J-S32009-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SYLVESTER LEWIS : : Appellant : No. 2645 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 23, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0003949-2014
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED AUGUST 15, 2019
Appellant, Sylvester Lewis, appeals from the June 23, 2017 judgment
of sentence following his conviction by a jury of three counts of rape of a
child.1 We affirm.
The trial court summarized the facts of the case as follows:
In December of 2013 [S.H.] walked in on [seven-year-old S.M. (“Victim”),] on top of her [six-year-old] son in a sexual position, while [Victim] was spending the night. Due to [Victim’s] age, [S.H.] told [D.M., S.M.’s mother (“Mother”),] who then questioned her daughter about where she had learned this behavior. [Victim] told [M]other that [Appellant], her [relative], had been raping her. [Mother] then took [Victim] to the Crozier Hospital in Chester Pennsylvania, who directed [Mother] to the Children & Youth Services Center (CYS). CYS Doctor Josephine
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(c). J-S32009-19
Parker (at the time Josephine Morales)[2] examined [Victim]. Ms. Parker recommended [Victim] see a specialist in child sexual assault examinations. Dr. June Messam, a specialist in child sexual abuse examinations, examined [Victim] and found an absence of almost all of [Victim’s] hymenal tissue, consistent with repeated penetration of the vagina over an extended period of time.
Officer Robert Graves of the Chester Police Department, Juvenile Division, received this case from the Crozier Hospital where [Victim] was initially admitted. Officer Graves and Josephine Morales conducted a joint interview of [Victim] at the CYS Center. After this interview, Officer Graves received a warrant and conducted a search for [Appellant]. [Appellant] was discovered at his residence and was brought to the Chester Police Station, where Officer Graves and Officer Jones conducted an interview of [Appellant]. [Appellant] was then booked and put into holding.
Trial Court Opinion, 7/13/18, at unnumbered 1–2 (internal citations to the
record omitted).
A criminal complaint was filed against Appellant on January 2, 2014.
The trial court entertained myriad pretrial motions including, inter alia, a
motion to suppress with a suppression hearing, motions in limine, motions to
dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, and motions for new counsel. A jury
trial ensued, and on January 13, 2017, the jury convicted Appellant as
described supra. On June 23, 2017, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an
aggregate sentence of sixty to 120 years of incarceration. Post sentence
2 Testimony established that Delaware County Children and Youth Services (“CYS”) caseworker Josephine Morales recently married and changed her name to Josephine Parker. N.T., 1/12/17, at 60–61. Both the trial court and Appellant refer to her as Josephine Parker. We also utilize her married surname.
-2- J-S32009-19
motions were filed and denied, and Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
A. Was the verdict against the weight of the evidence presented at trial where the evidence was so inconsistent that a verdict of guilt could not be reached?
B. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by preventing [Appellant’s] trial counsel from cross-examining or impeaching Josephine Parker (Morales) with the prior statements given by [Victim] where Ms. Parker testified that the statements given by [Victim] during the investigation were similar, despite there being inconsistencies in the statements?
C. Did the trial court commit an error of law by denying the motion for a mistrial where the observers were making visible gestures during [Victim’s] testimony and had conversation with her during a court break, while she was still an active witness on the witness stand?
D. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it sentenced [Appellant] to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 60 to 120 years incarceration where the sentence is above the guidelines and the trial court did not follow the dictates of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b)?
Appellant’s Brief at 5–6 (Issues A and D reordered).
Appellant asserts that his three convictions for rape of a child are against
the weight of the evidence. Appellant’s Brief at 24. He maintains that Victim’s
testimony was incredible and that the record is devoid of any corroborating
evidence. Id. at 10, 25. He argues that statements of the examining
physicians contradicted each other, as did testimony of Victim, Mother, and
S.H. Id. at 26–27.
-3- J-S32009-19
We have held that a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the
verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence “concedes that there is
sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict.” Commonwealth v. Rayner, 153
A.3d 1049, 1054 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. Widmer,
744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000)). Our Supreme Court has described the
standard applied to a weight-of-the-evidence claim as follows:
The decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial based upon a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Thus, “the function of an appellate court on appeal is to review the trial court’s exercise of discretion based upon a review of the record, rather than to consider de novo the underlying question of the weight of the evidence.” An appellate court may not overturn the trial court’s decision unless the trial court “palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.” Further, in reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, a verdict will be overturned only if it is “so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.”
Commonwealth v. Cash, 137 A.3d 1262, 1270 (Pa. 2016) (internal citations
omitted). A trial court’s determination that a verdict was not against the
interest of justice is “[o]ne of the least assailable reasons” for denying a new
trial. Commonwealth v. Colon–Plaza, 136 A.3d 521, 529 (Pa. Super. 2016)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013)). A verdict
is against the weight of the evidence where “certain facts are so clearly of
greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the
facts is to deny justice.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 258 (Pa.
Super. 2003) (quoting Widmer, 744 A.2d at 751–752). “[W]e do not reach
the underlying question of whether the verdict was, in fact, against the weight
-4- J-S32009-19
of the evidence.... Instead, this Court determines whether the trial court
abused its discretion in reaching whatever decision it made on the motion[.]”
Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 107 A.3d 206, 213 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation
omitted).3
Here, the trial court, who viewed the witnesses’ demeanors at trial,
determined that the verdict did not shock his sense of justice. We ascertain
no abuse of discretion in this determination. In support of our conclusion, we
adopt as our own the well-reasoned analysis of the trial court in its Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a) opinion. Trial Court Opinion, 7/13/18, at unnumbered 7–8. We
observe that while Victim offered some testimonial variation in details
concerning the incident between Victim and the six-year-old boy, as compared
3 A challenge to the weight of the evidence must first be raised at the trial level “(1) orally, on the record, at any time before sentencing; (2) by written motion at any time before sentencing; or (3) in a post-sentence motion.” Commonwealth v. Akrie, 159 A.3d 982, 989 (Pa. Super. 2017). The instant record is unclear regarding preservation of this issue. Appellant filed a motion in arrest of judgment and for a new trial on June 28, 2017, but only the cover sheet is included in the record. Docket Entry 97. The trial court denied the motion on July 6, 2017. Docket Entry 101. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion on June 30, 2017, but the record certified to us was missing paragraphs four–eleven. Docket Entry 98. The trial court denied the motion on July 6, 2017. Docket Entry 102. “It is an appellant’s duty to ensure that the certified record is complete for purposes of review,” and a failure to do so constitutes waiver.” Commonwealth v. Lopez, 57 A.3d 74, 82 (Pa. Super. 2012). Through the efforts of the Superior Court Prothontary to obtain the missing pages from the above documents from the Delaware County Clerk of Courts, we have obtained the entire post-sentence motion, which included a weight-of-the-evidence claim. Supplemental Record, 7/25/19. In addition, the weight issue was raised in Appellant’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and the trial court addressed it in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. We consider the issue preserved and will address it.
-5- J-S32009-19
to S.H.’s testimony, that incident does not involve Appellant. The slight
variations also do not establish Victim’s testimony about the rapes as
incredible. As we stated in Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 578 A.2d 960 (Pa.
Super. 1990), “[t]he jury was free to accept all, some or none of the testimony
presented. The fact that [it] chose to believe the victim[] does not shock this
Court’s sense of justice.” Id. at 963 (internal citations omitted).
Nor do we find that the verdict was based upon surmise or conjecture.
Appellant underscores that Victim testified the assaults occurred more than
five times but she was unsure whether there were more than ten rapes.
Appellant’s Brief at 25; N.T., 1/11/17, at 120. We have repeatedly stated,
dating back to 1988 at least, that “a child over eleven years of age would
ordinarily have a more fully developed ability to remember the time of events
than would a child of six or seven.” Commonwealth v. Ables, 590 A.2d 334,
339 (Pa. Super. 1990) (citing Commonwealth v. Groff, 548 A.2d 1237 (Pa.
Super. 1988)). While seven-year-old Victim could not state with precision
how many times Appellant raped her, she was clear that it happened at
Appellant’s house in his bedroom “in Chester,” which was “near E&G’s . . . a
hoagie store,” and that it happened “every time” Mother dropped her off there.
