Com. v. Harris, W.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 9, 2026
• Docket: 3338 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Olson

Opinion

J-S47017-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : WILLIE L. HARRIS : : Appellant : No. 3338 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 9, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005859-2022

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MARCH 9, 2026

Appellant, Willie L. Harris, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered on August 9, 2024, as made final by the denial of Appellant’s

post-sentence motion by operation of law on December 9, 2024. We affirm.

The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this case:

The Commonwealth charged [Appellant] with rape by forcible compulsion, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion, indecent assault with forcible compulsion, strangulation, burglary, criminal trespass, robbery threatening immediate serious bodily injury, robbery threatening immediate bodily injury, and robbery by committing or threatening to commit involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.[1] Trial commenced on September 6, 2023.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3121(a)(1), 3123(a)(1), 3126(a)(2), 2718(a)(1), 3502(a)(3), 3503(a)(1)(i), 3701(a)(1)(i), 3701(a)(1)(ii), 3701(a)(1)(iii), respectively. J-S47017-25

...

The Commonwealth called the victim as its first witness. The victim explained her roles and responsibilities as the legal secretary for the Tinari Law Firm located at 1313 Race Street, in Center City, Philadelphia, adjacent to the Juanita Kidd Stout Center for Criminal Justice. On July 5, 2022, the day before the victim's 23rd birthday, she was working alone in an interior office in the early afternoon when she noticed “out of the corner of [her] eye, [an unfamiliar man] leaning over the receptionist counter.” The victim greeted him in the reception area, assuming he was a client or needed help finding where to go. [Appellant] said he was “looking for someone named Samantha.” When the victim explained no one worked there by that name, he “pushed [past her] and started walking into Mr. Tinari’s office.” [Appellant] was “very agitated” and looked for money in the office. The victim went into survival mode and offered [Appellant] her earrings, AirPods, a coworker's purse, and her backpack. [Appellant] refused and instead made the victim put her phone down and locked the front door of the office.

[Appellant] then hit the victim across her face with both an open hand and closed fist. She pleaded with him to stop and told him people would return at any minute. When she screamed for help, [Appellant] told he would kill her if she called out again. [Appellant] then strangled her several times to the point where her vision blurred.

[Appellant] threatened to kill her and forced her to perform oral sex on him, holding her wrists down while he pulled his pants down. He then forced his penis into her mouth. [Appellant] then changed course because “he didn't like it.” He took off the victim’s pants. The victim felt “humiliated” and continued to beg him to stop. [Appellant] threw her to the floor and forced his penis into her vagina. The victim’s co-worker returned to the office from her lunch break at that point, which spooked [Appellant] and prompted him to leave.

The victim, still on the floor and trying to get her pants back on, begged her coworker to call 911 because she “just got raped.” After the police arrived, the victim was taken to Thomas Jefferson Hospital, where she was given penicillin and evaluated for about six hours. She spoke with two

-2- J-S47017-25

detectives and signed a statement. The victim never consented to oral or vaginal sex. She tried to return to work but never again felt comfortable going to that law firm.

Kaisa Codner, an intern at the Tinari firm, testified she left the office on July 5, 2022, for about 20 minutes to get lunch in the early afternoon. When she returned, the door was unexpectedly locked. She unlocked the door and took her lunch to the conference room and at that point heard the door from Mr. Tinari’s office open. She saw a man leave the office and recognized him. She had seen him lingering outside the building when she left for lunch. She then found the victim on the floor crying hysterically. The victim’s clothes were mostly off, her hair was messy, and she looked scared. The victim told her that she had been raped and begged Ms. Codner to lock the door and call 911.

The Commonwealth played the 911 call for the jury. The defense did not object.

James Owen, a registered sexual assault nurse examiner, testified he examined the victim on July 5, 2022, at 9:31 p.m. at the Sexual Assault Response Center, and took rape kit specimens.

Jean Hess, a Forensic Scientist 3 with the Philadelphia Police Department Office of Forensic Sciences, analyzed the DNA samples collected from the investigation, including: the interior and exterior crotch area of [Appellant’s] pants, the interior and exterior crotch area of the victim’s underwear, the TD Bank bag recovered from the Tinari Office, and the desk from the Tinari Office. Hess also examined DNA samples from the victim's rape kit. Hess was able to conclude to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the DNA found on the interior and exterior crotch area of [Appellant’s] pants matched the victim's DNA. It was “119.8 quadrillion times more likely” that the DNA on [Appellant’s] clothes came from the victim as opposed to another random unrelated individual in the Caucasian population.

Detective Enz offered into evidence photos he had taken of the victim’s neck that showed red scratch marks.

-3- J-S47017-25

Detective Modres testified he sent a patrol alert to law enforcement in Philadelphia and New Jersey. Police in Woodbury, New Jersey, responded with a photograph of a man they believed matched the description. [Appellant] was arrested by the Washington Township Police Department on July 7, 2022, in New Jersey.

Detective Poulous introduced surveillance video that showed [Appellant] entering the Tinari Law Firm’s office building on July 5, 2022. [Appellant] did not testify.

The jury returned guilty verdicts on September 12, 2023, on all counts except for count one – rape with forcible compulsion.

On August 9, 2024, the Commonwealth and [Appellant’s] counsel presented experts on whether the sentencing court should designate [Appellant] a Sexually Violent Predator (“SVP”).

The Commonwealth called Dr. John Siegler. Dr. Siegler was appointed to the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board (“SOAB”) by the Governor in 2018. He testified he receives information enumerated by the sex offender registration statute to help him assess defendants. SOAB examiners assess from this information whether a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense is likely to engage in future predatory sexually violent offenses due to a mental abnormality or personality disorder.

Dr. Siegler considered 14 statutory factors:

The number of victims, whether the subject exceeded the means necessary to achieve the offense, the nature of the contact with the victim, relationship of the individual to the victim, whether they were acquainted or not, the age of the victim, whether there was unusual cruelty during the commission of the offense, the mental capacity of the victim, the prior offense history, whether the individual completed any prior sentences, whether the individual participated in available programs for sexual offenders, the age of the individual, mental illness or disability, and the behavioral characteristics that contribute to the individual's conduct.

