight

weight of the greater weight th evidence because the greater weight of the evidence the evidence established established that

that Appellant

Appellant did

did not attempt to

not attempt cause a

to cause achild

child under

under the

the

age of 18 18 to to produce or send

send aapornographic

pornographic photograph.

photograph

9.9. The verdict of guilty guilty of Unlawful Contact With aa Minor- Involuntary Involuntary

Deviant Sexual Intercourse was against the weight of the evidence because the greater weight weight of the evidence established that Appellant Appellant did not have contact with the detective for the purpose of engaging in involuntary deviant sexual intercourse. 10. 10. The verdict of guilty of Unlawful Contact With a aMinor

Minor — Statutory Sexual Assault was against the weight weight of the evidence because the greater greater weight

weight of the

evidence established that Appellant did not have contact with the detective for the purpose of engaging in statutory sexual sexual assault.

11.

l The verdict of guilty of Criminal Attempt Attempt - — Involuntary Deviant Sexual Intercourse was against the weight of the evidence because the greater greater weight

weight of

the evidence established that Appellant did not have the intent to commit the crime of involuntary deviant sexual assault.

assault

12. I2. The verdict of guilty of Criminal Attempt Attempt — Involuntary

Involuntary Deviant Sexual Intercourse was against the weight weight of the evidence because the the greater

greater weight

weight of

the evidence the evidence established established that Appellant did that Appellant did not

not take

take a

a substantial step towards substantial step towards the the

Involuntary

commission of the crime of Involuntary Deviant Sexual Intercourse. 13. I3. The verdict of guilty verdict of guilty of

of Criminal

Criminal Attempt

Attempt — Statutory

Statutory Sexual

Sexual Assault

Assault was

was

against the weight of evidence because the greater weight greater weight of the evidence established established that that Appellant

Appellant did not take

take a

a substantial

substantial step

step towards

towards the commission

of the crime of Statutory Sexual Assault.

Assault

14. 14, The verdict of guilty of Criminal Attempt -- Statutory Sexual Intercourse Criminal Attempt Intercourse was against was against the the weight of the

weight of the evidence

evidence because

because the greater weight the greater weight of the evidence of the evidence

established that Appellant did not have the the intent to commit the crime of statutory assault.

sexual assault

III. I. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

In essence, Appellant's Appellant's sole challenge challenge is to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence

supporting supporting each of his five convictions. "A "A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a

a

question question of law," which is reviewed de novo.

novo. Commonwealth v.

• Widmer, 744 A.2d 745,

7145, 751 (Pa.

7151 (Pa.

2000). In reviewing such claims, the Supreme Court has established this standard of review:

review

[The reviewing [The reviewing court] examine[s] whether the evidence admitted at trial,trial, and all and all

reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as as verdict winner, support the jury's jury's finding of all elements of the the

offense beyond aareasonable doubt. The Commonwealth may sustain its its burden by means of wholly wholly circumstantial evidence.

Commonwealth v.

• Doughty, 126 A.3d 951, 958 958 (Pa.

(Pa. 2015).

As to weight weight of the evidence claims, a a motion for new

new trial based on weight of the evidence

"is addressed to the discretion of the is the trial cour.

court."Commorwealth

Commonwealth v. Cousar, 928 A.2d 1025, 1035-

36 (Pa. 2007). 36(Pa. 2007). As such, an appellate court reviews only only the exercise of the trial court's discretion,

not the underlying weight weight of the evidence itself. Id. at 1036.

1036. A

A trial court's judgment will be

only when reversed only when "the "the facts and inferences of record record disclose aapalpable abuse of discretion,"

rendering rendering the denial of aaweight of the evidence challenge of [a challenge "the least assailable of [a trial court's]

rulings." rulings." Id. Determinations as as to

to the credibility of witness testimony and other evidence are left

to to the sole discretion of the factfinder. Id Id.

B. Each of B. Each of Appellant's Convictions Were Supported by Sufficient Evidence Evidence and Not

Contrary to the Weight

Weight of the Evidence.

Appellant's sole issue on appeal attacks the sufficiency and weight of the evidence claim Appellant's

as to each of his five convictions. As noted above, the relevant question regarding sufficiency

claims is "whether the evidence admitted at at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom,

viewed in the the light most favorable to to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, support the jury's

18

finding of all elements of the finding the offense offense beyond a reasonable beyond a reasonable doubt." Doughty, 958.

Doughy, 126 A.3d at 9$8

Importantly, Importantly, "[t]he Commonwealth may sustain its burden by by means of wholly circumstantial

evidence." Id.

Id

As to the weight As weight of the evidence, evidence, "[a]

"[a] new trial should not be granted granted because of a

amere

conflict in the testimony or or because the judge

judge on

on the same

same facts would have arrived at a adifferent

v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa.

conclusion." Commonwealth • (Pa, 2013).

2013). Instead, a

a new trial is

is

warranted only if "notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that

to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all all the facts is to deny justice." Id.

Id. (quoting

(quoting

Commonwealth v.

s, Widmer,

Widmer, 744

744 A.2d

A.2d 745, (Pa. 2000))

745, 752 (Pa. (internal quotations omitted).

2000)) (internal

Alternatively stated, a Alternatively a weight weight of the evidence claim is properly properly granted

granted "only

"only when the

the jury's

jury's

verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice." Cousar, 928 A.2d at 1036.

"The weight The weight of the evidence is exclusively exclusively for the finder of fact, who is free to believe all,

none[,] or some none[,] or some of of the evidence and

the evidence to determine and to determine the

the credibility of the

credibility of the witnesses." Commonwealth

• Salinas, 307 A.3d 1l. 790,795 A.3 790, 795 (Pa. Super. 2023) (quoting (Pa. Super. (quoting Commonwealth v.

• Talbert, 129 A.3d 536,

545 (Pa. 545 (Pa. Super, Super. 201 2015)).

5)). Conflicts in testimony and the credibility of witnesses are for the finder of

fact to resolve.

resolve. Id.