N.T., 1/11/17, at 112, 121–122. After careful review of the record, we agree
with the trial court that the verdict is not so contrary to the evidence as to
shock one’s sense of justice.
-6- J-S32009-19
Appellant next argues that the trial court improperly prevented
Appellant “from impeaching Josephine Parker with the prior statements given
by [Victim] because Ms. Parker testified that [Victim] gave two credible
statements.” Appellant’s Brief at 18. Appellant maintains that he wanted to
cross-examine the witness “about the prior inconsistent statements made to
her by [Victim]” so as to “emphasize the lack of credibility and weight the
jurors should place on the witness’s testimony . . . .” Id. at 18–19. Appellant
avers that he “desired to challenge not only the testimony of Ms. Parker, but
also the determination made by Ms. Parker that [Victim] made two credible
statements.” Id. at 19.
We note first, that while Appellant asserts “the trial court should have
allowed [Appellant] to cross-examine Ms. Parker as to [the] content of those
two statements and to challenge her determination that both statements were
credible,” Appellant’s Brief at 20, he does not refer us to the record where the
trial court denied cross-examination. Appellant references Ms. Parker’s
testimony that the CYS investigation resulted in an “indicated” finding of abuse
because Victim made two credible statements regarding the rapes by
Appellant. Appellant’s Brief at 20; N.T., 1/12/17, at 62, 68.
The record does not reveal a denial of cross-examination. Rather, our
review indicates that Appellant requested a cautionary instruction to the jury
that the jury is the sole arbiter of credibility, and the trial court agreed to so
instruct. Id. at 69–70. There is no request by Appellant, nor denial by the
-7- J-S32009-19
trial court, of something more, and Appellant has not directed us to a place in
the record of its existence. “It is not this Court’s responsibility to comb
through the record seeking the factual underpinnings of an appellant’s claim.”
Commonwealth v. Samuel, 102 A.3d 1001, 1005 (Pa. Super. 2014). We
rely on the trial court’s treatment of the issue in rejecting it as meritless. Trial
Court Opinion, 7/13/18, at unnumbered 3–4.
Next, Appellant asserts trial court error in denying his motion for a
mistrial “where the observers were making visible gestures during [Victim’s]
testimony and had a conversation with her during a court break . . . .”
Appellant’s Brief at 20–21. Appellant submits that he twice requested a
mistrial. Appellant’s Brief at 22. Appellant maintains that the first instance
was on the first day of trial during Victim’s testimony. Id. (citing N.T.,
1/11/17, at 114). We have examined the record and there is no request for
a mistrial at that point. However, the trial court, sua sponte, outside of the
presence of the jury, told the spectators:
Those of you in the audience, I understand that this is very difficult, but I can’t have you saying anything while the jury is present. Secondly, I need you to refrain from doing anything by way of body language or anything that is going to interfere with the testimony. I know that is very difficult, but I need you not to respond. For instance ma’am you are nodding your head to me so you are acknowledging what I am saying and I appreciate that. But when a witness is testifying I am going to ask you not to do anything like that.
UNIDENTIFIED: I wasn’t nodding, my legs are shaking.
THE COURT: Well whatever, well that is not the way I was taking it and in any event I need you to[.] I know it is not easy
-8- J-S32009-19
but I need you all to refrain from that otherwise I may need to ask you to remove yourself from the courtroom. Because I need to have a situation where the witness can testify without any suggestion of the witness being prompted in any way. I need you to do that for me. All right now—
UNIDENTIFIED: Your Honor we are here for support for her. That is all we want to do. We don’t discuss this with her, we don’t discuss this at all. We are here after all these years to try to just be here for her[].
THE COURT: and you have every right to be here and you have every right to be here to support her. Okay but I need to make that statement to you because I want to have a fair trial here. Anything else we need to put on the record?
N.T., 1/11/17, at 114–115. At the ensuing sidebar, the following exchange
between the trial court and defense counsel occurred:
THE COURT: I was watching like a hawk because I was afraid that they were going to be starting suggesting answers or something. There was [sic] no hand signals or anything. The worst that has happened was one woman was nodding her head up and down, and it was the one I mentioned that I asked her not to do that.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And that was my question because obviously my back was facing them.
THE COURT: I was watching them like a hawk. Believe me I was watching because I have been in situations. . . .
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor they are talking to the witness right now. I don’t want to I have no choice but to ask.
(Sidebar concluded)
THE COURT: I cannot have you talking to the witness, please—
UNIDENTIFIED: I thought you said when the jury was gone.
-9- J-S32009-19
THE COURT: I can’t have you talking to the witness. The witness is under oath, please don’t do that.
N.T., 1/11/17, at 115–116. It was at that point that Appellant made a single
request for a mistrial stating, “Your Honor I am loathe to do this, but I mean
in light of the fact that they are speaking in front of the jury, they talk to the
witness now, I have to ask for mistrial.” N.T., 1/11/17, at 116.
Appellant fails to develop his argument. While he sets forth case law in
his brief explaining the standards for granting a mistrial, he wholly fails to
assert how he was prejudiced. Appellant’s Brief at 22–23. Moreover,
Appellant claims that the court did not give the jury a cautionary instruction.
Id. at 23. Our review of the record establishes that Appellant did not request
an instruction. N.T., 1/11/17, at 116. Despite this fact, after denying the
single mistrial request, the trial court commented, “I’ll tell them [the
spectators] if there is any communication, I am going to throw them out, all
right?” Id. at 117. Defense counsel replied, “Yes Your Honor.” Id. The trial
court then reiterated to the spectators that no one was to speak to Victim.
Id. Defense counsel then asked the court at side bar to tell the jury “that
they need to disregard any outbursts.” Id. at 118. The trial court agreed but
noted, “I don’t think there was anything.” Id.
Our standard of review in this context is as follows:
The trial court is in the best position to assess the effect of an allegedly prejudicial statement on the jury, and as such, the grant or denial of a mistrial will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. A mistrial may be granted only where the incident upon which the motion is based is of such a nature that its
- 10 - J-S32009-19
unavoidable effect is to deprive the defendant of a fair trial by preventing the jury from weighing and rendering a true verdict. Likewise, a mistrial is not necessary where cautionary instructions are adequate to overcome any possible prejudice.
Commonwealth v. Parker, 957 A.2d 311, 319 (Pa. Super. 2008) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997, 1016 (Pa. 2007)).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s mistrial
request. Appellant has not expressed how he was prejudiced, he
misrepresented the record, and he fails to support his allegation of error. Our
review of the record comports with the trial court’s decision, and we rely on
its explanation, as follows:
[Appellant’s] counsel timely moved for a mistrial after noticing observers making gestures to [Victim]. This [c]ourt chose to deny [Appellant’s] motion and instead employed less drastic alternatives. This [c]ourt noted the observers nodding and watched them “like a hawk” and determined they did not give [Victim] any “signals” or “answers.”
When observers then spoke to [Victim] while she was on the stand, this [c]ourt immediately stopped the conversation and stated he would remove the observers from the courtroom if additional conversation occurred. Instead of a mistrial, this [c]ourt instructed the observers twice, had sidebar discussions with [Appellant’s] counsel, and dismissed the Jury from the courtroom as soon as he witnessed the movements. The [c]ourt did not see the Jury reacting to the observer’s movement. For the forgoing reasons, the court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for mistrial.
Trial Court Opinion, 7/13/18, at unnumbered 5–6 (internal citations to the
Appellant’s final issue assails the sentence imposed as excessive and
beyond the Sentencing Guidelines. The trial court imposed a sentence of 240
- 11 - J-S32009-19
to 480 months of imprisonment for each count of rape of a child, to be served
consecutively to each other, which amounted to an aggregate sentence of
sixty to 120 years of incarceration. N.T. (Sentencing), 6/23/17, at 16–17.
Appellant’s issue relates to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. It
is well settled that a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence is a
petition for permission to appeal, as the right to pursue such a claim is not
absolute. Commonwealth v. Treadway, 104 A.3d 597, 599 (Pa. Super.