-4- J-S47017-25

Dr. Siegler determined [Appellant] met both prongs of the SVP designation (mental abnormality and propensity). Dr. Siegler considered [Appellant’s] prior offense history. [Appellant] was 19 years old when his criminal record began and accrued more than 30 convictions over the ensuing 30 years. This criminal activity “constituted antisocial behavior over that period of time” and is “indicative of deeply ingrained and rigid dysfunctional thought process, a mental abnormality, that is the impetus for his [current] offending behavior.” Dr. Siegler believed [Appellant] “demonstrate[d] a limited capacity for relationships,” and a “lack of concern for others based on his repeated offending behavior, impulsivity, and poor problem solving.” Dr. Siegler then considered the relationship between [Appellant] and the victim. He concluded [Appellant] initiated contact with the victim “in order to exploit her for his sexual gratification.” Dr. Siegler concluded his SVP determination of [Appellant] was made to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty.

The court found that [Appellant] met the definition of a Sexually Violent Predator by clear and convincing evidence.

[Appellant] then addressed the court. He apologized to the victim’s family and expressed his years’ long battle with drugs and addiction. He asked for mercy.

The court [sentenced Appellant to serve an aggregate term of 15 to 30 years in prison, followed by five years of probation, for his crimes].

Trial Court Opinion, 5/12/25, at 1-8 (citations and some capitalization

omitted).

Following the denial of Appellant’s post-sentence motion by operation of

law, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant raises ten issues on

appeal:

[1.] Prior to trial, did the court improperly deny [Appellant’s] request for trial counsel to be removed due to irreconcilable differences and new counsel be appointed, and [Appellant]

-5- J-S47017-25

was forced to proceed to trial where he was found guilty of IDSI, burglary, robbery and related charges?

[2.] Did the court improperly make a finding that [Appellant] was a “sexually violent predator” where the record does not reflect that the standard of clear and convincing evidence was met where the court heard testimony of two experts with differing opinions on whether [Appellant] met the criteria required to be found a “sexually violent predator?”

[3.] Did the court err when it imposed an aggregate sentence of 15-30 years incarceration because the sentence was excessive, more than necessary to protect the public, punish the defendant and rehabilitate [Appellant]?

[4.] Did the court impermissibly factor at [Appellant’s] sentencing, the [Appellant’s] prior arrests that did not result in convictions, as well as including his status as a “sexually violent predator?”

[5.] Did the court err when it sentenced [Appellant] to aggravated sentences that ran consecutively due to the inflaming nature of the media coverage for this matter; the improper “victim impact” testimony under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9738 submitted by the Commonwealth before defense counsel could object; allowed testimony given by the victim’s employer; and the Commonwealth’s testimony that something may have happened during his juvenile years, but was lacking a scintilla of evidence. In addition, [the trial] court failed to fully weigh the considerable remorse [Appellant] showed during his allocution; his decades long battle with addiction; the system's inability to focus on his rehabilitative needs during his previous contacts; his abuse as a child; the mental health challenges he suffered through his life; lastly, but vitally, his significant attempts to make things right through the extraordinary mitigating factor?

[6.] Did the court err where the verdicts for all of the charges at trial were against the weight of the evidence and the court failed to award a new trial?

[7.] Did the court err when it improperly allowed the 911 audio tapes to be played in front of the jury and admitted as evidence because they we inadmissible as hearsay?

-6- J-S47017-25

[8.] Did the court err where it failed to set aside the verdict where the verdicts for all of the charges were insufficient?

[9.] Did the court err where it failed to grant the motion for mistrial either during trial or after trial?

[10.] Did the court err when it removed juror number seven and seated juror thirteen in their place after deliberations had begun?

Appellant’s Brief at 5-7.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified

record, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, the Honorable Christopher

R. Hall. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case, for

the reasons expressed in Judge Hall’s well-reasoned May 12, 2025 opinion.

Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Hall’s able opinion and adopt it as

our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling,

the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge Hall’s May 12, 2025 opinion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 3/9/2026

-7- Circulated Circulated02/26/2026 02/26/202601:37 :37PM 01.37 PM

Filed Filed FIRSTJUDICIAL FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICTOF OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA MAY 11222025 MAY 2025 COURT OF COMMON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OfficeofofJudicial Office Records JudicialRecords CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION AppealsUnit Appeals Unit

COMMONWEAL TH OF COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA 3338 EDA 3338 EDA 2024 2024

V. V. CP-51 -CR-0005859-2022 CP-51-CR-0005859-2022

WILLIE L.L. HARRIS WILLIE HARRIS

1925(a) OPINION IN 1925(a)OPINION IN SUPPORT SUPPORT OF OF ORDER ORDER Christopher R. Christopher Hall, J.J. R. Hall, J.

I.I.I. Introduction IIntroduction Defendant Willie Defendant Willie Harris Harris (“Harris") ("Harris") complains on appeal complains on appeal often of ten errors errors inin his his

conviction for conviction for deviate deviate sexual sexual intercourse intercourse and and related related crimes crimes of of violence violence committed committed

against aa 22-year-old against legal secretary 22-year-old legal secretary inin aa commercial commercial office office adjacent adjacent to to the the courthouse courthouse

inin Center Center City, City, Philadelphia, while the Philadelphia, while the secretary worked alone secretary worked alone during during her her lunch lunch hour. hour.

The appeal The appeal isis without without merit. merit. Harris’ Harris' conviction conviction and and sentence sentence should should be be affirmed. affirmed.

II. II. Procedural II. Procedural History Procedural History History The Commonwealth The Commonwealth charged charged Harris Harris with with rape rape by forcible compulsion, by forcible compulsion, involuntary involuntary

deviate sexual deviate intercourse by sexual intercourse by forcible forcible compulsion, compulsion, indecent indecent assault assault with with forcible forcible

compulsion, strangulation, compulsion, strangulation, burglary, criminal trespass, burglary, criminal trespass, robbery robbery immediate threatening immediate robbery threatening

serious bodily serious bodily injury, injury, robbery robbery threatening threatening immediate immediate bodily bodily injury, and robbery injury, and robbery by robbery by

committing or committing or threatening threatening to to commit commit involuntary deviate sexual involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. intercourse. Trial Trial

commenced on commenced on September September 6, 6, 2023. 2023. The The jury jury returned guilty verdicts on guilty verdicts on September 12, September 12,

2023, on 2023, 2023, all all counts on all except count count one except count counts except one (rape by forcible forcible compulsion). Tr. 9/12/2023 Tr. compulsion). Tr. at 9/12/2023 at at

20-22. The court 20-22. court sentenced Harris to 15 15 to 30 years followed by 5 years’ years' probation probation

supervised by supervised by the the State State Sex Sex Offender Offender Unit. Unit. 1 1.Matters III.Ill. MattersComplained ComplainedofofOn OnAppeal Appeal Harris Harriscomplains complainsoften of tenerrors, errors,suggesting suggestingbybythe thelong longlist listhat thatnone nonehave havemerit. merit.