Turning to Turing to the the substantive charges, Criminal Attempt Attempt is

is defined by the Crimes

Crimes Code as

as

follows:

(a) (a) Definition of attempt.-A attempt.--A person

person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit aaspecific any act which constitutes aasubstantial step specific crime, he does any step toward the commission of that crime.

crime

18 Pa.C.S.

Pa.CS. §8901(a).

901(a). As distilled by the Superior Court,

[t]he elements of criminal attempt are: [the are: ((1)

1) an intent to commit a aspecific crime; and (2) any act constituting aasubstantial step toward the commission of that crime crime. Commonwealth v. Pasley, Pasley, 743

743 A.2d

A.2d 521,

521, 523

523 (Pa. Super. 1999).

(Pa.Super.1999). "The

"The substantial

step step test broadens the the scope

scope of attempt liability liability by

by concentrating on the

the acts

acts the

the

defendant has done done and does not any

any longer

longer focus

focus on the acts remaining to be done

before the actual commission of the crime." Commonwealth v.

, Gilliam, 273

Pa.Super. Pa.Super. 586, 417 A.2d 1203, 1205 1205 ((1980).

1980). The defendant need not actually be in the process process of the crime when arrested in order to be guilty of criminal attempt.

attempt. Id.

Id

Commonwealth ».v. Zingarelli, Zingarelli, 839 A.2d 1064, 1069 1069 (Pa. Super. 2003)

(Pa. Super. 2003).

Here, Appellant charged with Attempted Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse Appellant was charged

("IDSI"), Attempted (IDS!"), Attempted Statutory Sexual Assault, and Attempted Sexual Abuse of Children.

Accordingly, it was the Commonwealth's burden to prove prove that Appellant had the intent to commit

these crimes and committed an act constituting a a substantial step toward their commission.

Appellant was also charged with Unlawful Contact with a aMinor.

Minor. Accordingly, it was also the Appellant intentionally contacted a Commonwealth's burden to show that Appellant aminor -

— or a

apolice

posing as a officer posing a minor — for the purpose of engaging in a a sexual offense. See, 18 18 Pa.C.S.

Pa.CS.

§6318(a)(1). $6318(a)01)

following reasons, this Court finds that the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient For the following

to carry the Commonwealth's burden, and that that Appellant's ultimate convictions were not against

the weight of the evidence evidence.

i.i The Element of Attempted The Commonwealth Proved Each Element Attempted Involuntary brvoluentar.y Deviate

Sexual Intercourse and Attempted Sexual Intercourse_and Sexual Assault Beyond Attempted Statutory Sexual Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Reasonable Doubt.

The crime of IDSI IDS is defined by the Crimes Code, in relevant part, part, as follows:

(a) Offense (a) Offense defined.-A defined.—A person commits a afelony of the first degree when he or felony of

she engaged in deviate sexual intercourse with aacomplainant:

(7) (7) who is less than 16 years of age and and the person

person is four or more years older than the complainant and and the complainant and person are not married to other.

to each other

18 Pa.C.S. §$3123(a)(7). 18Pa.C.S. 3123(a)(7). "Deviate sexual intercourse" constitutes, inter alia, "[sexual "[s]exual intercourse

per os or per anus between human beings.

beings." 18 Pa.C.S. §83101.

3101.

Statutory Statutory Sexual Assault, on the other hand, is defined, as as follows:

(a) Felony of the second degree. --Except as provided in section 3121 (relating sesond degree.-Except (relating to rape), rape), a a person commits aafelony of the second degree degree when that person engages engages in

sexual intercourse with aacomplainant to whom the person is not married who is under under the age of the age of 16 years

years and that

that person

person is either:

is either:

(1) four years (I) four years older

older but

but less than eight

less than eight years older than years older than the

the complainant; or

complainant; Or

eight years

(2) eight years older

older but less than

but less than 11

1l years older than

years older than the

the complainant.

complainant.

(b) Felony of the first degree. --A person degree.-A commits- a person commits a felony felony of the first degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse with aacomplainant person engages complainant under the age age of 16 years and that person ycars person is Il11 or more years years older than the complainant complainant and the

complainant and complainant and the the person

person are

are not

not married

married to each other.

to each other.

18 Pa.C.S.

Pa.CS. §$31221 3122.1. In addition to its ordinary meaning, meaning, "sexual intercourse" encompasses encompasses

"intercourse per os or per anus, with some penetration however slight." 18 Pa.C.S. §3101.

Read together, therefore, Read together, therefore, to to be guilty of both

guilty of both Attempted

Attempted IDSI

IDS] and

and Attempted Statutory

Attempted Statutory

the Commonwealth must have Sexual Assault, the have shown that that Appellant

Appellant ((1)

1) intended

intended to engage in

to engage

ordinary and/or deviate deviate sexual acts with

with aaperson

person under

under the age of

the age of sixteen;

sixteen; (2)

(2) was at

at least

least four

years older than years older the minor;

than the minor; (3)

() was

was not married to

not married to the

the minor;

minor; and

and (4)

(4) made

made a

a substantial step toward substantial step toward

completing said acts. completing

Here, there is Here, there is no no dispute

dispute that

that the

the Izzy

Izzy character

character was

was thirteen

thirteen years old,' 0 that years old," Appellant was that Appellant

not married to Izzy, or that Appellant was fifty-two years years old at the time he was messaging messaging Izzy."

Izzy.'

Accordingly, the Accordingly, the only only meaningful

meaningful areas

areas of dispute relate

of dispute relate to

to Appellant's intent and Appellant's intent and whether whether he

he made

made

aa substantial step toward committing these offenses.

offenses, This Court concludes that the evidence

adduced before adduced before this this Court — the

Court - the vast

vast bulk of which

bulk of which being

being Appellant's

Appellant's own

own words

words -— supported

supported both

both

points beyond beyond a reasonable doubt.

a reasonable doubt.