2014). “An appellant must satisfy a four-part test to invoke this Court’s
jurisdiction when challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence,” by (1)
preserving the issue in the court below, (2) filing a timely notice of appeal,
(3) including a Rule 2119(f) statement, and (4) raising a substantial question
for our review. Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d 788, 797 (Pa. Super.
2015) (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa.
Super. 2013).
In the instant case, Appellant filed a timely appeal, the issue was
properly preserved in his post-sentence motion, and his brief contains a
concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with
respect to the discretionary aspects of a sentence pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
2119(f). Accordingly, we must determine whether Appellant has raised a
substantial question that the sentence is not appropriate under 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9781(b). Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super.
2010).
- 12 - J-S32009-19
The determination of whether there is a substantial question is made on
a case-by-case basis, and this Court will allow the appeal only when the
appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s actions
were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code,
or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing
process. Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768 (Pa. Super.
2015). “[W]e cannot look beyond the statement of questions presented and
the prefatory 2119(f) statement to determine whether a substantial question
exists.” Commonwealth v. Johnson-Daniels, 167 A.3d 17, 27 (Pa. Super.
2017) (citing Commonwealth v. Provenzano, 50 A.3d 148, 154 (Pa. Super.
2012)). “Our inquiry must focus on the reasons for which the appeal is sought,
in contrast to the facts underlying the appeal, which are necessary only to
decide the appeal on the merits.” Commonwealth v. Knox, 165 A.3d 925,
929 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362,
365 (Pa. Super. 2005)).
In his Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement, Appellant maintains that his
sentence is excessive, and the trial court did not consider Appellant’s “unique
circumstances in any manner or consider his rehabilitative needs relating to
those offenses but instead focused solely on the seriousness of the offenses.”
Appellant’s Brief at 13. We conclude that Appellant’s challenge to the
imposition of his sentence as excessive, together with his claim that the trial
court failed to consider his rehabilitative needs, presents a substantial
- 13 - J-S32009-19
question. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 125 A.3d 822, 826 (Pa. Super.
2015) (excessive sentence claim, in conjunction with assertion that sentencing
court failed to consider mitigating factors, raises a substantial question).
Thus, we grant Appellant’s application for allowance of appeal and address the
merits of this sentencing claim. Caldwell, 117 A.3d at 770.
Once again, Appellant misrepresents the record. In his argument,
Appellant states the sentence imposed “deviated from the guidelines,” and
asserts that the trial court “never stated the purpose for the deviation from
the guidelines.” Appellant’s Brief at 16. He does not support this claim with
reference to the record. Our review of the record reflects, instead, that the
sentence imposed was within the standard range of the Sentencing
Guidelines. The Guideline Sentence Form (“GSF”) reveals that the crime of
rape of a child is a first degree felony, the offense gravity score is fourteen,
and Appellant’s prior record score is five. As noted on the GSF, the mitigated
range is a minimum sentence of 180 months, and the standard minimum
range is 192–240 months of imprisonment. GSF, 7/3/17.4 Here, the court
imposed a minimum sentence of 240 months, which is in the standard range
of the Guidelines.
4 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(e)(1) provides that the statutory maximum sentence for a conviction of rape of a child, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(c), is forty years. The Basic Sentencing Matrix, 204 Pa. Code § 303.16(a), establishes the recommended sentence range for a person with a prior record score of five, where the offense gravity score is fourteen, is 192 months–the statutory limit, which in this case is 240 months.
- 14 - J-S32009-19
At sentencing, the trial court indicated that it received the presentence
investigation report (“PSI”). N.T. (Sentencing), 6/23/17, at 11. When a PSI
report exists, this Court presumes that the trial court “was aware of relevant
information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those
considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.” Commonwealth
v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2016). The instant trial court
also stated it considered:
the District Attorney’s recommendation, nature and seriousness of the violation, as well as [Appellant’s] age, education, familial matter and employment status, as well as any comments offered on [Appellant’s] behalf by defense counsel, the remarks of the victim, the remarks of the victim’s mother and grandmother, [Appellant’s] remarks to the [c]ourt and the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines.
N.T. (Sentencing), 6/23/17, at 17.
With respect to the imposition of consecutive versus concurrent
sentences, “long standing precedent of this Court recognizes that 42 Pa.C.S.
section 9721 affords the sentencing court discretion to impose its sentence
concurrently or consecutively to other sentences being imposed at the same
time or to sentences already imposed.” Johnson-Daniels, 167 A.3d at 28
(quoting Commonwealth v. Gonzalez–Dejusus, 994 A.2d 595, 598 (Pa.
Super. 2010) (citation omitted)). See also Commonwealth v. Hoag, 665
A.2d 1212, 1214 (1995) (explaining that a defendant is not entitled to a
“volume discount” for his crimes).
- 15 - J-S32009-19
Herein, the record establishes that the trial court considered all of
Appellant’s circumstances. A PSI report was ordered, prepared, and
considered. The court took into account the sentencing guidelines, the
protection of the public, the gravity of the offenses, the impact on the victim,
and the rehabilitative needs of Appellant. We will not re-weigh those factors
and impose our judgment in place of the sentencing court. Commonwealth
v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 778 (Pa. Super. 2009).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 8/15/19
- 16 - 7�PM . :· .. ····· :· ·: :: .... .. :
• 1 _0pinron .•• Circulated patecJ 07/25/2019 12:01 13:-18
• . IN1'aE¢out::stffJ�2�itlt1�s'fBlfE'90ili.fv, Y • . .: . :: :: .. : .. ::-":···:
. '.. .. . .
·· .. COMJvfON}VEALTii OF·PENNSYLVANIA
v. ...... .. :·. .:· ·. ·.. . .. , .. .: , .. ,., ., . ·, . . ... .. ,,, ; .... ': ,,:::..:.: :: .. : ::·:: .. :.: .·
·· SYLVESTER,·,,LEWIS . . , .. , .: . . .. .. . . . .
... ····, .••. : 'l
. ·,' Pagartq;J/ ' .. .... .: .. .:.. . .::: . . . . . . . ' . . .. ::·.: . .:·:·:"':.::·::
............ .... . . . · .On Ja.11uaj"Y.l3, 2,017, foll�wirig �jury trial,•SyJvestet Lewi�•(I)eferid@t)«ia�••··• •' . . .
.. convicted ofthi:l!e dbunts,ofrap� of'11• cbild{�fel<>11yi�ltl1e?first•cl1:grpe:_p{T. ,J/13/i7 .
.· . . •. :::·It:::;:!�,:t�;:::•�1=:�:=:�;;t2oi2.:Augti�.of . ·•· least three 6ccasiorts. [N,T.'l/lf/17 p;2j]. /".:· ·:::· .: .:;: .. .... :.:::'.: . •····· ·in Deceml,ef of20l3 St Ji �alkedjn on s· l'M I on top of her .. : .
•·'J: .. : : •. •··•·· ._, :,.::,:, .: •::,:.:::::: ·•• ·.:. to Si isiag{Ms. H, 'tolaD.' . ... tM : 1;'W.hq th��tjµ�stid11�� h,efqa#�hter a.bout •••• }L ;:.. ;: :/? :: .• wher¢ slle hJdJ¢aril�4.thii b¢h�vibr .• [N/t. l/1:t/l7ls�].·f · · · � tvt •••....•. tol
. ... .. . . ....
. · ·•t�l d�.len 0 1
... .. ..
. .. ::.: . r ...
�·io:1::.:::•i�rr�.�tf . .. . ..
.. lbsbpliib�J>�1c�r (at:::: thetirn.6�t>�ephirte:?vt6t�l�s)'examined s1 ·······•· •. (Nfr.in21i71t�o].•• . . . .... ;;
.• . Ms>Par�,er rec.cmunended S' .• . . i set!. a ,speci�listin. p�ild. sexµ�l a�i�,ult ex:�inations . :: :: ;; .. .
· ... .· .. ,, Jibl�b1]j;r.rof·· . . . . . . .. .. . ...