He Heasserts assertsthe thetrial trialcourt ( 1)improperly court(1) (1) deniedhis improperlydenied hisrequest requestduring duringvoir voirdire direfor fornew newtrial trial

counsel; counsel;(2) (2)improperly improperlyfound foundHarris Harriswas wasa a"sexually "sexuallyviolent violentpredator” predator"atatsentencing; sentencing;(3) (3)

erroneously erroneouslyimposed imposeda asentence sentenceofof15-30 15-30years yearsimprisonment; imprisonment;(4) (4)impermissibly impermissibly

factored factoredHarris’ Harris'prior priorarrests arrestswhen whenimposing imposingsentence; sentence;(5) (5)impermissibly impermissiblyconsidered considered

mediareports media andvictim reportsand victimimpact impactestimony andfailed testimonyand failedtotoconsider considerHarris’ Harris'history with historywith

addiction addictionwhen whenimposing imposingthe thesentence; sentence;(6) (6)erroneously erroneouslydenied deniedaamotion motionfor fornew newtrial trial

basedon based onthe theweight weightofofthe theevidence; evidence;(7) (7)improperly permittedthe improperlypermitted theintroduction introductioninto into

evidenceofofaa91911 evidence call;(8) 1 call; (8)erroneously deniedaamotion erroneouslydenied motionfor fornew newtrial trialbased basedon on

insufficiencyofofevidence; insufficiency evidence;(9) (9)erroneously deniedaamotion erroneouslydenied motionfor formistrial, mistrial;and and(10) (10)

erroneously replacedaajuror erroneouslyreplaced withan jurorwith analternate alternateafter afterdeliberations deliberationsbegan. began.

IV. IV. Harris’ Harris' Request Requestfor for New New Counsel Counsel During During Jury Jury Selection Selection On OnSeptember September5,5, 2023, 2023, Harris Harris moved movedfor forappointment appointmentof ofnew newcounsel counsel before beforejury jury

selection selection began. began. Tr. Tr. 9/05/2023 9/05/2023 atat3-5. 3-5. Harris Harris sought soughttoto remove remove his his counsel, counsel, Mr. Mr. Julian Julian

Settles, Settles, because because Mr. Mr. Settles Settles had had told told him him the thejury jurywould would likely likely convict convict based based on on the the

overwhelming evidence overwhelming evidence (a (a DNA DNA match match and and video video surveillance). Id. at surveillance). Id. at 6-7. 6-7. Harris Harris

expressed expressed to to the the court court that that he he distrusted distrusted Mr. Mr. Settles Settles because because of ofthis this candid candid advice. advice. Id. Id.

at at 5-6. 5-6. Mr. Mr. Settles Settles responded responded that, that, “whether "whether aa defendant defendant or or client client isis guilty, guilty, or or innocent innocent

does does not not change change [his] [his] professionalism professionalism or or approach approach to to the the case” case" and and reiterated reiterated his his ability ability

to to provide provide competent competent representation representation at at trial. trial. Id. Id. at at 6. 6. Harris Harris protested protested that that Mr. Mr. Settles Settles

did not did not care care about about him. Id. at him. Id. Id. at 7. 7. Mr. Mr. Settles Settles stated, stated, “I"I do.” Id. do." Id. Id.

After After aa brief brief recess, recess, the the Court Court reviewed reviewed the the standard standard for for appointing appointing new new counsel counsel

and denied and denied the the motion. motion. The The court court explained that --- while explained that while the the conversation conversation between between Mr. Mr.

222 Settles Settlesand andHarris Harrismay mayhave havebeen been"difficult” "difficult"---Mr. Mr.Settles Settleshad haddemonstrated demonstrated

competence. competence. Id. Id.atat11. 11. The Thecourt courthad hadno nodoubt doubtMr. Mr.Settles Settleswould wouldhonor honorHarris’ Harris'desire desire

totogo gotototrial trialand andrepresent representhim himzealously. Id. zealously. Id. Id.

V. V. Evidence Evidence at atTrial Trial Trial Trialcommenced commencedon onSeptember September6,6,2023. 2023. The TheCommonwealth Commonwealthcalled calledthe thevictim victim

as asits itsfirst firstwitness. witness. Tr. Tr.9/6/2023 9/6/2023atat33. 33. The Thevictim victimexplained explained her herroles rolesand and

responsibilities responsibilitiesas asthe thelegal secretaryfor legalsecretary theTinari forthe Tinari Law Law Firm Firm located located atat 1313 1313 Race Race

Street, Street, inin Center CenterCity, City, Philadelphia, adjacenttotothe Philadelphia, adjacent theJuanita Juanita Kidd Kidd Stout Stout Center Centerfor for

Criminal Criminal Justice. Id. Justice. Id. ld. atat35-36. July5,5, 2022, On July 35-36. On July heday tthe 2022, the day before beforethe victim's 23 the victim’s victim's 23° rd

birthday, birthday, she shewas wasworking working alone alone inin an an interior interior office office inin the the early early afternoon afternoon when when she she

noticed noticed “out "out of ofthe the corner cornerof [her] eye, of[her] eye, [an [an unfamiliar man] leaning unfamiliar man] man) leaning over overthe the receptionist receptionist

counter.” Id. at counter." Id. Id. at44. The victim 44. The victim greeted him inin the greeted him the reception reception area, assuming he area, assuming he was was aa

client or needed client or help finding needed help finding where where to go. Id. to go. at 48. Id. at Id. Harris said 48. Harris he was said he was “looking "looking for for

someone someone named named Samantha.” Samantha." Id. Id. at at 49. 49. When When the the victim victim explained no one explained no worked there one worked there

by by that name, he that name, he “pushed "pushed passed [her] and passed [her] and started walking into started walking into Mr. Mr. Tinari’s Tinari's office.” office." Id. Id.

Harris was “very Harris was "very agitated” agitated" and and looked looked for for money money inin the the office. office. Id. Id. The The victim went into victim went into

survival survival mode mode and and offered offered Harris Harris her her earrings, earrings, AirPods, AirPods, aa coworker’s coworker's purse, purse, and and her her

backpack. Id. at backpack. Id. at 50, 50, 52. 52. Harris Harris refused refused and and instead instead made made the the victim victim put put her her phone phone

down down and and locked locked the the front front door door of of the the office. office. Id. Id.

Harris then Harris then hit hit the the victim victim across across her face with her face with both both an an open open hand hand and and closed closed fist. fist.

Id. Id. at at 52. 52. She She pleaded pleaded with with him stop and to stop him to and told told him him people people would would return return at at any minute. minute.

