Com. v. Redd, J.

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 18, 2024
Docket24 EDA 2024
StatusUnpublished

This text of Com. v. Redd, J. (Com. v. Redd, J.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Com. v. Redd, J., (Pa. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

J-S31038-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JANEER REDD : : Appellant : No. 24 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 30, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0004325-2022

BEFORE: BOWES, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 18, 2024

Janeer Redd (“Redd”) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed

by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas (“trial court”) after his

convictions of rape of an unconscious person, involuntary deviate sexual

intercourse (“IDSI”), sexual assault, indecent assault of an unconscious

person, and simple assault.1 On appeal, Redd challenges the sufficiency and

weight of the evidence to support his rape of an unconscious person, IDSI,

and sexual assault convictions. After careful review, we affirm.

In August 2022, Danisha Dale (“Dale”) was sporadically living at 1205

Clover Lane in Chester, Delaware County (“Clover Lane house”), in which Redd

and his daughter were residents. The Clover Lane house was owned by Redd’s

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3121(a)(3), 3123(a)(3), 3124.1, 3126(a)(4), 2701(a)(1). J-S31038-24

mother. Dale did not have a designated bedroom but would sleep on an open

bed or couch when staying there. She spent the night of August 8, 2022, at

the Clover Lane house. When she awoke on August 9, 2022, Dale and a friend

went to her aunt’s house to engage in day drinking. After having several

drinks, Dale became intoxicated; she was subsequently dropped off at the

Clover Lane house at approximately 3:00 p.m. Dale fell asleep in Redd’s

daughter’s bedroom. She was wearing a two-piece yoga outfit without

underwear, and she was using a tampon because she had her period at that

time.

Later, Dale woke up lying on her back, with her shorts pulled down to

her knees, her tampon removed, and Redd on top of her, forcibly performing

oral sex on her. Dale immediately began to struggle. At the same time, Dale

initiated a video call with her mother, who saw Redd on top of Dale and heard

Dale yelling for Redd to get off her. During the struggle, Redd struck Dale on

her lower lip causing her to bleed. Once she freed herself, Dale then exited

the Clover Lane house and called the police, telling the operator that she

awoke to Redd kissing her vagina.

When police arrived on the scene, they photographed Redd’s daughter’s

bedroom and found a used tampon on the floor. Police arrested Redd, and

the Commonwealth charged him with above-mentioned crimes. Redd waived

a jury trial, and the case proceeded to a bench trial, following which the trial

judge found Redd guilty on all counts. The trial court subsequently sentenced

-2- J-S31038-24

Redd to an aggregate term of five to ten years of incarceration followed by

one year of probation.2 Redd filed a timely post-sentence motion raising a

challenge to the weight of the evidence to support his convictions. The trial

court denied the motion. Redd timely appeal, raising the following question

for our review: “Was there sufficient evidence presented at the time of [t]rial

to convict [Redd] of Count 1 - Rape of Unconscious Victim, Count 2 - IDSI

Person Unconscious, Count 3 - Sexual Assault, and Count 4 - Indecent Assault

Person Unconscious?” Redd’s Brief at 4.

Redd challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his rape,

IDSI, sexual assault, and indecent assault convictions. Id. at 7. He premises

his entire argument on his contention that he did not have any sexual contact

with Dale, noting that his DNA was not found on Dale’s person. Id. at 11.

Pointing to his own testimony, Redd notes that Dale physically assaulted him

and that he called the police to report that assault. Id. at 10-11.

A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence requires that the Court

view the evidence presented in support of the convictions in the light most

favorable to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 956 A.2d

2 More specifically, the trial court sentenced Redd to five to ten years of incarceration for rape of an unconscious person, IDSI, and sexual assault, finding the IDSI and sexual assault sentences merged with the rape sentence. The trial court also sentenced Redd to concurrent one-year probationary terms for the indecent assault of person unconscious and simple assault convictions. The trial court imposed the probationary term consecutive to the prison sentence.

-3- J-S31038-24

926, 932 (Pa. 2008). Where the jury hears conflicting evidence and

nonetheless convicts the defendant, we will find the evidence sufficient as long

as there was proof of every element presented. Commonwealth v. Pierce,

288 A.2d 807, 809 (Pa. 1972). Our review of Redd’s argument reveals that

he is not, in fact, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his

convictions, as he bases his claim entirely on the credibility of his own

testimony. In this respect, Redd “conflates the concepts of sufficiency and

weight of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Juray, 275 A.3d 1037, 1043

(Pa. Super. 2022). Our review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence

to support a conviction “does not include an assessment of [the] credibility of

testimony;” such arguments “are more properly characterized as challenges

to weight of evidence.” Id. Therefore, Redd’s claim is “more properly

construed as a challenge to the weight of the evidence.” Id. at 1044.

Because Redd failed to advance any argument in support of a challenge

to the sufficiency of the evidence, it is waived. Commonwealth v. Williams,

959 A.2d 1252, 1257–58 (Pa. Super. 2008). Further, as Redd failed to

preserve a claim challenging the weight of the evidence in his statement of

questions involved in his brief before this Court, it is likewise waived. 3

Commonwealth v. Harris, 979 A.2d 387, 397 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holding

that under Pa.R.A.P. Rule 2116 a claim is waived when not included in the

3Redd did, however, preserve his weight challenge by filing a post-sentence motion. Post-Sentence Motion, 11/8/2023, at 1-2.

-4- J-S31038-24

statement of questions presented). It is also meritless.

It is well-settled that

[a]ppellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, an appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial court’s determination that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial is the lower court’s conviction that the verdict was or was not against the weight of the evidence and that a new trial should be granted in the interest of justice.

Juray, 275 A.3d at 1047 (citation omitted).

Here, the trial court rejected Redd’s weight claim in his post-sentence

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Commonwealth v. Harris
979 A.2d 387 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2009)
Commonwealth v. Williams
959 A.2d 1252 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2008)
Commonwealth v. Pierce
288 A.2d 807 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1972)
Commonwealth v. Page
59 A.3d 1118 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2013)
Commonwealth v. Collins
70 A.3d 1245 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2013)
Commonwealth v. Diaz
152 A.3d 1040 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2016)
Com. v. Juray, R., Jr.
2022 Pa. Super. 83 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2022)
Com. v. Banniger, A.
2023 Pa. Super. 197 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Com. v. Redd, J., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-redd-j-pasuperct-2024.