. , : [N.T. :v1211fp;-67j. Dr. J�ne, Mess/axti, a:sp�datisdn• thild sexuil�buse hxami11atio11�� . . ···••• ���fu.iried:�t < : a11
Penetratiou• consiste11t. with repeated ..... .. .. . . . .. .. ofthe •va�ina Over.an extended iperiod .oftirrie.•. �.T.•••• · • .. .. . . . . . .
]/f2/l7 pJ 12-22]. .Chester Police·Oepartment, . Officer Robert. Graves of 'the • Juvenile•. Division, • • : •••••••• •from•the.Crc>ziet Hospital. where. s:••• ......• was·initially.admitted,• [N.T .. .: . received . this case 1112117.p. l9-20J 9fficer . .• Graves•and Josephine �orales.conducted. a johit.interview·of• [N{f; • 1/12/l7•pJ9-20] .•• Afterlhfainterview,.Officer•••·· • .M .•••••• :atthe.CYSCenter.•
• ·Gravesfeceived.a.wauant·.�d.conducte£f·a··:searcl1•forthe. Defendant.. [N} .• l/l2/17 p.22I.• Mr.. Lewis. was disdo;ered. at his reSiqertte and w�s brought to. the. Chester Police Station, •.. :. ·1,:
• where (},fficer Graves Omeer Jones �Qnducted JUI inrervie,v of the defendant. (N.T.: ana l/12/l7ip.22Jl. Mr,[.LeWiswas·then.booked•Jdput.intoholdingJ.[N:T .•• 1/12/17 •. p.22].· · ·. : !n1sdtiss!o�b�tli�DkFk�I)ANT'SAP��Atr • · · Defendant has timely• filed: :: Concise• Stilterrient ofMatters Co111plai11ed of on · · I
. . :•
. .. • '.......
· .. : :: a , : .••••••••••••• <•·• .. : y . · · ·· · · . :· : ···:· ······: .. ·· .
··Appeal in accordance.with Pa.• l925(b)(4) .• The.l)efendant·raises.the .following••••• R.A.P; • .eight.issues.on.appeal:••.1).\Vhether.me.trial.courtabused.its.discretion.by.failins'toallow• .. • appellant.to.cross.e1ahlinb.s,. �i:·. ..2}•Whether.the.trial.courtabused1ts.discretion., .: by preveniing. defe11se .couns�l ·from itnpeabhing. JoseplH11e. Parker •(Morales). With.prior•.• •. • . .: : :··.·:· · ... :· .:· .:: :::·:: ::::·: :: . . :::::::;·.·:::.;::::::.:::::::·.:::. ::::::.:·:. . ' ...... :·· .... ::·:·.:: ::.:·::·.:::.::·::::. :::::.::<.:.: .. ::"'.:":
3) Whethef the trial court abused its discretion bf . ....
statements given b)'S . M .: . . .. ··:::·::;:.::: :::: ::):::.::: t: ::'" ::>:.::::: :::: :::; ::_:::<:: :::.:::::::·:::: ::.:/\:: ;.:::: .:::.::'. ::;:: allowing the)h& tllistJJ to the testimon}/ofS ,M • 1 during Jury deliberatioris;A)
Whethe r the trial courf comIDitteda� orrot�laW by denying a¢fe»danrs Motion for•••••····· 1
.. :: ::: :: ::.::· :: -: ::::::: .::::> :·::: ·::::. "::::: -::: ..' :: : . rilistrial, because observ�rs h� tnade gestures dul'i11g S . . M, .... ii testiI11011Y jd had . . . ..:a conversation. > .•.• . he,: . . . . <••·!··············· Wjth • < .• .during ·<··········t········ a court break; ··. < • •5}·• •· Whelhef < .• > ..the·•··•· trial •·• • . court ( .• ..• • committed • .• • • < • • • • .• •an••.•.··•• .•.•.• •.•.• • ·::.. :. · ... : .: :· . . ... ····:··· :. ···: : : ... ·. : .· ..... · :· .: : :: .·:
erro;·of,law.by·d•enying.defendant s•tnotioh.for·a·mistrial•because.th¢•Jury•witnes.secl•·.. 1
M ..... mother i's c; .during the. expert. testimony .of br. • Messam; 6)• Whet�er the ·. verdfot.was agairtst:the .• weight.ofthe.evidende presented· at trial; •7).Whether.the• evidence Was .insufficient to .Support Befendant's convictiot1 o,f rape .of�· child; s). \Vhether the trial. its.discretion.whenit.sentenced.defend�tto.60to.l20:years.incarceration· •couit3bused and wheilierthis:sentence fonOis.�b.dictates.of 42. Pa.• C.s .• •§.972 t(b).·· Court.dld•llotAbuse.its:Dlscretion.be(auseI>efendant's.Counsel• •Issue.l:.The.Trial . did Cross..Exan,.ine S.. . Nt ..
• perendaht clai�s ·that .the.trial courl ··bused. itsdisc�tion. by.nQt •a11owins defendahtts COllilSel •to. ctoss-exainit16. s.· ·.... · ;M .: •.••• .• regarding .a prior. sexual·. incident· • . . :1I . .. ..•. . •. .•.••·•· .•:.•••••·.::••: • ·•• .. •• ··•· •· ::. :. •.•• . ·••••.• . • ..•
withMi·R .'• son. This cWmis meritless,> .. •• •• . . ..••....•
•:r: iiililfJiiii�ii�iiiisJ:\�J1fI!fu.: ·• ·�!l:;.)T!iJ;::.f��rtdid:tAb�ttu::1t:t1!!Jt:tif.f:�ti®i°d...l's•••. ••··· IJefendant .• claitns·that·the.trial.courtabtis¢clits.discretionhy.not.allowing counsertoJfupeachAosephirte : defendant's Parkef \Viili: priot staternents given B: hy •.••.••• iwhichdefendant.clfilms·�re·inconsfaten\l••1his.clabfi•1smeti�¢SS, ••.•.
• · Oeferidan.t's counsel attempted to impeach• s1 \ Mi I • : • '. : . • ....• • ... , ... : • ..... : •· • ••: . .: •• -: : : . ·:.: •• . i. ....••••by • given ·'.Josephine· : •parker, ••••.•••••••.•••.•••••• which•·•••••••·••·•••·••• •••••.•••.•.••• •••··••·••·•• is improper. pursuant ·······:·········· ••••.•Pennsylvania· to the: •••••• .'. •••••••.••••.••• Rules •••·•••·of
. : ••• : Evidence .• Pa;. R..• E.• 607•• lf I)efendJfs. cot111sel. desired to. impeach. s�
I:I;!;i8?il��tr�I[[!:r.�JTiitJ:ig1ot,-:t.hl�¢Qy> P•R. E[s02. • . JM. . . j• he�••Ja® as sue� is foadmi,Silile. i • · • • ·•· ·•· ·• • .: • . . \ • • The Supreme Court ofPennsylvania e,c;plainecl that one• of the general axioms of.•···· •inipeachment·is.that.the.contradictory•testimonYitselfffiustbe·adrnissjble·before.it•canbe·• ···•• ••.•• .. . ··usedlO:irnpeach.the. creqibiHty·ofthat witnessiCorrunonwealth:v .• Baez? 431 • A.2d. 909, •• : :.·.... ... . .. :: : ... :.·:: . ..
912 • (198 l). ·Therefore· the court •properly •sµstained the .objecticm • against iillpeaclunent •of••••• .... Josephine Parker by •the C0Jllll1¢11Wealth. • · • • · · • •· · .: · · . .. .. ' .