Id. at Id. 53. When at 53. she screamed When she for help, screamed for help, Harris Harris told he would told he kill her would kill her ifif she called out she called out

again. Harris again. Harris then then strangled her several strangled her several times times to to the the point point where her vision where her blurred. Id. vision blurred. Id.

at 53, at 53, 54. 54.

33 Harris Harristhreatened threatenedtotokill killher herand andforced forcedher hertotoperform performoral oralsex sexon onhim, him,holding holding

her herwrists wristsdown downwhile whilehe hepulled pulledhis pantsdown. hispants down. Id, Id.atat55. 55. He Hethen thenforced forcedhis penisinto hispenis into

her hermouth. Id.atat56. mouth. Id. Id. 56. Harris Harristhen thenchanged changedcourse coursebecause "hedidn’t because“he didn'tlike likeit.” it." He Hetook took

off offthe victim'spants. thevictim’s Id.atat57-58. pants. Id. Id. Thevictim 57-58. The victimfelt felt“humiliated” "humiliated"and andcontinued continuedtotobeg beghim him

stop. totostop. Id.atat59. stop. Id. 59. Harris Harristhrew hertotothe threwher thefloor andforced floorand forcedhis penis into hispenis intoher hervagina. Id. vagina. Id. Id.

The Thevictim’s co-workerreturned victim'sco-worker returnedtotothe officefrom theoffice fromher lunch break herlunch breakatatthat thatpoint, point,which which

spooked Harrisand spooked Harris and prompted himtotoleave. prompted him leave. Id. Id. atat60-62. 60-62.

The Thevictim, victim, still still on onthe thefloor floorand andtrying trying totoget gether herpants pants back backon, on, begged begged her her

coworker coworkerto to call call 91 911 because becauseshe "justgot she“just "just raped." Id. got raped.” Id. at at63. 63. After Afterthe the police police arrived, arrived,

the thevictim victimwas was taken taken to toThomas Thomas Jefferson Jefferson Hospital, Hospital, where where she she was was given given penicillin penicillin and and

evaluated evaluated for for about about six six hours. hours. Id. Id. at at 67. 67. She She spoke spoke with with two two detectives detectives and and signed signed aa

statement. Id. statement. Id. at at 68. 68. The The victim victim never consented to never consented to oral oral or or vaginal vaginal sex. sex. She She tried tried to to

return to return to work work but but never never again again felt felt comfortable going to comfortable going to that that law law firm. firm. Id. Id. at at 71 71, 72. 72.

Kaisa Codner, Kaisa an intern Codner, an at the intern at Tinari firm, the Tinari she left testified she firm, testified on July office on the office left the July 5,5, July

2022, for 2022, about 20 for about minutes to 20 minutes to get get lunch lunch inin the afternoon. Id. early afternoon. the early at 95-96, Id. at 95-96, 101. 101. When When

she returned, the she returned, the door door was locked. Id. unexpectedly locked. was unexpectedly at 102. Id. at 102. She She unlocked unlocked the the door door

and and took took her lunch to her lunch to the the conference room and conference room and at at that that point heard the point heard the door door from from Mr. Mr.

Tinari’s Tinari's office office open. open. Id. Id. at at 103. 103. She She saw saw aa man man leave leave the the office office and and recognized recognized him. him.

She She had had seen seen him him lingering lingering outside outside the building when the building building when she she left left for for lunch. lunch. Id. Id. at at 103, 103, 104. 104.

She She then then found found the the victim victim on on the the floor floor crying crying hysterically. Id. at hysterically. Id. at 103. 103. The The victim’s victim's

clothes clothes were were mostly mostly off, off, her her hair was messy, hair was messy, and and she looked scared. she looked scared. Id. Id. at at 104. 104. The The

victim told victim told her her that that she she had had been been raped and begged raped and begged Ms. Ms. Codner Codner to to lock lock the the door door and and

call 911. call Id. At 911. Id. At 105. 105.

4 4 The TheCommonwealth playedthe Commonwealthplayed the91 911 call callfor forthe jury. Id. thejury. Id. atat 108. The 108. Thedefense defensedid did

notobject. not object.

James Owen, James Owen, aa registered sexualassault registered sexual assaultnurse nurseexaminer, examiner, testified testified he heexamined examined

thevictim the victim on on July July5,5, 2022, July 2022, atat 9:31 9:31 PM PM atatthe the Sexual SexualAssault Assault Response Response Center, Center, and andtook took

rape kitspecimens. rape kit at 147-149, Id. at specimens. Id. 147-149, 155-56. 155-56.

Jean Hess, Jean Hess, aa Forensic Forensic Scientist Scientist 33 with with the the Philadelphia Philadelphia Police Police Department Department Office Office

of Forensic of Forensic Sciences, Sciences, analyzed the DNA analyzed the DNAsamples collected from samples collected from the the investigation, investigation,

including: the interior including: the interior and and exterior exterior crotch crotch area area of of Harris’ Harris' pants, pants, the the interior interior and and exterior exterior

crotch area crotch area of ofthe the victim’s victim's underwear, underwear, the the TD TD Bank Bank bag recovered from bag recovered from the the Tinari Tinari

Office, and the Office, and the desk desk from from the the Tinari Tinari Office. Office. Tr. Tr. 9/7/2023 9/7/2023 at at 55, 55, 59, 59, 60, 60, 67, 67, 68. 68. Hess Hess

also examined DNA also examined DNA samples from the samples from the victim’s victim's rape rape kit. kit. Id. Id. at 61-62. Id. at to able to was able Hess was 61-62. Hess

conclude to conclude to aa reasonable reasonable degree of medical degree of medical certainty certainty that that the the DNA DNA found found on on the the interior interior

and exterior and exterior crotch crotch area area of of Harris’ Harris' pants pants matched matched the the victim’s victim's DNA. DNA. ItIt was was “1"119.8

quadrillion times more quadrillion times more likely” that the likely" that the DNA DNA on on Harris’ Harris' clothes clothes came came from from the the victim victim as as

opposed to another opposed to another random random unrelated unrelated individual individual inin the the Caucasian Caucasian population. at 68. Id. at population. Id. 68.

Detective Enz Detective Enz offered offered into into evidence evidence photos photos he he had had taken taken of of the the victim’s victim's neck neck that that

showed red showed red scratch scratch marks. marks. Id. at 121. Id. at 121.

Detective Modres Detective Modres testified testified he he sent sent aa patrol patrol alert alert to to law law enforcement enforcement in in

Philadelphia and Philadelphia and New New Jersey. at 208-209, Id. at Jersey. Id. 208-209, 211. 211. Police Police in in Woodbury, New Jersey, Woodbury, New Jersey,

responded with responded with aa photograph of aa man photograph of man they believed matched they believed matched the the description. at Id. at description. Id.