First, Appellant's messages First. Appellant's messages to Izzy were to Izzy were clear

clear that he had

that he every intention had every intention of

of meeting with

meeting with

Izzy near the Izzy near Scottish Inn.

the Scottish [nn. For example, on For example, on December

December 4,

4, 2022,

2022, Appellant

Appellant made several inquiries made several inquiries

" See,N.T '0 See, N.T. 12/4/2023, 12/4/2023, p. 29.

p. 29

See, N.T. 12/4/2023, 12/4/2023, pp.

pp. 91.

to Izzy regarding to her mother's ohey mothers work schedule for work schedute December 13.

for the week of December See, N.T. 12/412023, 13, See,N,l 12/4/2023,

pp. 57-58. Appellant continued these inquiries over the next several days. pp. 57.58. days. See, C-2 at 12/6/2022,

4:25:32pm ("[h]ow 4.25:32pm ([h]ow late late next

next week

week does Mom

Mom work[?]");

work[?]"); id.

id. at 12/8/2022,

12/8/2022, 5.5:50:32pm

50.32pm ("[n]ext

([n]ext

week is all IIthink about, did you find out the work work schedule[?]").

schedule[?]),

Appellant also made several attempts to persuade Izzy to disclose her specific address address.

Appellant began this line of questioning questioning on December 2, 2022 when he asked Izzy Izzy via Moco

"[w]here in Bensalem do you live?" [w]here live ?" See, See, N.T.

N.T. 12/4/2023,

12/4/2023, pp. 42-43. Then, pp. 42.43, just two days Then, just days later, later, he

asked Izzy whether her house was was "next to the body shop shop [on

[on Gray Avenue] or the house with the motorcycle." motorcycle." Id.

Id at p.

p, 55.

55. Appellant

Appellant temporarily

temporarily relented

relented when Izzy

Izzy declined

declined to say but

to say but renewed

renewed

his efforts on December 15, 2022. Specifically, a 2022. Specifically, a little after 10:00am, Appellant Appellant sent Izzy

Izzy several

taken

photos of aamulti-unit apartment structure on Gray Avenue, apparently taken from Google Street

CRT- 6, Slide 18. Appellant circled three doors in the complex View. See,CRT.6, — one in yellow, and two complex -

red. N.T. in red. N,T 12/5/2023, p.

p. 36. After sending the images, images, Appellant Izzy whether hers was Appellant asked Izzy

the door circled in yellow. See, id.

yellow. See, id. at

at pp.

pp. 37.

37. Izzy

Izzy responded vaguely that she lived in that complex responded vaguely complex

but refused to answer with any more specificity.

specificity. Id. This was the last such request request Appellant

Appellant made.

More importantly, however, Appellant Appellant himself explicitly explicitly articulated his intent to to meet on

numerous occasions both before and after the December 13 meeting meeting fell through.

through. For example,

example, on

December December 12, 12, 2022, 2022, Appellant texted

texted Izzy

Izzy that they

they would

would no

no longer

longer be renting aaroom at the

Scottish Inn, but that they would "make [it] work" using his car instead. C-2 at 12/12/2022, "make [it]

8:30:44pm. He 830:44pm. He then then assured

assured her was "not her that he was backing out this "not backing this time" as they they had

had "a

"a mission

mission to

complete."Id. complete." Id. at at 12/12/2022, 8:45:04pm-8:47:15pm.

12/12/2022. 8:45:04pm-8:47:15pm.

Next, on the day of the December 13 meeting -— indeed, fifteen minutes prior -— Appellant Appellant

again assured Izzy of his intention to follow through in response to her statement that they did not

22

have to meet if Appellant Appellant did not want to.

to. See, id.

id, at 12/13/2022, 10:46:07-10:46:51.

10146.07-10246.1 In other

words, despite being given an opportunity to cancel the meeting, Appellant doubled-down on his

desire to meet with Izzy as they originally planned.

Appellant maintained this attitude in the days following his abandonment of the December

13 meeting. Specifically, 13 meeting. Specifically, on December 15, 2022, Appellant insisted the only reason he ran was

because he believed to have seen aapolice officer parked on Gray Avenue.

Avenue. See, id.

id. at 12/15/2022,

2:06:50pm-5:47:39pm. 2.06.50pm-$:4739pm. He essentially begged Izzy to to give him another chance, promising that he

would not "bail" next bail" ext time_

time. See, id. at 12/15/2022, 607.070m.636:18pm.

See. id. See. also, id. at 6:07:07pm-6:36:18pm. See,

12/15/2022, 10:01:20pm 10:01.20pm ("I'm

(T' m not standing you up again").

again"), Appellant again reiterated this point

on the day of their rescheduled December 16 meeting. See, C-2 at 12/16/2022, 4:20:36pm.

Finally, and and most conclusively, Appellant physically physically traveled to the pre-arranged meeting

location on two separate occasions. The testimony of Detective Brian Oliverio, for example,

established credibly that on December 13, 2022, a a dark-colored Mercedes-Benz station wagon,

bearing New New Jersey plates, pulled into and sped away from the Gray Avenue meeting location at

the pre-arranged time. See, N.T.

N,T 12/5/2023, pp. 12-14. Detective Oliverio later identified this pp. 12-14.

vehicle as Appellant's own black black Mercedes-Benz station wagon using an image captured by aa

Bensalem tag-reader tag-reader on January 3, 2023.

2023. See, id.

id. at pp.

pp. 15-16.

15-16. See, also, Commonwealth's Exhibit

C-11 (the C.1] (the tag-reader photograph).

photograph), Appellant's presence at the December December 13

I3 meet-up was

away. See,

corroborated by his ensuing communications with Izzy explaining his decision to run away.

e.g.,C2at e.g, C-2 at 12/15/2022, 2:06:50pm-5:43:34pm 2.06.50pm-5:43:34pm (explaining that a "cop" watched Appellant pull (explaining

Appellant "pretended

onto Gray Avenue, and that Appellant pretended to ignore him" and went around the Scottish Inn

like [he]

to "back out like [he] was something").

was lost or something")

was directly observed by Detective Kolb parked Then, on December 16, 2022, Appellant was

across the street from the Scottish Inn approximately thirty minutes prior prior to the rescheduled

meeting. meeting. See, N.T. pp. 54.57, NT 12/5/2023, pp. 54-57. Appellant again used his black Mercedes-Benz station

wagon. Id.