::;.;Ji�::tr;urtdi\iQtAb::�i�Wikt:%.l\T:Jtnglh•Juryl•Lbten ••.. •A�pellant's.counsel clairils that{he.�al cOui1.abused '.its discretion·hy.allowingtlle. ... :: :,·:: ::: -. :::·::: ::·:::·:> ::: :: :: /·:::.:::::::: :::::.:;·; :::·::::::: .: .. ::::::·:::::.·:::::::: :·-:::: ·:--: :._:; .: :;· ::·:: ·:: .: .·:· :.::: ....
jury to liste1t to the. testiillOilY <>ff . . M .: • duririgj� delibera.ticms, whereJhe jury
• An. abuse. of discretion "is. not merely an. error of Judgement; if; ill reaching a .•.. 1.•••· .·• .: .. ·····················•·.······ >•· • •• ••• ···•·•• •·• ·· ·• • ·••·•• ·.• • • ••· ·•••··• ·•••·· • ··· ·•••·•··•·•·• ···•••·• > . • coritlusfon. t11J .court overrides oi. 111isapplies the .la\V, .or Judgnient e){ercised •is.shown•.· the by.the.record.to.be.either.tanifestly.unreasonableottheproductofpartiality •• prejudice;. ,. bias or nlwm, discretiori ha� heen abused." Bulg�eui0. Bulgarelli, 934 ;\;2d : :. : .:: ::.::.:<:.\:.:::· ·:: :: ::,:::·:::. ;·:: .. .: . l07;Jll . (Pa. Stiper. 2007). •······ . 'Ibough Pa. R. ·. prifu.• P. R.ule 656 prohibits theJ1lfy fr0m having a tr�nscript dr
• •. ., •testitnony. during. trial, the· Supretne •coUtt of Pennsy�v�ia has• .held. that.at1dio-• • • • · tecOnled\e�inlony j. not prohil,ited imder Rule 646. Continonweilth v.• wmiruns. 9.A.3.t ••. •· • • .• • • .... •.
. . .: ••During: deliherations,• the JUI)'·requested to. listen. to the· audio of 5• • · • tM . ... l S .. •
•1113/2017 p.ss1.·Williams. 9 A..3d at•623.• ciearly.•aaitect applicatfo11 ofPeIU1sylvailia . ··•·.•• Suprem� .. ••••••< 1•••.•••••··•·•·••••·••••••r ·> ·• .Court caselaw •is notJ••.••··••••• rnanifestly• unreasonable. ··•···••••···••••••··········•·••••••• prejudicial, Or. ••••··•••·••••••·•·•·••••••••.····•••· : . : ..... : :.:.:: ... ::::.::::: :::: :::,·:;·:: :>:: ·::: ::.· :::: :::: :: ::: .. :.:·. :· ........ '• ... .... ........ ....... in any.• ..sense.a <••••·•··••···•· •.••••••·· ··•••···· .::.: :.· .· .: .. : .·.
JJlisapplicati<>n of the Jaw/ • ••.. •• {$SU� 4:.Th� Trial CdJtt (li(l··�ot(]dntltlit:�� Erftjrof tll� b; ))e11ying � Moti�nfor . a Mistrial:W:hen Ob$ervel'S:MadeGestur�sriversado11i�•tb•ll¢t Dul'i11g:� :Court JJr��k.· ... . 11ieSu eriorCollrt PeIU1s;lyaniahas . � of ;tateif�r;4:2S J\.�d 7s1, 76J•(P�. Super. ' ···:· 19�1).·.&abt1$�'qfd1scr¢tio11, '�isriot:m�rdf�frerrotofiudg�rilentr if; inte�qhing.�·.··· cond�slon, the c�urt o�erri4e�:or JI1ii�pp1jes;tpeJa\V� 9r t�eJudgrii�nt �xercisedAshov.m ):' . . by the:�e6otd·{� be.�ith�r ·rn�hifestly·uriieaS();rt�b]e or• th�'. prtjdu�t of �arliali��·;;ejudi��. • · • .. .: ' >. >···discr . bia�<>r.illwill, ········.··.··: ······················• • ••••••....••..•• : •••••..•. �tion•has:bee11al:>1JSeQ. ······:·········. > ··· · ···•· . · : .•..•.•.••••••.•...•.•.•••••••Bulgare1H�9S4A;�d•l07}.1·l·r· ;.Bulgarelliv 1
• .... ·. . • :·:: -: I• .• ::: .... · .: ·. (Pai·Silper; 2007).• •
. • •. . td¢
. . . . .. .. . . . . proper \Vltet¢ ,;hiall¢ged Jrejudic�al J�entniky r�as611a�ly b� �aid to depriv.cf tlle · ••.• defenda11t6f�•fair �rtd.�mpartiallttial,:J�:·ar7�·a .••. :: .• Her¢,therfi:w�·s.nq flagra�tabuse:o:t4i�cretion. '.Vher�:�:pr¢J�dicia1¢vyntt(}the: ·. defend�t.occ�rs.dur:in�'.tri�I,·thciyrnai·:ove.fdr�:�is�ial.Jh�ntllW.·e�enf i[•Jiic1b�e�;·: • · i>i.Jt:.• crim1Pl
. ••..•• ?b$eryers·��'.in.�·gestµfes.tb§;··
. .. : . . ��t�J the: 6bs�;ers �6:ddi11g! �chv�tbheltijern ·;�li�¢:a h�wk;, t1c1\1Jt�11t1iri�{they did : �y ''sig11als{dr "ansiters.'r [N. T.j /11/20)!'7 p.lt5�t6J . .. . ... ... . . .... " . . ...
not gi;ci S. ' ·•.·w . . ... ·: ..••. . n·.:•.•. s. ·p.•.o··•.k. ·•·. .e ��e' ' was> qn the .
..• h e n.•••. ·o .e . bs .•.. . :··rv e·. r.·. e s. · ·.•. t . h · · . -: ,whUe · ·this '.•:• .:s�nd, . .• · . .: Court .
:: .: · ·• . .
.. .. .. .. .
.. .
. immecli'at¢ly �topped the �b11versi1ti6� anlstated •he would\remov¢ Ute observ�r� f;oni .tile ••• : ' •. � � � � cciurtroo�•if a didohal: onVeriaHottoicJrr£.·•rk.1)·•11111 01,;,•p.11;J.·hlste d'.ora•; • •· .: rriis,trfat, '.this tbtirt i11stnict¢d •the• obsek!�rs tWi�e, �ad sid�blri • a.isc�ssiohs with • • • . •.•. Defendant'scput1S�l�•and dismtssedthe.Jfuj•.fron:i:thec94rtro{)tji:as.s9on·as·p� witn�ss¢d·•· the movements. The Court did not s�c,. the Jury r�a�ting .to the :obs�t.ver�s)hovelll��t · · .: . •· [N. T- l /11 /201 ; p! For th� ll8]. fofgJilgJreasohs, �e C()urt noFabuselfa liscretioX by •• d��j J .: • • •• ..
. den.yins a motiori fpl'mistri�l. • • .·.Issue s,!of�he l975(k)St�t���rtt:.i�e 'rri,l C,()Ur1 �1:an()� corttb)ltJhl�tror.ofL�w· •.• I
by Denfing the l.\1otfon: for a :Mistrial after the Jurors �awS M . �s Mother Cry During Dr.•Me$siun· ' s!T e$timony. · · · · · ··
· . •::::[� :1:a��: ;l::�'.=�::; �i�j�: ��.��:: :=:;a· .. .: ··• fJe Sup�ridtb�urt of �e11J1sylvarii� J�;stated that?the decisibn wheth�r to
.... · I :
Herlthere Was no fl�giaptibuse bf d,i�creti�n. '\\lh�re• a pt¢Jµdic.i�l �V�Ilt t({t�e .