210. Harris was 210. was arrested by the Washington Police Department Washington Township Police Department on July 7, 7,

2022, in 2022, in New New Jersey. at 213-214. Id. at Jersey. Id. 213-214.

55 Detective DetectivePoulous Poulousintroduced introducedsurveillance surveillancevideo videothat thatshowed showedHarris Harrisentering enteringthe the

Tinari TinariLaw LawFirm’s Firm'soffice officebuilding buildingon onJuly July5,5,2022. 2022. Tr. Tr.9/7/2023 9/7/2023atat51-52. 51-52.

Harris Harrisdid didnot nottestify. Id.atat88-98. testify. Id. Id. 88-98.

Thejury The juryreturned returnedguilty verdictson guiltyverdicts onSeptember 12,2023, September12, 2023, on onall allcounts countsexcept for exceptfor

count countone—rape one-rapewith forciblecompulsion. withforcible compulsion. compulsion. Tr. 9/12/2023atat20-22. Tr. 9/12/2023 20-22.

VI. Sentencing VI. Sentencing On OnAugust August9,9, 2024, 2024,the theCommonwealth Commonwealth and and Defense Defense Counsel Counsel presented presented experts experts

onwhether on on whether thesentencing whetherthe the sentencing court should designate courtshould court should SexuallyViolent Harris aaa Sexually designate Harris Harris Sexually Violent Predator Violent Predator Predator

(“SVP”). ("SVP"). Sentencing Sentencing Transcript at5.5. Transcriptatat 5.

The The Commonwealth Commonwealth called called Dr. Dr. John John Siegler. Siegler. Dr. Dr. Siegler Sieglerwas was appointed tothe appointed to the

Sexual Sexual Offenders Offenders Assessment Assessment Board ("SOAB") by Board (“SOAB”) (SOAB") the Governor bythe 2018. Id. Governor inin 2018. Id. at Id. at23. 23. He He

testified testified he receives testified he he receives information enumerated information enumerated receives information by the enumerated by by the sex the sex offender sex offender to statute to registration statute offender registration registration statute to

help him help assess defendants. him assess defendants. Id. Id. at at 23. 23. SAOB examiners assess SAOB examiners assess from from this information this information

whether aaa person whether whether who has person who who has been convicted of been convicted has been convicted of aaa sexually of violent offense sexually violent violent is likely offense isis offense to likely to to

engage inin future engage predatory sexually future predatory predatory sexually violent violent offenses offenses due due to to aa mental mental abnormality abnormality or or

personality personality disorder. Id. at disorder. Id. Id. at 27. 27.

Dr. Dr. Siegler Siegler considered considered 14 14 statutory statutory factors: factors:

The The number number of of victims, victims, whether whether the the subject subject exceeded exceeded the the means means necessary achieve nature necessary to achieve the offense, the nature of the contact with to the offense, the of the contact with the the victim, victim, relationship relationship ofof the the individual individual toto the the victim, victim, whether whether they they were were acquainted acquainted or whether or not, the age of the victim, whether there was unusual cruelty during not, the age of the victim, there was unusual cruelty during the during the commission the commission of the offense, the mental capacity of the offense, mental victim, the capacity of the victim, the prior of the prior offense history, whether the individual completed any prior sentences, offense history, whether the individual completed any prior sentences, whether the individual whether the participated in individual participated in available programs for available programs for sexual sexual offenders, offenders, the the age age of of the the individual, individual, mental mental illness illness or or disability, disability, and and the the behavioral characteristics contribute individual's behavioral characteristics that contribute to the individual’s conduct. that to the conduct. Id. at Id. at 28. 28.

6 6 Dr. Dr.Siegler Sieglerdetermined determinedHarris Harrismet metboth prongsofofthe bothprongs theSVP SVPdesignation (mental designation(mental

abnormality abnormalityand andpropensity). propensity). Dr. Dr.Siegler Sieglerconsidered consideredHarris’ Harris'prior prioroffense offensehistory. Id.atat history. Id.Id.

31. 31. Harris was1919years Harriswas yearsold oldwhen whenhis hiscriminal criminalrecord recordbegan beganand andaccrued accruedmore than3030 morethan

convictions convictionsover overthe theensuing ensuing30 years. Id.Id.atat31-32. 30years. 31-32. This Thiscriminal criminalactivity activity“constituted "constituted

antisocialbehavior antisocial behaviorover thatperiod overthat time"and periodofoftime” andisis“indicative "indicativeofofdeeply ingrainedand deeplyingrained and

rigiddysfunctional rigid dysfunctionalthought process,aamental thoughtprocess, mentalabnormality, thatisisthe abnormality,that impetusfor theimpetus his forhis

[current] behavior." Id. offendingbehavior.” [current]offending Id.atat33. Id. 33. Dr. Dr.Siegler believedHarris Sieglerbelieved Harris“demonstrate[d] "demonstrate[d]aa

limited limitedcapacity forrelationships,” capacityfor relationships," and "lackofofconcern andaa“lack concernfor forothers othersbased basedon onhis his

repeated repeatedoffending offendingbehavior, behavior, impulsivity, impulsivity,and poorproblem andpoor problemsolving.” solving." Id. Id.atat35. 35. Dr. Dr.

Siegler thenconsidered Sieglerthen consideredthe therelationship relationshipbetween between Harris Harrisand thevictim. andthe victim. Id. Id. Id. atat38. 38. He He

concluded concluded Harris initiatedcontact Harrisinitiated contactwith thevictim withthe victim“in "inorder ordertotoexploit exploither forhis herfor hissexual sexual

gratification.” gratification." Id. Id. Dr. Dr. Siegler Sieglerconcluded concluded his hisSVP SVPdetermination determination of ofHarris was made Harriswas madetoto aa

reasonable reasonabledegree degreeof ofpsychological psychological certainty. certainty. Id. Id. atat41; 41; Commonwealth Commonwealth Exh. Exh. C-1, C-1,

"SexualViolent “Sexual Violent Predator PredatorAssessment-Revised" at 13. Assessment-Revised" at 13.

The court The The court found that courtfound found that Harris that Harris met Harris met metthe the definition the definition ofaaa Sexually of definition of Violent Predator Sexually Violent Violent Predator by Predator by

clear and clear evidence. Id. convincing evidence. and convincing Id. at at 102. 102.