Id. Detective Kolb's testimony testimony on this matter was corroborated by by Officer Francis

McColgan, Mccolgan, who directly interacted with Appellant as he was was waiting for Izzy to appear. See, id.

id. at

pp. pp. 69-73. Indeed, so overwhelming was the evidence on this score that Appellant Appellant himself admitted

to attending both meetings.

meetings. See, N.T.

N,T 12/5/2023, pp.

pp. 127, 132.

132

In [n sum, the evidence established credibly that that Appellant made substantial efforts to to secure

the details of [ery's Izzy's mother's work schedule and Izzy's precise location. The evidence also

established numerous instances of Appellant Appellant himself affirming and reaffirming reaffirming his intent to follow

through on his meet-up meet-up plans

plans with Izzy. Finally, Finally, the evidence was clear that not only did Appellant

agree to these plans, he also pursued two of them to near-completion.

near-completion. With these facts in mind, the

evidence of Appellant's intent to meet up with Izzy is overwhelming overwhelming.

Second, the evidence was also conclusive that Appellant's purpose in these meetings was

to engage in sexual activity, activity. For example, throughout their communications, Appellant expressed

his desire to perform perform oral sex on Izzy

Izzy on no

no less

less than

than four occasions. The four separate occasions. The first was was on

December 2, 2022, when Appellant offered via Moco to give Izzy "head" in his car at their first

meeting. See, N.T. 12/4/2022, p. 41.

NT 12/4/2022,p. 41 As established by Detective Kolb, Kolb, "head" in this context is aa

common euphemism for oral sex. See, id.

id,

The second such reference occurred on December 6, 2022, when Appellant The Appellant described his

lips as being hips being "[s]oft, "[s]oft, full, and always needing aa bedtime snack." C-2 at 12/6/2022, 9:46:49pm 9:46:49pm

added). While less direct than the December 2 (emphasis added), 2 Moco message, Appellant Appellant made this

statement in conjunction with other sexually suggestive messages. See, e.

e.g.,

g, id. at 12/6/2022,

(saying he

36.12pm (saying 9:30:12pm 9. he would have "have to

to watch [Izzy's]

[Izzy's] hands" while snuggling); id, id. at 12/6/2022,

9:38:53 ((saying 9:38.53 saying he would give Izzy foot rubs).

rubs). Read together,

together, therefore, one may may reasonably

reasonably

interpret interpret this message message as suggesting Izzy Izzy would

would be

be Appellant's

Appellant's "bedtime

"bedtime snack."

Appellant's Appellant's third third reference

reference occurred on December December 11,

11, 2022.

2022. After

After wishing Izzy was wishing that Izzy was

in bed with with him, Appellant Appellant told her he would, inter alia, put put her onto his chest and interlock fingers fingers

with her. Id.

Id at 12/11/2022, 11.06:56am.

11:06:56am. Continuing his use of eating-related euphemisms,

Appellant fantasized that Izzy would Appellant would "push "push [herself]

[herself] into

into [his]

[his] face

face and grind [she] yell[ed]

grind as [she] yell[ed] at

[hini] to et [hi] eat t" Id. at 12/11/2022, it." Id. 12/11/2022. 11:06:56am E06:56am (emphasis

(emphasis added).

added)

Finally, on December 12, 2022, Appellant texted Izzy Izzy an illustration of several Kama

Sutra-styled sex positions. See, CRT.6 Sutra-styled CRT-6at at Slide 10.

10. Appellant made several several red

red check marks next

next

to those positions he believed to those believed they could accomplish in in his

his car. See, N.T.

N.T. 12/4/2023,

12/4/2023,p.p. 80.

80. One

of these positions positions depicts aamale stick figure figure performing

performing oral

oral sex on aafemale stick figure.

figure. See,

CRT- 6at CRT.6 at Slide Slide 10.

10

In addition to these explicit ln addition explicit references references to

to oral sex,

sex, Appellant's texts

texts also referenced

referenced aarange

range

of other other sex sex or sex-adjacent acts acts he intended

intended to

to perform

perform on Izzy.

Izzy. For example, on December For example, December 11, IH,

Appellant and Izzy 2022, Appellant Izzy had the following exchange:

following exchange

IZZY: Was else u ZZY·Was u wana do w w me

APPELLANT· Caress you, nibble on your ear, suck your neck and bite your lips APPELLANT:

APPELLANT: As you get moist you put your hand down inside your panties panties and

then then bring bring your hand

hand up

up for

for us to lick

lick your fingers.

fingers.

[sic] [sic]

C-2 at 12/11/2022, 9:24:44am- 10:34:3 lam (emojis 9.24:44am-10:34:3lam (emojis omitted and lack of punctuation original).

punctuation in original).

Further, Further, mere hours before before their second attempted their second attempted meeting meeting on December 13,

on December 13, 2022,

2022,

Appellant asked asked Izzy whether she was was "into licking and sucking"

"into licking sucking" like he was. Id. at 12/13/2022, was. ld. 12/13/2022,

7:06:36pm. Clearly, Appellant 706.36pm. gauging whether Izzy Appellant was gauging Izzy would perform perform oral sex on him. Finally, him. Finally,

25

another of the positions depicted in the Kama Karna Sota

Sutra image portrays vaginal intercourse between

the male and female stick figures. CRT- 6 at Slide 10.

figures. See, CRT.6 I0. At bottom, then, Appellant's own

messages messages indicate beyond aareasonable doubt that he intended to engage in a a variety of sexual acts

with with Izzy, including mutual mutual masturbation,

masturbation, oral sex,

sex, and vaginal

vaginal intercourse.

Third, the trial evidence was unambiguous unambiguous that Appellant Appellant took not one, but several

steps toward the completion substantial steps completion of these acts. Primarily, Primarily, as discussed above, the

uncontroverted evidence showed not only that Appellant made several arrangements to meet with

Izzy, lzzy. but he also but he traveled to also traveled to their rendezvous point their rendezvous point on on December 13 and 16, 2022. See, NT N.T.