. ::�rt:::�.:::[tt:::·:071;:;:rlrf::1�:·rr;:1:;::: =:� .( 1
-. ·. • [N/r. ! l/12/2017 p.}�4], .WJiJn �be. i11.ciqertt ()b�llri�cl, this c�� otdbred a t�c�is. arid•• .: ·••· • ·. • .: • • •• . I . ··.•• . . . •••• . ···• •: .: :. . ..: .:.> .. ··• : >:- i := .. : •: •i . . ..•• •: . .: .. •.i . .: · consulted.Defendarit's.counsel .befo,e qetetfulnihg 110�.tojssµe ajliry instruction. This .... • ·····•••.! <·•······· •.. ····· . .....................•.• ·•····•······ ...• ···········•:,•••. ·••·••·········· •. ·.·•· .... ·•·•·· .• COurtUS1 ecl:s6.uhd.djsct�tfon•to• detertnirie·t�at·���Vel"r::[chil�:r���].�al)is:g()i�g•td'hav�·,••• ...••.• SC>�e·d�gt��dfthi1>·�C>rt.(?ft�ifig:.•...• 1fuic11.it.Wduldbe.itnpos�iblet9.tb�any·.i�6idjt•s�:ai····· [I saw it l st�pped the proctfod�n$ .•. "¥1� t6of�jµl)' �r�� •.• ' ·: .][in ofdet Jha{th� .• I
. $0()11 t\S jutylg�hsJi c�ancejo ¢9ofif ip.fact:th¢}ii'�fbe�libt1�J� forahy ieaso11;'�: [N ..t · · ·: ·�n$2��.1�:NisVi · · · • ·•· •. ,... : , :: . . . · ··:·::··::: :: .. :·.::: . :::>:::· ... ;: ; .. ......... . . ;; ... :· .: .:·
.; Defendt::;�:::=��:::!:�::;:::.::::•;::::l:R:.:;;;uch'•. • : .. ::::. ::: :::·:.: .. : ·::··::-::::: .: ... : .t.'
contemplative: ¢pnduct· dpes not· meet th¢.lugh:J:,urde11.of•ahµ�e··�f
• the. standard of review• mistrial;. the. court• properly. detenniried •that. I).•,.: for. deprive'. the·Defendant a.fair. • conduct .not• did ·.of and •inipartial. trial,
. tr:.�C)fthe .:'::.�!lfJoffRape ttTir:l!�t!!�i°ttt"an;:=:1:t:h:::::i:��··· · ·. Guilty �ltarge of a Child. • • • .:; ·
. . •. refendant. argues fuat a verdict.of gfillzy,.in iliis.•case,. was •Mailist ttw. weight of • the •evidence,. where the evidence was. so• inccmsiste,tit that such. .a• verdict could not be ....... ·.,:: . .. .. . . .. .. .. . . .. . .. . .. ..:.:.: .
.. . ... ·:: :::: .:: .... ·: : .. : .... :... .. . : ·:·· :
The standard this Cdll11 rtlUStapply jn examining whethef a ·verdictwasigJinst . theweightof . . J .: ·. · ··the . ·. .. • • · .•evidence ..•.•• •.•.•• ••has•beenset•forthbythe·SupremeCourt9f ..: •.•• ••••.••...... · ··•·• •··• .: ••• •• • •• ••·•••··••···.···• •. .•..Pennsylvania:••• .. · .. : .· : .:·: ·:·: .:· ...••••••....• ·• . . . :·.:. : ·:· .::: : : :.'. : .· ::: :: .
••.•··. of evidence exclµsivelyfortJie ..•.••....•. •••• : .·. ••··•••······finder of••fact•whois free tohelieve .. ·······•· . . "[t]he weight ••. . ·.••·I 1·:· •••··•··the •••·• ••..•..•• ·::··. :: :: •···•••··•••·••·•·is .. :: . .: .. · ·.· .: :: . .••••••.•••.•• ·:: •• •. ••• ...••.••..•••••••.••.••. ::· ::. · .. : : :: ··: .: ·::·:: :. .: : : ·:·.·. : : .: . . : . ·.
a u.• parti•o.•no.ne•oyili···"'dence.anato•derenlrine.ilie•fomtyQfmeWifues,es . Comrrionwealthv.· Champney, 832A.2d403,. 409.(Pa.2003).• It has •long been recognized ... • • • . . • •. 1 ..••• :.: • ".. ••.••••. ··•·•• .••••.••••••••• ··••••·· •••••.•••... :.. . • • .••. .... ••• .: •••••. •• • •• •••. • •••.. . I
•. that• the lJnC<>rr()l,orated iestfrnony of a victi111 ()f sexual ass<1tilt, ifbelieved by the fact.·.•.• • finder,.is.alone.sufficfont'.to desp1t�·contrary.evidellce.that.1nay.be •. con0ict,•. •• presented.by
•.:the·•·• defense; ... .. / > ·•• . . f i C:(}1nJ11onwealth . ... 650 A:2c:l 452, • 455.>••. v/Davis; (PtL · Super. • 1994) .. • • :················ ·· < < . :·:·:.::· ::·:·::: .. ::: .::: .. : ::: : : ·;:· ·:·::·::::·::.: : ..
Jr I.
� tfils caBe M .•.. ••. • testified tltaltne defendant, Sylves\e( Le.vis, raped he(
multiplttimes frQ)U 201 Z fo ;!0]3. JN.r,Jlllll7p. ti j-2 i).]fls clear that \heJur)' . determined s1 M .:": ·s �sti111J11y fo be citedibte and chJse ndtto believe the ·• . r ··testimony !> of• llaniec;e · · · • ·• • •· · · •· ffolrnes, < . •· · • • Defendant's ex-gii'l:frienc:l. ·.The· mere fact that Defendant's testimony. .: < ·• · ··• • • . < . , > · ' · counsellpfesentetl ·.Raniece Holmes a ·witness. Who contradfotedthe as of.•. ·• • • • • •·. • • .. •·•. · :M doesnot111ean thattheJury find on coulaflot tile I>efendanrguilt)thased thetestirilony.ors•··· . lM l.. Davis•• 65oA.2d•at4ss .. Itis.wen.establisheffthat.So •• •the• de1entt1ned. tong •• fina... of ra¢t reasonao1Y C4u,a have £,om• ilieevidenceruiduCCd • crin1e.were•. of • that an• me• necessary• elenients Or established•• that evidence shall. the then be deemed sufficientfost1Pport the verdict. 9()ll11llOJ1w.ea1th "· 11o�kins,741 A,2d9to, 914 (Pa. Super. 2000)> •.. _: : .. :: :: ;···:::; .. : :: . :. .:::": :: .:<: :: .. :_ .: ·::: ·:;:·:.:::::: :: .. :.: ::: :: ::::: ::· .:: :; \;· ·::::, : .. :.:.
. It is thejury's duty, .as the. finder of fact, to judge the. bredibility Ofwitilesses• ancl • . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . to weigh· the evidence pres�nted . . . .. .. .. . . . .. . .. . .. . .... at trial. in order to reach .a vefdict.. Champney,. 832 A.2d . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. ..... . . . . . . .. .. .
at409. y�rding to the above mandardo, this Court eannoiconorode th4tthe ver4ict / reached•by.theJurywas· so against the .weigltt ofth.e\eyiqence .. : .: .. "as.to :· :· -: shock one's·se11se•of ·:: :· ::·::: .. :·::·.·: .. ····:· :: ·:: :: ·::··:: : .... : ... .: .:·· :::.· .... : ... : .. :::· .. :: ·:: .: ... : : ... ·:: .. ··:::.:. :
. justice.'\.Id•.at.408 .•• 'fher�fore,.this .Court conCtudeslhat.the.Jerdict.was suPport�d.by.the•••··· · weight .Jfthe•. evidence .• and .accordingly the. Defendant's. co�plaint. of error :must fail.· ••••.••• • • .••S.1·���M!!t.�i!��!t�n:�::t:n!!Ltt:;r;:: �:Jt:.:1t:�i:. 1 1."' ····································
. • nefendant.argues •that. the i"$Ufficfem M1' matter.of law.to convict• .. CVi!\enco•was. .1 :: . : :. . : .. ' :: .:: :: ::· ··:. ·:. ·:: .·.:· ... . .. . . ::·:·:: .. : : .:: .: ·: ... :.·: ,: :: .:. ::: .:: ::-:··· ">'.'"··· ::: 1. • . • .: •• .: .••••..•• .: ••• .: .. •• •••·• ••. •·•••·••• ••.••••.••..•••••. • .•• : •.••••..•••.•.•••.• ••••· .••••
him •of arape of child. because there was insufficienf eviµence tc> .proye that. he engaged in •• ·.
ili � . sexual intercourse with S M
. ·• The.manda,4 thisCourtmust. apply·in.reviewlng sufficiencY·.f �VidJ� is • .all . . •whether, .viewing lhe. eyidence. admitted triaj. the .light. in most .favorable. tp the ....••. at •.winner,. .evidence to•enable verdict there·. is. sufficient• •. .the. fact-finder. to ••find. •every.element •.••.••..•• ; .• j •••·•••· • ·•••• •••·•••·•••• ....•••..•••..••..•.••.• , •••••••.•..••••.•••••••.••. ·.•.•..••••••••••••.••••.•.••••.•.••••••••.••••...••.••• : •.•••••••.•••.. : ••••••.••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••.••• ofthe crime beyond a reasonable doubt, Corrimbriwealth v. Bricker, 41 • A3 d • 872, 877 · •. • •..
