Com. v. Gray, W., Jr. ( 2023 )

J-S39028-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
WAYNE ALLEN GRAY, JR. :
:
Appellant : No. 787 MDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 30, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-28-CR-0001620-2018
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and NICHOLS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: MARCH 21, 2023
Appellant, Wayne Allen Gray, Jr., appeals from the judgment of
sentence of 21 to 60 years of incarceration imposed following his convictions
for various crimes all relating to the physical and sexual abuse of his
occasional romantic partner, Victim. We vacate judgment of sentence and
remand for further proceedings.
The trial court ably summarized the facts as presented by the
Commonwealth at Appellant’s jury trial as follows:
[V]ictim testified that she had a ‘friends with benefits’ relationship
with Appellant and that, at the time, she was staying with him in
his apartment located in the Borough of Chambersburg. In
roughly the month leading up to July 27, 2018, Appellant had been
away. On July 27, 2018, Appellant returned to town with another
female, picked [V]ictim up in his car, and the three returned to
the apartment and ‘hung out.’ After the other female left, [V]ictim
and Appellant drank alcohol, smoked marijuana, and had
consensual sex.
J-S39028-22
At some point afterward, Appellant began insinuating that [V]ictim
had sexual relations with one of his brothers while he was away,
that he was ‘giving her a chance to admit to anything’ she did,
and that he wanted to hear it from her own mouth. The accusation
was indeed true, but [V]ictim did not admit it to Appellant.
Appellant told [V]ictim that he was giving her that day to tell him,
or the next day there would be consequences.
The following morning, on Saturday, July 28, 2018, Appellant had
left the apartment for reasons unknown to [V]ictim. She awoke
to the sound of Appellant knocking on the door for her to let him
in, which she did. [V]ictim testified that she was under the
influence of crack cocaine and possibly marijuana at the time.
While in the kitchen, Appellant punched her in the face with a
closed fist, causing her to fall to the floor. Appellant was repeating
over and over that [V]ictim had sex with his brother. [V]ictim
testified that she was scared for her life, stating that he had
previously beaten her “for a lot less.”
Appellant first removed a fork from a kitchen drain-board and
began scratching and stabbing [V]ictim on her face, arms, and
legs. One of these injuries left a scar on her thumb. He then
grabbed a butter knife and began ‘jabbing’ [V]ictim ‘pretty much
all over,’ which did pierce her skin. After that, he grabbed a
sharper knife and cut off part of her hair. While [V]ictim was lying
on her back on the floor of the kitchen, she testified that Appellant
then put his foot on her throat and began choking her to the point
that she could not breathe. [V]ictim testified that she felt as
though she was going to pass out and that, while she was being
choked, she urinated herself [sic]. Appellant then became angry
because [V]ictim was ‘bleeding everywhere’ and he told her to
clean up the kitchen and take a shower.
Shortly thereafter in the living room, Appellant began striking
[V]ictim hard with a wooden bat, striking her in the head, legs,
and arms. Appellant then went into his bedroom, put Vaseline on
the wooden bat, and asked [V]ictim, ‘Where is it going?’ He then
instructed [V]ictim to insert the wooden bat into her rectum while
she performed fellatio on him. When asked why she did not resist
these attacks, [V]ictim testified that Appellant would have ‘forced
it and did it himself and continued to hurt me if I didn’t.’
Later on in the evening, [V]ictim testified that Appellant forced
her to have sexual intercourse with him in his bedroom, forcing
his penis into her vagina. [V]ictim testified that she was still in
-2-
J-S39028-22
pain from the earlier attack and did not consent to the intercourse.
When asked why she did not fight back or resist during either
encounter, she indicated that she was afraid of him and that ‘it
would not have mattered’ and ‘he would have taken control and
done it anyway.’ [V]ictim further testified that Appellant kept a
close eye on her, even checking on her if she was in the bathroom
for too long, and that there were locks on the door which made
her feel that she could not leave.