12/5/2023, pp. 12-16.54-57, pp. 12-16. 69-73. What the evidence also showed, however, was that Appellant 54-57,69.73.

visited the area near Izzy's supposed home two other times independent independent of their December 13 and

16 6 meetings.

meetings

On December 4, 2022, Appellant sent Izzy Izzy a

a photo

photo of the Scottish Inn's road-fronting road-fronting sign,

sign,

54. Clearly, Appellant must saying he could not get her out of his head. See, N.T.12/4/2023, p. 54.

have visited the area to get that picture. Further, on December 15, 2022, Appellant sent Izzy aalive

displaying his presence

location marker displaying presence across the street from the Scottish Inn. See, NT, N.T.

12/5/2023, pp. on- scene presence was confirmed by Detective Kolb, who observed aa pp. 38-39. His on-scene

green Jeep Wrangler green Wrangler in in the

the area at around the same around the same time.

time. Id. at pp.

Id. at 40-41. This

pp. 40.41. This vehicle matched vehicle matched

the the description of a a vehicle

vehicle Appellant had

had previously

previously told

told Izzy

Izzy he owned. See, C-2 at 12/15/2022, he owned. 12/15/2022,

8:37:48pm - (describing his 8:43:14pm (describing

8:3748pm-8:43:14pm his Jeep as "army green"). In as "army other words, In other words, not

not only

only did

did

Appellant show up at two two meetings, but he also performed additional reconnaissance on Izzy's Izzy's

home both home both before before and

and after those

those meetings.

meetings

In In sum, then, the the evidence adduced before before this proved beyond this Court at trial proved beyond aareasonable

doubt that Appellant Appellant ((I)

1) intended to meet up

up with Izzy;

Izzy; (2)

(2) intended to engage

engage in prohibited

prohibited sexual

i

conduct with her; ()

(3) was not married to Izzy; Izzy; and Izzy; (4) was more than four years older than Izzy,

(5) made several substantial steps (5) steps toward accomplishing accomplishing his

his criminal designs. Accordingly,

Appellant's convictions for Appellant's convictions for Attempted Attempted IDSI and Attempted IDS] and Attempted Statutory Sexual Assault Statutory Sexual were Assault were

supported by sufficient evidence, and not contrary to supported to the weight thereof.

thereof

ii. it The Commonwealth Proved The Commonwealth Proved Each Each Element of the

Element of the Attempted

Attempted Sexual Sexual Abuse

Abuse of

a

Children Beyond aReasonable Doubt Doubt.

As to the crime of Sexual Abuse of Children, the Crimes Code provides as follows:

(b) (b) Photographing,

Photographing, videotaping, depicting on computer or filming sexual acts.-

videotaping, depicting

(1) Any person (I)Any person who causes oases or knowingly permits a ehid perroits a child under th the age of

18 years engage in

years to engage in aaprohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such act commits an commits an offense if such such person

person knows,

knows, has

has reason toto know or intends that such act may be photographed, videotaped, videotaped, depicted on computer or filmed. filmed.

18 Pa.C.S. 8 Pa.C.S. §$6312(b)1).

6312(b)(1). In other words, §6312 $6312 prohibits, inter alia, the knowing possession of

photographs or computer photographs computer depictions depictions of children engaged in prohibited sexual acts. As further

by the statute, these acts include, inter alia, "lewd defined by "lewd exhibition of the genitals or nudity nudity ...

depicted for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification of depicted of [the [the viewer]." 18 Pa.C.S.

§6312(g). 46312Kg).

In sum, then, to be guilty guilty of Attempted

Attempted Sexual Abuse of Children, Children. the Commonwealth must

Appellant ((1)

have shown that Appellant 1) intended to possess photographs or computer depictions of aachild

engaged in engaged in one or more more prohibited

prohibited sexual act; and and (2)

(2) took

took aasubstantial step

step toward

toward obtaining such

such

aadepiction. e.g., Commonwealth v.

depiction. See, e.g, v. Koehler, 914 A.2d 427, 436 436 (Pa. Super. 2006)

(Pa. Super. 2006) (emphasis (emphasis

omitted) (articulating omitted) (articulating the Commonwealth's required showing to required showing to prove a aviolation of

of $6312)

§ 6312).

As above, the evidence adduced before this Court proved Appellant's guilt beyond a

a

reasonable reasonable doubt.

doubt. Specifically, proved that Specifically, it proved that Appellant Appellant requested

requested Izzy send him aaphotograph photograph of

her her vagina.

vagina, On On December 2, 2022,

December 2, 2022, Appellant asked Izzy "[c]an Appellant asked "[c]an I I get

get aapeek

peek at

at what

what I'll

I'll be

eating[?]" eating[r N.T.

NT. 12/4/2023,

12/4/203,

2 p.47 request followed shortly p. 47. This request after Appellant's ofter shorty afer offer on Moco M0co to

give Izzy give Izzy oral sex. See, N.T.

N,T, 12/4/2022, p.

p. 41. In this context, therefore, his message was clearly

intended intended to to request request aaphotograph

photograph of Izzy's vagina.

vagina.

This interpretation interpretation is

is corroborated by

by Appellant's

Appellant's own testimony.

testimony. Specifically, Appellant Appellant

acknowledges that even under his own defense theory — discussed in greater detail under Part

III(B)(iv), —he did not know for Ill((iv), infra - a thirteen-yearfar certain that Izzy was not a old girl.

thirteen-year-old girl. On cross

examination, he had the following Commonwealth:

following exchange with counsel for the Commonwealth

Q: So Q: So you had a a gut feeling and

and intuition that you were talking to a afake profile?

A: Correct. A Correct Q: A 40-year- old or something adult male? Q:A40-year- male? A: A: Could be male, could be another-female, different age, age. Definitely not

not the person

they were portraying they were be.

portraying to be

Q: But there was still a a chance it

it could be because you weren't positive?

A: Correct Correct.

Q: Okay. Q: Okay. So there was aachance then when you asked for that photograph of what you'd be eating that you could have actually gotten an image of a a child's vagina?

A: A: Was Was not expecting it.

not exposting it. If

If you're savvy on

you're savvy on the

the internet,

interet, you know

know the

the rules

rules of the

the

internet. internet. You do not send explicit explicit pics.

pies.

Q: And Q And you're savvy savvy on the internet?

A: Somewhat. A.