(Pa. • ·········:·····I·••• >•••• .weigh.the evidence and <···:•• ••••••·•••••··•••·•••••••••·••·••••••••••••• > ·•• • • • ·•·• • • • •• .
!It!tu��]!tt:d:hlhl!i !W:ii�Il �tt�Jf!J�J]IT[�J]!tW:t weight of the . evidence.• :· .. .J ::··::: ·::-:: :: ···... 1d.•:·:A.s. such., the jury is free believe all,. part;. or 11011¢ :: . : ·:·· ... :::·::::.: :::. ::: -: ·: ··. ··::··.: < ": .. :: ., . ·:·: ··:·:·· .· ofa .. ·. ::· .. :': to :: .: .. ::l:::: :· .: ... : .. ::·:;: .:::::·:::. :: :::>: '._:;:: :::-:··:· ::.::::::::· ·::: ::: :: : :<::. ·:: ::.:: ::: .. ·::::: .. :. ::_::: :: :·_::: witness's testimony• and ·to• believe all; part oruone of the evidence. •Id.•· .
The.Pennsylv�faCrimeS•code.statesthat a.person•commits.the•offense•of 11
• rape a•child,ia•felony•ofthe:first•.ae�ree�whertth�·person.engages•insexual.1ntercoursewim .•.. of •.. . . · .. • .. . .. .. .. . . . .• ··•··· .: .
. aComplainantwho . is foss.than.13.years ofage.0 •• 18 Pa •. C.S.A.1§312l(c)(2018);···Itis •• :·:.:: .:::·:::: .: ·::·::· ::: ·::::::··: ::.::·:::: :: :: .:: : ::: ;:: ;:· ;:·.:::.:: ::·:·:": . was• betoi •the. age or .13! \Vhen defendant .allegedlY raped•• . : .: : · .: : . :· .. :. . . .
@contested thaJ SJ :M
her,' as. she was io. years. old. whe11 she testified al tfbil. on Jatitlary 11, 2()17. [N{I'.: 1/11/17 .. . :. :.· .. :: .. : :: ::: :.. . · .. : ··: .. :···. :. :::.:::.·.:.: .::: .:: :.·. ::· ···::.:.:::·. :· :. :·: : ·::: :: .. : .. : .. : : ·::···· ::.::::.: :
the Commonweal�. p. l 09J. Therefore the. only de1nent. that. was. requited. to .proye to .the •••• beyonda.reasollable.doubt.was the.[)efendatit,.SylvestetLewis, ·Jury that .engaged ·in :::;_.::::: :.:: :·:::::: :::·:::::_::::. ·::. ::: ::.·.;: ::'/ :::: :::·:· ... :: . .•...•• [N.f •l/13/17 p.76-7}; •Howeve,,the . . . . . .. ... ..... ... . . . . . . . ...
sexualJntercourse \vitll his daughter, S. .: .. . • •.•• • i . • •••• ••• •••• ••. •••• ••• ••••
Comfoonwealth was. nonetjufred to prQVide evidet1ce that precluded. every possibility of. .: •••••• • . •• •• •• • •. > . . ., .: ) •i / > . • •. . • .•. .• • • • . . . . < :
• •rtamely,'thattheDefend�tengaged ·•• ; ::•• > ). > with. S ..... . in} sexualintetcourse :.:M... ..•..••.}d. •.••• ••• at9f4. . • •••·•· ·•·•· : •. . . • .•. •.•.. •• . As used in 18. Pa. c.s.A. • §312l(c), ''s�xu.al int¢rcQUrse" is,. !'in. addition to its • ·. • : :·< .•.•. ) •:: <• ••.•.•.•• per. .or.per �us .:ordinary. meaning, intercOurse •• OS .. •. with. .penetration .however some §3101.(201 s}.· s:. 1
required." .ts• Pa.• C.S.f\.• slight;•.emissionis. not •. . . ·M.· · ·that.Syin•�.Le�s.penetrated.her both vagina1wand.anaJ1y•on moredian.s O¢caslQn•··· · �1201.2 •. expert in this case;testified thats and20.i;.•[N,T.·1n1111·p.120J .•Moreo�,.Dr•• June Messam,.the•ohlY. 1 M.. . .. has ilverylittle hy111enaltissue'' whichis.··. •..abnormal . : at her. age .. [N.T/ .. l/?11117 p.l . M�sSarn. . . 13· 16]. Dr;. • also •te�tified··.• that SC>me··········) ···············••>········· type
. .: I over •··.< . . • •·1• ••••••t.period along wo\dd ofti1ne ).·•·•·. >>••••·•·•·•·• ., bel'eqQired fofS) ••i•••··••·•·•·•·•••···•••··•••••••··.··•·····•··· ·>·••·•. ··to ····•·····•·······•·•······••••····•··· have this ·• .. ·····
•.............. ···1·•············································································· abnorinalhynienaltissue•absericeattheage.of7.•[N.1\.•lllll17•p;l18], . • . •••••I. ·• .. ·.• •·• ·•·. .: • .. ·ot.Messamalso••. .. ··•··•· .: • • . ·••• .: .: • ·•• • •••• ••• .. .: • ••••• • .. •••• .: .•. ·•• • ·••• .: .:": .: .: • ..": • . .: • .: • •·•
· ·• · • ·•••.• . :•that. testified. • ••·• in>her c�re¢r ••• .>.•••·••.••••• as• a Child•<•••• A.bµse T •••• Pediatrician, • specializing in ·child• <······•·••·•·•••••••••••••··••••··· sexual ·••···•·••·••••······•> > /.• · • • • ••
..': •••··· · assault I examinatio11s, she has perfonned >·········• . . . approximately 2,000examinatfons and< S'> t•••••·•••·••••·•·••••·•• ,.,., •,•• : · .: ., ·::··: ··.·:::· ::·.:: ·::.. ::: >•••••••••••••••••••••••··•••••• :: .: ··. ·: ·· .. :·:: :::·.:: ·:· · . ·. ·::. :· . .: ·: : -::.:\: ):·: :: .:: ... ;;_ ...