Harris then addressed Harris then addressed the court. Id. the court. Id. at 131. He at 131. He apologized apologized to to the victim's family the victim’s family

and and expressed expressed his his years’ years' long long battle battle with with drugs drugs and and addiction. Id. addiction. Id. Id. at 131-132. He at 131-132. He

asked for mercy. asked for Id. at mercy. Id. Id. 133. at 133.

The The court court imposed imposed the the following following sentence: sentence: Involuntary Involuntary Deviate Deviate Sexual Sexual

Intercourse—10 to 20 lntercourse-10 to years imprisonment; 20 years imprisonment; Robbery Robbery counts, counts, all— all-110Oto to 20 years, 20 years,

concurrent; concurrent; Strangulation—5 to 10 Strangulation-5 to years, consecutive; 10 years, consecutive; Criminal Criminal Trespass—3 and-a-half Trespass-3 and-a-half

to to 77 years, concurrent with years, concurrent with the the strangulation strangulation sentence; sentence; followed by aa consecutive followed by consecutive term term

77 ofof55years onthe probationon years probation theconviction convictionfor forIndecent IndecentAssault by Assaultby Id. atat 135-136. Force .. Id. byForce.. 135-136.

This resulted This resulted inin an an aggregate sentenceof aggregatesentence of15-30 15-30years years imprisonment imprisonmentfollowed followed by by55

years probation. Id. years probation. at 136. Id. at 136.

V. Discussion V. Discussion A. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its NotAbuse Did Not Court Did Trial Court The Trial A. The A. Abuse Its Discretion Its Discretion Denied When ItItIt Denied When Discretion When Harris' Denied Harris’ Request Harris' Request Request for New Counsel for New Counsel on on the the Day Day of ofTrial Trial Appellate courts Appellate courts apply an abuse applyan abuse of apply ofdiscretion discretion standard standard when when reviewing reviewing aatrial trial

court's refusal court’s refusal to to appoint appoint new new counsel. Commonwealth v.v. Wright, counsel. Commonwealth Wright, 961 961 A.2d A.2d 119, 119, 134 134

(Pa. (Pa. 2008); Commonwealth v.v. Spotz, 2008); Commonwealth 756 A.2d Spatz, 756 A.2d 1139, 1139, 1150 1150 (Pa. (Pa. 2000); Commonwealth 2000); Commonwealth

v.v. Tyler, 360 A.2d Tyler, 360 A.2d 617, 617, 619 619 (Pa. (Pa. 1976). “Where, (Pa. 1976). here, there as here, "Where, as there isis no no dispute dispute that thattrial trial

counsel isis fully counsel to proceed prepared to fully prepared proceed with trial proceed with trial and and isis competent, competent, appointment appointment of of new new

counsel isis required counsel required only where irreconcilable only where irreconcilable differences differences between between the the defendant defendant and and

counsel are counsel are shown.” Commonwealth v.v. Floyd, shown." Commonwealth 937 A.2d Floyd, 937 A.2d 494, 494, 497 497 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2007); 2007); Pa. Pa.

R. R. Crim. Crim. P. 122(C). Indigent P. 122(C). Indigent defendants defendants are are entitled entitled to to free free counsel counsel but but not not to to free free

counsel of counsel of their their own own choosing. Commonwealth v.v. Cook, choosing. Commonwealth Cook, 952 952 A.2d A.2d 594, 594, 610 610 (Pa. 2008); (Pa. 2008);

citing Commonwealth v.v. Chumley, citing Commonwealth Chumley, 394 394 A.2d A.2d 497, 497, 507 507 n.3 n.3 (Pa. (Pa. 1978). 1978).

The question The question whether whether irreconcilable irreconcilable differences differences exist exist depends depends on on three three factors: factors:

"(1) the “(1) extent of the extent of the the conflict; conflict; (2) the adequacy (2) the of the adequacy of court's inquiry the court’s conflict; and the conflict; into the inquiry into and

(3) the (3) the timeliness timeliness of of the the defendant’s defendant's motion motion for for new new counsel.” Commonwealth v.v. Cook, counsel." Commonwealth Cook,

952 A.2d 952 A.2d 594, 594, 613 613 (Pa. (Pa. 2008). 2008). Notably, "general misgivings” Notably, “general about the misgivings" about the extent extent of of aa

lawyer's preparation lawyer’s preparation does does not not qualify as as an an irreconcilable irreconcilable difference. difference. Id. Id.

Here, the record does Here, does not not support support support a finding finding that that the trial trial court court abused abused its

discretion when when it refused to appoint appoint new counsel counsel on the day of of trial. trial. Harris had

previously objected to his first-appointed counsel counsel because she was was a woman. woman. Tr. Tr.

9/05/2023 at at 8-9. 8-9. After After the Defenders replaced his first attorney with Mr. Mr. Settles, Settles, Harris 8 waited until waited untilthe theday dayofoftrial trialtotoobject. Id. atat4-5. object. Id. 4-5. Harris Harrisdid did not notobject objectbecause becauseMr. Mr.

Settleswas Settles was unprepared. He objected unprepared. He because Mr. objected because Mr. Settles Settles had had given given him him an an honest honest

opinion based opinion based on on years based on of years of professionalexperience ofprofessional experience of experienceof how ofhow the howthe would jurywould thejury the weighthe wouldweigh the

evidence. Id. evidence. at 11. Id. at 11. There Therewas was no no indication indication Mr. Mr. Settles Settles---having having given given his his professional professional

opinion and having opinion and received Harris having received Harris directive directiveto to proceed totrial proceed to trial---would would not notzealously zealously

represent his represent his client. court trial court Thetrial client. The his client. The trial did courtdid not did not abuse not abuse its abuse its discretion its discretion denied when itititdenied when discretion when Harris' denied Harris’ Harris'

request for new requestfor new counsel counsel on on the the day day of oftrial. trial.

B. The B. The Sentencing Court Properly Sentencing Court Properly Designated Harris aa Sexually Designated Harris Violent Predator Sexually Violent Predator Appellate courts apply Appellate courts apply aa “clear "clear and and convincing convincing evidence” evidence" standard standard when when

reviewing aa sentencing reviewing court's designation sentencing court’s ofaa defendant designation of defendant as as aa Sexually Sexually Violent Violent

Predator Commonwealth v.v. Flacks, ("SVP"). Commonwealth Predator (“SVP”). 331 A.3d Flacks, 331 A.3d 687, 687, 692 692 (Pa. (Pa. Super.2025). Super.2025).