N.T. pp. 156-57. In other words, Appellant N,T, 12/5/2023, pp. Appellant both conceded that the message was

properly understood to request an explicit properly explicit photo photo and

and acknowledged that he could have been texting

aathirteen-year-old girl.

thirteen-year-old girl. These concessions, in in addition to the message's message's plain meaning,

meaning, amply

support upport aajury's finding finding that Appellant intended to obtain child pornography pornography and sent this message

as aasubstantial step step in furtherance of that intent.

iii. iit. The Commonwealth Proved Each Element of Unlawful Contact The Commotwealth Contact with a aMinor

Beyond a

a Reasonable Doubt.

Reasonable Doubt

Finally, Finally, Unlawful Contact with aaMinor is defined, in relevant part, as follows:

(a (a) Offense defined.

defied.A conunits an offense if the person --A person commits person is intentionally intentionally in

contact with a a minor, or aalaw enforcement officer acting in the performance performance of

duties who has assumed the identity of a a minor or of another individual having having

direct contact with children, as defined under 23 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. §$ 6303(a)

6303(a) (relating

(relating to

to

definitions), for the purpose of engaging in an activity prohibited prohibited under any

any of the

following, and either the person initiating initiating the contact or the person person being

being contacted

is within this Commonwealth Commonwealth:

(1) Any of the offenses enumerated in Chapter 31 (([sexual (1)Any fsexual offenses offenses]).

])

18 Pa.C.S. 18 §6318(a)(1).

PAC.S. $6318(a)X1).

In other words, to be guilty of Unlawful Contact with a aMinor, the Commonwealth must

have proven that Appellant Appellant ((I)

1) intentionally, either directly or indirectly, indirectly, contacted or

communicated with aaminor, or police officer portraying aaminor, (2)

(2) for the purpose

purpose of engaging

engaging

in aa crime under Chapter 31, such as Indecent Assault or Statutory Statutory Sexual Assault.

Assault. See,

See,

Commonwealth • Commorwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 537 537 (Pa.

(Pa. Super.

Super. 2006).

2006).

Here, the the evidence adduced by the adduced by the Commonwealth on this this issue carried

carried its burden in

spades. First, there is no dispute that spades. that Appellant was in direct contact with with Detective Kolb

Kolb — a police

a police

officer portraying a online throughout a minor online — throughout the term of Detective Kolb's investigation.

investigation,

Detective Kolb testified, for example, that he was the officer that created Izzy's Izzy's profile,

profile, and that

he was the one in exclusive control of the messages sent from the account.

account. See, N.T.

N.T 12/4/2023,

pp. pp. 29-31.

29-31. Further, Further, at the time Izzy's profile profile was

was contacted by

by the user named "QnThaHunt,"

user named OnTha'Hunt," the

a profile picture depicting account featured a depicting Appellant Appellant standing

standing in front of aa horse.

horse. See, C.1,

C-1.

Finally, Detective Kolb established that when when his communications with the suspect suspect moved to text

message, the phone number that initiated contact with Izzy was registered Appellant. N.T.

registered to Appellant. NT,

12/4/2023, p. 48.

p. 48

Second, as discussed under Part III(13)(i), II(BM), supra, the messages messages and testimony

testimony presented

presented by

by

the the Commonwealth proved beyond a a reasonable doubt that Appellant intended to meet up up with

Izzy and engage i innboth deviate and ordinary sexual activity with her.

her. These acts are prohibited prohibited by

by

Chapter 31 of the Cries Crimes Code as IDSI and Statutory IDs1 and Assault. See, 18 Pa.C.S. §$3123(a)(7)

Statutory Sexual Assault. 3123(a)(7)

and 18 and 18 Pa.C.S.

Pa.CS §$3122.10b)

3122.1(b).

Accordingly, Accordingly, Appellant's conviction for Appellant's conviction for Unlawful Contact with Unlawful Contact with aaMinor Minor is supported by

is supported by

sufficient evidence and is not against the weight not against weight of the evidence.

the evidence,

iv. Have iv. A Jury Could Reasonably Reasonably Found

Have Found Appellant's "Scamming Appellant's " Scamming the Scammer"

Defense Unpersuasive. Defense Unpersuasive,

At trial, Appellant did not meaningfully meaningfully dispute

dispute the essential facts of what transpired

between December 1 I and December 19,

19, 2022,

2022, and

and neither

neither could he. The

The evidence was

was

overwhelming that almost immediately after he discovered the Izzy account, Appellant became Iy acount, Deane

mired in investigation into its veracity.

in an extensive investigation veracity, Indeed, by by the

the time of his arrest, Appellant Appellant

had made eighty-two independent web searches relating to Snyder Middle School -— the school

featured on some of Izzy's clothing -— and forty-four searches relating Izzy's clothing relating to 1048 Gray Avenue Avenue -— the

address address at which Appellant at which Appellant believed believed Izzy lived. See, N.T.

Izzy lived. N.T. 12/5/2023, 12/5/2023, pp.

pp. 87-89. These Gray

87-89. These Gray

Avenue searches included digital image queries and property record searches through the website

Spokeo.com. Id. Spokeo.com. 89-90.

Id. at pp. 89.-90

Rather, Appellant's Appellant's defense focused entirely entirely on the intentions underlying underlying his investigation.

investigation.

Specifically, Appellant Specifically, Appellant argued argued that from

from the

the very

very beginning,

beginning, his

his investigation

investigation was

was intended

intended not to

prove prove that Izzy vvas aateal lazy was real thirteen-year thirteen-year- not. Indeed, just as Detective old, but to prove that she was not.

Kolb Kolb adopted the persona of of Izzy to

to root out

out predators,

predators, Appellant

Appellant likewise insisted that the likewise insisted the version version

of him depicted in his messages messages to Izzy was itself a a persona designed to outwit internet fraudsters.

fraudsters

In short, Appellant never dreamed of meeting up up with a

a child; he was simply trying trying to scam aa

scammer. scammer

According According to to Appellant,

Appellant, his obsession with his obsession with online online scam accounts began scam accounts when his began when son

his son

became became aavictim victim of cyberbullying at of cyberbullying at the age of the age of twelve.

twelve. See,NT.