Two days later on Monday, July 30, 2018, [V]ictim accompanied
Appellant’s brother and another female to take Appellant to an
appointment, which [V]ictim saw as an opportunity to get away.
She asked Appellant’s brother to take her to the house in which
her mother was staying. [V]ictim’s mother called 911 and [V]ictim
was taken to the hospital via ambulance. When [V]ictim explained
what had happened to staff there, they contacted law
enforcement.
Based on [V]ictim’s statements, police promptly obtained a search
warrant for Appellant’s apartment. The evidence collected
corroborated [V]ictim’s version of events. [V]ictim’s blood was
found throughout the apartment, including on a pair of men’s size
13 shoes which the Commonwealth posited Appellant was wearing
during the attack. A significant bloodstain was identified on a sofa
in the living room, near a stain later identified to be Appellant’s
semen. A bucket containing bloody rags was located in the
bathroom. A container of petroleum jelly was found in Appellant’s
bedroom. The wooden bat was found on the floor of the bedroom.
A clump of [V]ictim’s hair was found behind the toilet in the
bathroom. Three utensils were found in the kitchen sink, including
a fork with a bent prong and a butter knife with a bent blade, as
well as a knife believed to have been used to cut [V]ictim’s hair.
Several photographs of [V]ictim’s injuries were admitted into
evidence. [V]ictim had numerous bruises all over her body,
including on her back, chest, arms, neck, and face. [V]ictim also
had a bruise on her arm consistent with a fork. The police officer
who first interacted with [V]ictim testified that she had bruises on
her legs and one of her ears, as well as on her chest. A CAT scan
revealed bleeding on [V]ictim’s brain. The sexual assault nurse
examiner who examined [V]ictim observed that she had two tears
measuring 5 millimeters in length within the labia minora, which
the nurse testified is usually associated with a degree of force.
-3-
J-S39028-22
A sexual assault kit was used to collect samples from [V]ictim[]
and was sent for forensic analysis, along with other samples
collected from the apartment. The report for these samples was
admitted into evidence, and a forensic DNA scientist testified to
its findings and accuracy. Forensic testing discovered [V]ictim’s
DNA on the wide-end of the bat. All of the blood samples,
including the blood on the shoes, walls, and sofa – also matched
[V]ictim. Appellant’s sperm was identified from the swab taken
from [V]ictim’s vagina.
Trial Court Opinion, 2/3/22, at 2-6 (footnotes omitted) (hereinafter “TCO”).1
Appellant was sentenced on June 30, 2021. Appellant chose to
represent himself at that proceeding and later filed an untimely, pro se post-
sentence motion on July 16, 2021, which raised numerous claims, including
ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court construed the
motion as a request for relief under the Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”),2
and appointed counsel to represent Appellant. Counsel filed a motion
requesting that the trial court treat the post-sentence motion as timely due to
application of the prisoner mailbox rule, and represented that Appellant
stamped his post-sentence motion on July 1, 2021. The trial court granted
this request and deemed the post-sentence motion timely. The post-sentence
motion was denied by operation of law on November 17, 2021, but no order
was entered. Appellant filed a protective notice of appeal on December 10,
____________________________________________
1 The trial court explained in a footnote that the “wooden bat” was “described
in a variety of ways throughout trial” and was admitted into evidence. TCO
at 4 n.26. The court stated that the bat “is certainly not appropriately
described as a ‘baseball bat’” and explained that it is similar to a dowel rod.
For the sake of continuity, the trial court referred to the item as a “bat” and
we shall do the same.
2 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
-4-
J-S39028-22
2021, docketed at 1628 MDA 2022. The trial court ordered Appellant to file a
concise statement of matters complained of on appeal on December 14, 2021.