Sentencing Courts are Sentencing Courts are charged charged with with designating designating aa defendant defendant as as an an “SVP” "SVP" ififthe the

sentencing court finds sentencing court finds by clear and by clear and convincing evidence that convincing evidence that the the defendant defendant (a) (a) suffers suffers

from aa mental from mental abnormality or personality abnormality or disorder that personality disorder that (b) (b) makes makes them them likely likely to engage likely to engage

inin predatory predatory sexually violent offenses. sexually violent offenses. Id. Id.

Here, the Here, the sentencing court properly sentencing court properly designated Harris an designated Harris an SVP. SVP. SAOB SAOB Expert Expert Dr. Dr.

Siegler testified Siegler testified that that Harris’ Harris' criminal criminal history, history, “deeply "deeply ingrained and rigid ingrained and dysfunctional rigid dysfunctional

thought process,” thought process," limited limited capacity capacity for for relationships, relationships, lack lack of of concern concern for for others others based based on on

repeated offending repeated behavior, impulsivity, offending behavior, and non-existent impulsivity, and non-existent prior prior relationship relationship to to the the victim victim

supported his supported his SVP SVP designation. designation. Id. at 31-33, Id. at Id. 31-33, 35. 35. Dr. Dr. Siegler underscored that Siegler underscored that Harris Harris

had sexually assaulted a stranger had impulsively as he roamed stranger impulsively roamed through through aa commercial commercial

office building office building initially initially intending on on only theft. Id. only theft. at 37-38. Id. at 37-38.

9 C. C. Sentencing Sentencing Harris cobbles Harris cobbles together together aa hodgepodge hodgepodge of of complaints complaints about about the the sentence sentence

imposed, imposed, suggesting suggesting none none have have merit. He claims merit. He claims the the trial trial court court erroneously erroneously imposed imposed a a

sentence of sentence of 15-30 15-30 years years imprisonment, imprisonment, impermissibly impermissibly considered considered Harris’ prior arrests, Harris' prior arrests,

impermissibly impermissibly considered considered media media reports and victim reports and victim impact testimony, and impact testimony, and failed failed to to

consider Harris’ history consider Harris' history with with addiction addiction as as aa mitigating mitigating factor. factor. These These arguments arguments fail. fail.

"It is "It is well well established established that that the the Sentencing Sentencing Guidelines Guidelines are are purely purely advisory" advisory" and and are are

"only one “only one factor factor the the court court may may consider consider in in imposing imposing a a sentence.” sentence." Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v.

Yhasz, 923 Yhasz, 923 A.2d 1111, 1118 A.2d 1111, 1118 (Pa. (Pa. 2007). 2007). "Bald "Bald allegations allegations of of excessiveness, excessiveness,

unaccompanied unaccompanied by by a a plausible plausible argument argument that the sentence that the sentence imposed imposed violated violated a a provision provision

of of the the Sentencing Sentencing Code Code or or is is contrary contrary to to the the fundamental fundamental norms norms underlying underlying the the

sentencing sentencing scheme, scheme, are are insufficient insufficient to to raise raise a a substantial substantial question." question." Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. v.

Lee, Lee, 876 A.2d 408, 876 A.2d 408, 412 412 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2005). 2005). A A victim victim impact impact statement, statement, moreover, moreover, may may

be presented before be presented before sentencing sentencing to to detail detail "the "the physical, physical, psychological, psychological, and and economic economic

effects of effects of the the crime crime on on the the victim and the victim and the victim's victim's family." family." Commonwealth v. Eldred, Commonwealth v. v. Eldred, 207 207

A.3d 404, A.3d 404, 408 408 (Pa. (Pa. Super.2019), Super.2019), quoting quotig v. King, Commonwealth v. n Commonwealth v. King, 182 182 A.3d A.3d 449, 449, 455 455

(Pa. Super. (Pa. 2018). Super. 2018).

The court The court considered considered both both aggravating aggravating and and mitigating mitigating factors factors when when sentencing sentencing

Harris. Sentencing Harris. Sentencing at at 133-134. 133-134. The The court court also also considered considered the the SVP SVP designation, the designation, the

time of day, time of day, and and the the impact impact on on the the victim. Id. The victim. Id. The victim victim slept slept with with aa weapon weapon after she after she

was assaulted. was assaulted. Id. Id. at at 115-116. 115-116. Her Her anxiety anxiety frayed her relationships frayed her with her relationships with her family. Id. family. Id.

at 116-117. She at 116-117. She can can no no longer longer work work in in the city. Id. the city. Id. at at 1 17. Harris 117. Harris destroyed destroyed the the

victim's life. victim’s life. Id. Id. The The court court did did not not abuse its discretion abuse its discretion in in sentencing sentencing Harris Harris to to 15 15 to to 30 30

years imprisonment years imprisonment followed followed by by 55 years years of of probation. probation. Id. Id. at 136. at 136.

10 10 10 D. Complaints about D. Complaints about the the Evidence Evidence The The court court is is reminded reminded of of Judge Aldisert’s pithy Judge Aldisert's pithy observation observation about about appeals appeals that that

raise as many raise as many as as six, six, seven, seven, eight, nine, and eight, nine, and ten ten issues: issues: “it "it is is rare rare that that aa brief brief

successfully successfully demonstrates demonstrates that that the the trial trial court court committed committed more more than than one one or or two two reversible reversible

errors... errors ... [WJhen [W]hen II read read an an appellant’s appellant's brief that contains brief that contains ten ten or or twelve twelve points, points, aa

presumption presumption arises arises that that there there is is no no merit to any merit to any of of them.” Commonwealth v. them." Commonwealth v. Showers, Showers,

782 A.2d 782 A.2d 1010, 1010, 1016 1016 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2001) (quoting United 2001) (quoting United States States v. v. Hart, Hart, 693 693 F.2d F.2d 286, 286,

287 n. 287 n. 11(3d (3d Cir.1982)). Cir.1982)).

Harris Harris complains complains about about the the weight, weight, nature, nature, and and sufficiency sufficiency of of the the evidence. evidence.

These These arguments arguments are are without without merit. merit. The The verdict verdict was was not not against against the the weight weight of the of the

evidence. A evidence. A verdict verdict is is against against the weight of the weight the evidence of the evidence only only where where itit is is so so contrary contrary to to

the evidence the evidence that that itit “shocks "shocks the the trial trial court’s court's sense sense of of justice." justice." Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v.