N.T. 12/5/2023, p. 111.

12/5/2023,p. This experience I1, This experience

30

i

•1-

prompted prompted Appellant to "[take]

"[take] on a

apersonality

personality to counteract the people people that were bullying bullying him,"

him,

spawning aafixation with rooting out fake fake "catfish" accounts on the internet. Id.

Id

Appellant supported his novel theory by reference to several minor inconsistencies that

raised his suspicions about the account's legitimacy. For one, he opined that the account was

insufficiently personalized and featured a "photo shopped" profile profile picture

picture— telltale signs,

signs, in

in his

his

experience, of aafake account. Id. at p.

p. 112. Appellant also noted that the account's comment page page

had been left open, permitting users from the Moco community to leave messages.

messages. Id. at p.114.

p.I14

This deepened Appellant's concerns, he argued, because most real users tend to limit or close that

functionality. Id. functionality

Moreover, Appellant urged that throughout his interactions with the Izzy account, several Izzy account,

of the verification photos Izzy sent seemed staged, "photo shopped," or otherwise not in line with

conversation. See, id. at pp. 120-21, 134. These deceptive photos, the broader context of their conversation. photos,

Appellant insisted, made him suspicious that Izzy was trying to hide something. See, id. Appellant Appellant

further noted that Izzy Izzy never gave up her specific address. Id.

Id. at p. 124.

124. This struck him as odd as

"[i]f they "[ilf they're 're so willing to be down for whatever and want to meet, they they would

would ... give up their

give up

address." Id.

Id. All told, Appellant urged the jury jury that as strange as he admits his behavior was in this

case, he is simply aaman with aapeculiar hobby — not a hobby -- a predator. See, id. at pp. 111, 118, pp. 1H1, 138.

118, 138

It appears, then, that the whole of Appellant's weight of the evidence argument argument hinges

entirely on this evidence. As an initial matter, however, this Court must reiterate that the weight weight

given by the jury to certain evidence, including the credibility of witnesses, is a a matter solely

solely

within its competence as factfinder. Commonwealth v.v. Salinas, 307 A.34 A.3d 790, 795

795 (Pa.

(Pa. Super.

2023). It would be inappropriate, therefore, for this Court to override its findings findings by

by reweighing

reweighing

Id. Accordingly, the jury's decision to the evidence itself. See, id to disregard disregard Appellant's

Appellant's defense as

incredible lies incredible lies beyond beyond this Court's reach.

this Court's reach.

Even if this Court were to revisit that finding, however, no relief would be warranted, warranted, as

the non-credibility non-credibility of Appellant's theory theory of the

the case is

is well supported by the

supported by evidence.

the evidence

Specifically, when the relevant relevant facts at issue

facts at issue here are

are consulted, Appellant's Appellant's theory simply does theory simply

explain his conduct in this case, not explain case.

First, Appellant's theory does not explain explain his initial interactions with the Izzy The Izzy account. The

evidence adduced below showed that that Appellant initially cut contact with Izzy after he was was

informed of her her age. See, N.T.

N.T 12/4/2023, p. 40. However, p. 40. However, he then

then resumed contact two

two hours

hours later

later

via Moco asking what they could do if he agreed to continue.

continue. See, C-I.

C-1. Appellant

Appellant then texted Izzy Izzy

until December December 3, 2022 — their first arranged meeting meeting -— when

when he

he again

again repudiated

repudiated their

communication via communication via Moco message. See, Moco message. C-1. Like See,C-I. Like before,

before, however,

however, Appellant once again Appellant once again initiated initiated

contact on contact on December 4, 2022 December 4, 2022 by messaging Izzy that messaging Izzy that he could not he could not get

get her out of

her out of his head. See, his head. See,

N.T. N.T 12/4/2023, p.p. 54. Appellant remained in constant communication with Izzy thereafter.

In totality, this episode demonstrates that Appellant agonized over whether to Appellant clearly agonized

continue his communication with the Izzy account.

account. After he was informed of her age, was age, he was

initially scared initially seared away, but later away, but later returned

returned to

to investigate

investigate whether she was whether she was worth the risk.

worth the risk. Indeed,

Indeed,

Appellant himself expressed a a judgment in the affirmative in aatext to Izzy Izzy on December 13, 2022.

13,2022

C-2at See, C-2 at 12/13/2022, 7.25:14pm-7.2740pm 7:25:14pm -

7:27:40pm (expressing to Izzy that she was worth the risk).

(expressing risk)

trial to explain this behavior as creating Appellant attempted at trial creating aaseries of of "highs

"highs and lows"

—a a practice designed to build up an adversary's expectations before ripping ripping them away. See, N.T.

N.T

12/5/2023, pp. 119, 126, 193. Indeed, this was was Appellant's

Appellant's explanation for most of his conduct, conduct,

including his statements about renting aaScottish Inn suite and his sexual text messages I messages to Izzy.

31

JI

id. at pp.

See, id. 182. Appellant's explanation is, however, but one of several possible pp. 160-63, 182.

interpretations. This Court cannot say, therefore, that that a

a jury finding his explanation incompatible

with his proven conduct shocks the conscience.

Second, Appellant's alleged suspicion of Izzy's veracity directly conflicts with his own

text messages. For example, example, on December 2, 2022, Appellant texted Izzy:

Izzy

APPELLANT: APPELLANT; I'm just happy happy you're you, it be so much frauding especially on Moco Moco IZZY: Ya it seems lik a IZZY·Ysit a lotta the guys on there r r creeps lol

APPELLANT: Yes a APPELLANT· alot on there and they pretend to be girls IZZY: Wats the point IZZY·Wats point of tht lol lol

APPELLANT: Man I I don't know it's kind of weird APPELLANT: That's why IIwas was asking that pic pie about touching nose cuz they be be

trying trying to lead you on and then they can't do that.

that. Probably to get you to come out and meet them and then try and Rob you or something [sic] [sic]

7:56:54pm-8:06:47pm. This message C-2 at 12/2/2022, 7.56:54pm-8:0647pm. message Appellant Appellant clearly implies that Izzy's

verification photo photo of her touching her nose assuaged his fears.

fears

Appellant Appellant continued this theme on December 6, 2022, when he texted Izzy that their

proximity had him initially "initially like this got to be some type of setup because it's too good to be true."