[N.'f. lll l/l7 p.l}6�22]; .. • As stated eafoer, if �e ju�, as the trler-0ffact,. believes the U!\corrobora!ed • : :·:··\.·:· :::::.::. /·-: ;::\-< .:·.:: \: ::(<: ;:,:· ::::_::,::· ::(\'.":::·::::::::::: :< :\·)::: . ··::: :::: : .: :: ::·· .. :·::·:::: .: .:,- :I:::::::. :::: · testimony <>fa vfotim. of sexµaj assault,. in tliis. ¢�S¢ S1......... t M. . . .. , th�n hef testimony .sufficient: evidence.lo the.defendant.Davis, .650.A;2d.at.455.• Ihthfa.case
:�.T. .. alone· is convi�t testified aefendartfrapirig . . . M, '. to ·her on multiple occasions. l/ll/17 : : :::. :;:.::::·;::: ::< /;: ::::/.\(::::.;::(<: ;:.::;::::::- :�.\)::.:I::: : ::::: .: .. :<-:::: ::. ·:: ::::·::: :::::::.::::: :::::::· :::::::· :--::: .: ;:::::::.::: • It i� obvious that! the jury belteved f..... . ..•. i testitnon)' and found het to be • •... . . ··credibte.••• White thisalone.would.be.sufficient •evi
with aT••••······/.:•••·r><••·•·•••t/•••·• •••.••··········· i··••••••••/ ···consistent < . ..... ••·••···•••·••·.[N.T lorigperiod ofvaginalpen.etra.tioti; ••••• .•<•••·•·•.•··•·• •lll2l17 >••·· .... >·••·•·?.:•••·. p.ll3-ll8]. The Jury··· ···•••·,·.•
that.:this evidence. .that . detertnihed •. was• sufficient to .conclude ·the. Defendant,. Sylvester'• with Lewis, engaged sexuaHntercourse in s: . . . M, •.•. • ••• •.Therefore,. giyen lhe .evidenc;. testimony pr�sentea and the .ComJrtonwealth, by cannot. lthe]ury.Was. •this·. couB say that Urtal>le.• t1aso�abIY <:Jnclude.fuat. �e.defe�dant • • · · t(l engagedIin sexualintercourse :· .'. :with .. Sl ····· ··· • •··•M/ ··· •• ;and >•. thus the evidence m.ust . . >•••. be.de¢m.ed .••••••••••••.•••••••••••.•. •·••·•••••• ••••••••••·•••·•• •••.••••.•.••••.•••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••. .• suffic+and·d�fondant'sclim.of ett0rmu,t·fffll · .•• •.• •J$s.ue.&,ofthe•l925(b)·Statement:.TheTrhdCourldid·notAbijse·itsDis¢retion.l>y•·•
t • • • .• •. L. I > ..•••••••••• •• 1· .•.•.• ·.· ···•· •· •..••. ··• •...•.•..••••.•••.• ··•·•· •.•..•..•.•.•.••.•••• •·••• •······· •••.•.•••....•..••. · ltnpc>sing. an Aggregate Sentence. of 60 to l20 Years Jncarcer�tion Because this · •• · · ·..••• • • S�ntonr Folfu\Vs tho �ict.tes o(41 Pa. C.S.A. § 9721(b). · · · . •. The J)e(endant argues that this •C.ourt.abused • its discretion. by •imposing· a sentence . .. , , .. ,. ,., ., :. . _· ·: .:·.: .. ·:: : ·· .. :: ·.. :::.: .. .. . . . . . .
.• of 60.to l20 years fdrt�ee seJa�te.counts of Rap¢ . a·chitd becaµse.thesentence. of is .: ••this.Sentence;.aid.not.follo�rthe.dictates above.the .• guidelinbs•• ancl.the .• .: .... < ·:. :;: imposing Court,.in •. .::.:::: .::: .. :<: .. ::: :.:::. ·:: ::_::·· ::· .:<:.::·:: ::::::::::::: .. :::-:::: .. :::·:: "::·: ::: .. ••
• of 42• Pa. • c.s.A.• §·91f lo,f ·.This claiJ.is•rneritless.•• . .. .: .: · . . .••.• .• • ••..•. > . .' . .• . . •. . ·1tis•\Vell�established•that• ''fs]entencing �atterV�sted ·· isa .i.lthe . so\llld discretion• •..
of the. sentericingjudgt atld. a sente#�e .will. nQt be. cli$tutbed ! oh. appe�. absent an. abuse of cotnn1on�ealthv.• H�dy, .•• Itis.also•• discretion.: •• 939A.2d974,.980.(Pa Super .• 2oo7).• • wen-estabHshed.that• ... a. sentencing.court willnot.liaveabused Hs.diScretion unless.the•
reoorddisoloses that thejudgtrlenl exercised was maiilrest1y\lnfe�@I)able. or the result of prejudice,.bias.'.or·ill-Will.n.cotnmonWealth v.Dodge�••9s7 · ··partiality, A.2d.ll9.s ••• r200·· •· . : .. .. ': . :.: :: .:. : ': . . .. .. . . .: ::: ... .' . . . . (Pa. Super. 2008). . . .... . .... · .. The Perinsyl�ania Crhnes Code; .18. §. 312 l(e)( l) st�tes ! that a pers<>n. C()Iivibted of . 11 detailed. shall!be. the offense.of Rape of .a.Child,•as. in.subsection.(c), sentenced.to.a teflll .. ··•ofimprisonment\Vhicfishall.befixed.by�e.courtat.not.�orelhan·40·years.u.§18.Pa .. .:
:�::r: :::1uri�;�i::r:1:rt�:1�1ii'r::m:::· ··c.s.A. . 1
§.972J(b).statesthat.''thecourt.shall.follo1the.genefa1.principfothat•the·sentence
iinposed.1hou1d•call·for.confirtetnent.that is.consistentwith;theprotection.ofthe.public,·······
the •sra1ity ofaie .offense. 8$. it • relates .fu. the ,mpaci. On. the life. of the.viotim .ahd .ol)the• • •· cOlDillurtity .: . ... / 42 Pa. C.S;A.. § 972l(b). ..••··•••• :· ::.:.:·:·: ... ·:::: .:: . ::.: .. :·:: -: ·:: :··::::·:::·.:::::·:: :::. :::::::· .. ::
. · ..•..•.. The Defendant,. Sylvester. Lewis, was convicted .of three separate.coUilts. orRape of a Child' .where each count carries \Vith. �a}(imum:sentence .of4U years .• it a The Court •••••. its. concurrent ts soundly Wi�in discretion to. �mpose consecutive or .sentences .• 42 .�a,• •.. •· • .•.. • •c.s .A.•§ •972l{b) .• 'fhis Cburt dJnsidered. the Co�111or1\\lealth's request for cotisec\ltiVe • • • • · · · • • · • • • •• t / <<................................. <···••••< . sentences.for the three convictions,alongwith grc1vityof the: Defendant's offensesas.they •• .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . . ::: ·:.::: :: .. ::·. · __ '_ ·:.. ,., :···:. ,. . . ,. . .. . . . . . " .
M ". [N.'f. 6/23/f7 P,17]. Taking aRofthis . .. .. . . . .
pertain. 16 the }ife. of the .:victim;· s� , ,. " . which •is sqµare)y Within the •dictates of b()tll 42 •Pa.• s.c .A .• §972 J(b) anci 18. §3121 (e)(l ). . . :·· .:: .: .. :.::·:: ;:: '.· _-:: :: : ....... :·;: _{· :::·::>-:·:::::::::<::'.>ii:; .. :;:::::-: :·: ::<) << :: ... .\ :\): '.: .::::.:·.::::;:�::-:.: ·There· is nothing• 1nfuiifestly .urrreasonable" • aboll1: l111posing a. sentence explicitlY within• .. .. 11 . .. . , . . .. . . . . .
the range• of the· sentericing. guidelines. detail�d by the •statute of . :·;· . whfohlhe .Defendant was•• ;: ; .. : :: :: ·: .. :·::: : :::< ): . ::·: :: :; . ::: ::·::: :::_:::::::·:::::::::::::::::::: :: :: :::;··:: : - ::·::-:. :: .. :::· .: : :::-::: :::::: charged.andfoun�·guHty .•• CollUllonwb�Ithv.•• I)()4ge,!• 77.i\.3d.1263, •• 1278.(Pa.Super. ·. .:· ::: ;;- ;: .. '') :: ::.·:·.::: :::::·:. ·:· :.:. :: .: :::--:: ::: :: ::: ::.:::::::::.:::::::::· :>::::::·::·:: ;: :; ;: ;;::: ::::: .. :::.·:·· . ::: .. ::::. 2013).• Therefore,this Court properly imposed·�·seJtenceof 60itQ•l20years on three . ofa:Child,.and.accordingly.Def cQmplaint.of . counts Rape Jf endant's: error on.appeal•·· ·• : :: ::: . :. � ; : . . .: .: : . . . : . . . : '. : . : .. : .: an ::·.· .. · .. .. .. . ..... ·······:: . . ... . .. ... .. :·":·:::::::. ;>.·. : :.:::::;:::.. . . ... .. :· :..·.:-:.. . : .. :: . :::: . CONCLUSION
. . .. . .
• > :........... : .·. ·. .. .. .. ....... . . <••• . : ::: .. . ... ..... .. .. ::. rr····· ·· · .. . . .
.... . ..·;:.
.. ... .. .. .... .... . . .. ·:·: .:·:·· ......... ·::·:···: . . .. :.: .. .. .. ... ·:. .:: .. ... . .. . . .. · ..·TH.E··c ···.·. ·::_:.·R·:·:T :-:.:.: :.:.:: ··:.::.:. B··_:y . .· ··' a·u .:;:::
.. . . . .