Clemons, 200 A.3d Clemons, 200 A.3d 441 441,, 463 (Pa. 463 (Pa. 2019). 2019). "Because "Because the the trial trial judge judge has has the the opportunity opportunity to to

hear hear and and see see evidence evidence presented, presented, an an appellate appellate court will give court will give the the gravest gravest consideration consideration

to the to the findings findings and and reasons reasons advanced advanced by by the the trial trial judge” judge" in in analyzing analyzing whether whether the the verdict verdict

went against went against the the weight weight of of the the evidence. evidence. Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Clay, Clay, 64 64 A.3d A.3d 1049, 1055 1049, 1055

(Pa. 2013); (Pa. 2013); quoting quoting Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Widmer, Widmer, 744 744 A.2d A.2d 745, 753 (Pa. 745, 753 (Pa. 2000). 2000).

Here, the DNA Here, the DNA match, match, the the surveillance surveillance video video that that depicted depicted Harris, Harris, and and the the

victim’s victim's credible credible testimony testimony about about how how he he forced forced her her to to engage engage in in deviate deviate sexual sexual

intercourse support intercourse support the the verdict. verdict. ItIt was was just just and and did did not not shock shock the the trial trial judge’s judge's

conscience. Tr. conscience. Tr. 9/6/2023 9/6/2023 at at 49, 49, 50-52, 50-52, 55-62, 55-62, 147, 147, 155, 155, 156, 156, 160; 160; Tr. Tr. 9/7/2023 at 59, 9/7/2023 at 59,

67-68; Tr. 67-68; Tr. 9/12/2023 9/12/2023 at at 20-29. 20-29.

Harris next Harris next complains complains the the court court improperly improperly allowed allowed the the District District Attorney Attorney to to play play

the 9111 call the 91 call to to the the jury. jury. Harris Harris did not object did not object at at trial. trial. The The issue issue is waived on is waived on appeal. appeal.

11 11 11 Commonwealth, Commonwealth. v. Commonwealth. v. Piper, v. Piper, 328 A.2d 845, 328 A.2d 845, 847 845, 847 (Pa. (Pa. 1974) (Pa. 1974) (issues not 1974) (issues not raised at not raised at trial trial trial cannot cannot cannot

be be raised raised for for first time on first time on appeal); Pa. R.A.P. appeal); Pa. R.A.P. §302. §302.

Harris Harris also also complains also the the court complains the court erred court erred where where itit failed failed to failed to set to set aside set aside the aside the verdicts for the verdicts for

insufficient insufficient evidence. insufficient evidence. When evidence. When considering When considering aa sufficiency of evidence claim, of evidence sufficiency of claim, appellate claim, appellate

courts courts determine determine whether whether all whether all the all the evidence evidence admitted admitted at at trial at trial and trial and all all reasonable all reasonable

inferences, inferences, taken inferences, taken in in light in light most most favorable most favorable to to the the Commonwealth, Commonwealth, could Commonwealth, could allow allow the allow the

factfinder to factfinder to find to each element find each find element of element of the of the offenses offenses beyond reasonable doubt. beyond aa reasonable doubt. doubt.

Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. Hodge, v. Hodge, 658 658 A.2d A.2d 386, 386, 387 386, 387 (Pa. Super. 1995) (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 1995) (citing 1995) (citing Commonwealth (citing Commonwealth Commonwealth

v. v. Jackson, Jackson, 485 485 A.2d A.2d 1102, 1102, 1103 1103 (Pa. (Pa. 1984)). 1984)). For For the the reasons reasons set set forth forth above above in in the the

weight weight of of the the evidence evidence discussion, discussion, Harris’ Harris' appeal appeal for for insufficiency insufficiency is is without without merit. merit.

E. Mistrial E. E. Mistrial Harris’ Harris' alleges alleges the the Court Court erred erred by by not not granting granting aa motion motion for for mistrial. mistrial. Harris Harris filed filed aa

pro se motion prose motion for for mistrial mistrial on on February February 27, 27, 2024 2024 - -- five five months months after after his his trial trial concluded. concluded.

The The motion motion (a) (a) rehashes rehashes his his complaints complaints about about the the court’s court's refusal refusal to to appoint appoint new new counsel counsel

on on the the eve eve of of trial trial and and (b) (b) asserts asserts trial trial counsel counsel was was ineffective ineffective during during the the trial. trial. The The court court

addresses addresses above above Harris’ Harris' complaint complaint about about the the court’s court's refusal refusal to to appoint appoint new new counsel counsel on on

the the eve eve of of trial. trial. Harris’ Harris' complaint complaint about about the the ineffectiveness ineffectiveness of of trial trial counsel counsel during during the the

trial trial must must wait wait for for PCRA PCRA review. review. See See Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Watson, Watson, 310 310 A.3d A.3d 307, 307, 310-1 310-111

(Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct 2024) 2024) (trial (trial and and appellate appellate courts courts should should generally generally not not entertain entertain claims claims of of

ineffectiveness ineffectiveness on on direct direct appeal). appeal).

F. F. The The Seating Seating of of An An Alternate Alternate Juror Juror Lastly, Harris complains the trial Lastly, Harris complains the trial court court improperly improperly sat sat an an alternate alternate juror. juror. Harris Harris

failed failed to to object object after after the the court court interviewed interviewed the the original original juror. juror. The The issue issue is is waived. waived.

12 12 12 On On Friday, Friday, September September 8, 8, 2023, 2023, after after approximately approximately¾% of of aa day day of of deliberations, deliberations,

the jury the jury informed informed the the court court itit wanted wanted to return Monday to return Monday but but that that one one of of the the jurors jurors -- juror juror 77

-- had had aa conflict. conflict. The The court court informed informed Harris Harris outside outside the the presence presence of of the the jury jury that that there there

were two were two options: options: replace replace juror juror 77 with with the alternate, juror the alternate, juror 13, 13, or or delay delay the the trial trial until until juror juror

77 could could return. return. Harris Harris initially initially expressed expressed aa preference preference to to postpone postpone the the trial trial until until juror juror 77

could could return. return. Tr. Tr. 9/8/23 9/8/23 at at 22. 22. The The court court then then interviewed interviewed juror juror 77 in in Harris’ Harris' presence presence

and and discerned discerned juror juror 77 could could not not return return until until the the following following Thursday. Thursday. Id. Id. at at 24. 24. The The court court

decided decided under under that that circumstance circumstance to to excuse excuse juror juror 77 and and seat seat jury jury 13. Harris 13. Harris did did not not

object. object. Id. Id. at at 25. 25. Any Any issue issue pertaining to to the the seating of of the the alternate alternate is is waived waived on on

appeal. appeal.

VI. VI. Conclusion Conclusion

For For the the reasons reasons set set forth forth above, above, the the Court Court should should affirm affirm the the judgment judgment of of conviction conviction and and

sentence. sentence.

BY BY THE THE COURT: COURT: COURT:

Christopher Christopher R. R. Hall, R. Hall, J. J. J.

13 13 13