Id. at 12/6/2022, 4.0154 Id. 4:01:54 (emphasis (emphasis added). The natural import of both messages, taken together,

is that is that contrary to his trial testimony, Appellant had long satisfied himself of Izzy's authenticity

and continued continued to belief.

to message her under that belief

Third, Appellant's alleged reasons for opening his "investigation"

" investigation" are incongruous with his

subsequent behavior. At trial, Appellant testified that shortly after he discovered the Izzy account,

he became concerned for the safety of the other MocoSpace users interacting with her.

het. N.T.

12/5/2023, p. 117. 12/5/2023,p. 117 He expressed concern that the Izzy fraud was either attempting to lure people

out to be robbed, or aavigilante assuming law enforcement's responsibilities in capturing child

33

predators. Id. at pp. 173.75, predators. 180. Accordingly, Appellant urged that 173-75, 180. that his primary motivations in

exploring the Izzy exploring Izzy account were were (()

l) to

to prove

prove to other Moco users that Izzy was aafake; and and (2)

(2) to

report report the scammer/vigilante to police.

police. See, id.

id

Despite Despite this intent, intent, however,

however, Appellant

Appellant never

never shared

shared his

his findings

findings with

with police

police even after

after he

gathered gathered enough evidence to prove prove Izzy

Izzy was fake.

fake. See, id. at p.

p. 184. Moreover, despite his alleged

concern about concem about other Moco Moo users,

users, Appellant

Appellant abandoned Moco

Moo after December opting December 6, 2022, opting

to communicate with Izzy instead to Izzy exclusively through text.

text. See, id.

id. at

at p.

p. 151.

151. Appellant

Appellant alleged to

to

have maintained aaseparate Moco account during this time, but no other evidence of its its existence.

existence,

Appellant's activities or Appellant's activities thereunder, thereunder, was introduced.

introduced.

More importantly, these intentions More importantly, intentions directly conflict conflict with

with Appellant's

Appellant's conduct after the the

failed December 13 meeting.

meeting. On cross-examination, Appellant admitted that he saw saw "what

what [he]

[he]

believed to be be [an]

[an] undercover cop" parked on Gray Avenue. Id.

Id. at p.

p. 170.

170, If Appellant truly was was

simply investigating the identity of the Izzy account holder, this observation would presumably

have closed tbe the case.

case, If the man in question was was a

a police officer, as Appellant believed, his

concerns about vigilantism vigilantism should have been assuaged.

assuaged. He would have been free, therefore, to

terminate his investigation and suspend contact with law enforcement.

But even if the man was not aapolice officer, this too too should have resolved Appellant's Appellant's

investigation. If investigation. If the the man was

was not law

law enforcement, his

his suspicions

suspicions of a

a scam or

or vigilante activity

would have have been been confirmed.

confirmed. Appellant

Appellant could then

then have spread the word word on Moco and to law

enforcement. In fact, he had this precise precise opportunity

opportunity on December 16, 2022, when he was

approached by Officer McColgan Mccolgan at the

the meeting location.

location. See, N.T.

N.T. 12/4/2023, pp.

pp. 69-73,

69-73. Instead,

Appellant Appellant continued his affair with Izzy, presumably on the off chance she was who she claimed.

claimed

Finally, not only is Appellant's theory incompatible incompatible with his prepre - and mid-investigation

mid-investigation

conduct, it also conflicts with his his post-investigation

post-investigation behavior. For example, despite For example, despite allegedly being allegedly being

suspicious the the entire time, Appellant's tone with Izzy radically changed on December 19, 2022.

Specifically, Appellant abruptly becomes irate with Izzy, accusing her of being being "a

"a cop or some

[sic] trying to lure men out to rob them." C-2 at 12/19/2022, 2:26:07am.

ahole [sic] 2:26.07am. When pressed pressed about

this sudden tonal shift, Appellant Appellant offered no explanation explanation beyond

beyond having

having gathered

gathered enough

enough

information and not really really "want[ing]

want[ing] to be bothered anymore." NT, N.T. 12/5/2023, pp.

pp. 185-86.

185.86

Further, as established by Detective Kolb's testimony, aadata pull of Appellant's cell phone

revealed that immediately after he cut off communication with Izzy Izy on December 19,

I9, he began

frantically searching the internet for news stories related to Bensalem Police child sex stings.

stings. See,

id. id. at p.

p. 90-91.

90.91, These searches continued well into January 2023. Id.

Id, at p.

p. 91.

At bottom, Appellant's defense theory is aademanding demanding proposal.

proposal. To credit Appellant's Appellant's tale,

tale,

one must either be capable of explaining each of the above contradictions, or willing to set them

aside. aside. One must must also believe that

that despite investigation, he was despite Appellant's extensive investigation, was never never certain,

certain,

until the last possible moment, that Izzy was not a a thirteen-year-old girl.

girl. See, N,T

N.T. 12/5/2023, pp

pp.

150, 150, 155-57, 169, 177 (asserting 169,177 (asserting variously that he he could

could not be certain Izzy not be was aafake).

Izzy was fake). One must must

believe that Appellant would have risked sending pages upon pages of sexual texts to aachild,

including aarequest for a a photo of her vagina.

vagina. Finally, to accept Appellant's account, one must

believe that despite repeatedly arranging to to meet with Izzy, and following following through plans through on those plans

twice, Appellant never actually intended to do so.

so. All things say that things considered, this Court cannot say

the jury exceeded its reason in disbelieving such an outlandish proposition.

proposition.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, this Court believes that the issues which Appellant has

complained of in his Concise Statement are without merit. Accordingly, this Court respectfully

submits that Appellant's December 6, 2023 convictions should be affirmed and Appellant's

Appeal Appeal be denied.

BY THE COURT.

COURT:

JEFFREY L. FINLEY, J

J.

DATE: DATE: do) 1a ,aoa de), 10.a0a¥

ILI L{

-

23

et •,, I

..

--" $=

co

n

7;1

c

lJ