During the pendency of that appeal, Appellant filed a second post-
sentence motion on February 25, 2022, arguing that the Commonwealth had
promised Victim leniency regarding her own outstanding charges in exchange
for her testimony against Appellant. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(C) (“A post-
sentence motion for a new trial on the ground of after-discovered evidence
must be filed in writing promptly after such discovery.”). Appellant also
requested a remand from this Court to address the motion, as approved by
the Rule’s comment. Comment to Rule 720 (“[A]fter-discovered evidence
discovered during the post-sentence stage must be raised promptly with the
trial judge at the post-sentence stage; after-discovered evidence discovered
during the direct appeal process must be raised promptly during the direct
appeal process, and should include a request for a remand to the trial
judge[.]”).
This Court quashed the appeal and denied the request for remand as
moot. See Order at 1628 MDA 2022, 3/9/22. Our order explained that this
Court had previously issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should not
be quashed, as the docket reflected that no order had been entered denying
the post-sentence motion by law. Appellant supplied this Court with proof
that he filed a praecipe for entry of an order denying the post-sentence motion
by law on February 7, 2022. However, as of March 9, 2022, the docket did
not show that an order denying the post-sentence motion had been entered.
-5-
J-S39028-22
We thus instructed the trial court to issue separate orders addressing
Appellant’s post-sentence motion for a new trial and his original post-sentence
motion. We also deemed the request to remand as moot. The trial court
thereafter entered separate orders on May 3, 2022.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal. See Notice of Appeal, 5/20/22, at 1
(single page filing) (“Notice is hereby given that [Appellant] … hereby appeals
… from the Opinion and Order of Court denying [Appellant]’s Post-Sentence
Motion dated May 3rd, 2022.”).3 Appellant raises the following issues for our
review:
____________________________________________
3 We conclude that the separate post-sentence motion based on the after-
discovered evidence claim was incorporated into the judgment of sentence as
made final by the denial of Appellant’s original post-sentence motion. See
Commonwealth v. Beeman, 847 A.2d 87, 87 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2004)
(“[A]ppeal properly lies from the judgment of sentence made final by the
denial of post-sentence motions[.]”) (citation omitted).
As the Comment to the Rule reflects, a claim for after-discovered
evidence discovered during the post-sentence motion stage is properly before
the trial court in the first instance, whereas remand is required when this Court
has jurisdiction during the direct appeal process. A breakdown in the process
occurred when the clerk of courts failed to deny Appellant’s original post-
sentence motion by operation of law. See Commonwealth v. Khalil, 806
A.2d 415, 420 (Pa. Super. 2002) (stating that “failure of the clerk of courts to
issue an order ... deeming the [a]ppellant’s post-sentence motions denied by
operation of law, was a breakdown of the processes of the trial court”). Thus,
we could have treated the original appeal as timely based on that breakdown.
However, we would then be forced to remand to address the newly-discovered
evidence claim.
In effect, until now, this Court had not decided whether the Rule 720(C)
motion was filed during the normal post-sentence motion period or whether it
was filed during the “direct appeal process.” Due to the combination of our
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-6-
J-S39028-22
1. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in denying [Appellant]’s
request for a new trial based upon the Commonwealth’s failure to
disclose that [Victim] … would receive a plea bargain in
consideration of her testimony against [Appellant][.]
2. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in denying [Appellant]’s
Pretrial Motion to Suppress Evidence due to an illegal search of a
premises not referenced in the application for search warrant[.]
3. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in denying [Appellant]’s
Pretrial Motion to Suppress Evidence due to certain evidence not
described in the search warrant being seized without authority[.]
4. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in allowing Nurse Nancy Bates
to testify to statements of [V]ictim in violation of the rules of
evidence prohibiting hearsay[.]
5. Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict [Appellant] of
Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse [(“IDSI”)] when the
Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
[Appellant] engaged in sexual intercourse through force or threat
of force[.]
6. Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict [Appellant] of
Rape when the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that [Appellant] engaged in sexual intercourse
through force or threat of force[.]
7. Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict [Appellant] of
Strangulation when the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that it was [Appellant]’s conscious object or
purpose to restrict the breathing or the circulation of the blood of
[V]ictim[.]
8. Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict [Appellant] of
Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon when the
Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
[Appellant] used a device or instrumentality calculated or likely to
produce death or serious bodily injury[.]
____________________________________________
quashal, which served to terminate the direct appeal process, and the
breakdown in the administrative process that led to that quashal, we opt to
treat Appellant’s post-sentence motion based on after-discovered evidence as
if it were filed during the post-sentence motion period.
-7-
J-S39028-22
9. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in sentencing [Appellant] to
consecutive sentences for Rape and [IDSI] when these two counts
should have merged for sentencing purposes[.]
10.Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt’s imposition of consecutive
aggravated range sentences, rather than concurrent sentences[,]
is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the
length of imprisonment[.]
Appellant’s Brief at 4-6.
Appellant’s first claim involves Victim’s guilty plea on May 27, 2021, to
two cases that were outstanding at the time of Appellant’s trial. The jury was
informed that Victim was facing criminal charges. The Commonwealth asked,
“Have you been, I guess, promised anything or paid at all for your testimony
here?” Victim replied, “No.” N.T., 4/25/21, at 70. Appellant filed the post-
sentence motion after obtaining Victim’s plea transcript. The transcript shows
that the Commonwealth, represented by the same assistant district attorney
who prosecuted Appellant, amended Victim’s felony criminal trespass charge
to a misdemeanor theft, and amended a felony escape charge to a
misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Appellant sought a new trial on the basis
that the Commonwealth must have agreed to the reduced charges in
exchange for Victim’s testimony against Appellant. Appellant cited the
prosecutor’s statement at the plea that Victim was cooperative and provided
testimony against Appellant. The Commonwealth filed a response to the
motion, arguing that her testimony was only a factor in the plea bargain.
Appellant maintains that he is entitled to a new trial.
Exculpatory evidence favorable to the accused is not confined to
evidence that reflects upon the culpability of the defendant.
Exculpatory evidence also includes evidence of an impeachment
-8-
J-S39028-22
nature that is material to the case against the accused. Napue
v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 … (1959). As the court in Napue sagely
observed: “[t]he jury’s estimate of the truthfulness and reliability
of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence,
and it is upon such subtle factors as the possible interest of the
witness in testifying that a defendant’s life or liberty may depend.”
Id. at 269[.] Any implication, promise or understanding that the
government would extend leniency in exchange for a witness’[s]
testimony is relevant to the witness’[s] credibility. United States
v. Giglio, 405 U.S. 150 … (1972)…. [W]hen the failure of the
prosecution to produce material evidence raises a reasonable
probability that the result of the trial would have been different if
the evidence had been produced, due process has been violated
and a new trial is warranted. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S.
667 … (1985).
Commonwealth v. Strong, 761 A.2d 1167, 1171 (Pa. 2000).
The trial court did not hold a hearing on the matter. Instead, the court
concluded that Appellant failed to establish that a plea agreement existed, as
the Commonwealth’s response cited several explanations for the plea which
the trial court credited. The trial court declined to determine whether
Appellant would be entitled to a new trial if a plea deal existed, but expressed
skepticism based on the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
The Commonwealth continues to maintain that there was no plea deal.
The Commonwealth also states, “Because the trial court denied Appellant’s
post-sentence motions without a hearing, the Commonwealth did not have
the opportunity to create a record detailing the process it underwent when
crafting the plea agreement in [Victim]’s criminal case.” Commonwealth’s
Brief at 9. The Commonwealth cites the witnesses and facts it would have
introduced at a hearing, all of which it submits would have established that
there was no plea agreement made in exchange for Victim’s testimony.
-9-
J-S39028-22
Alternatively, the Commonwealth argues that “any such error was harmless
because there is no reasonable probability that had the jury been made aware
of the plea agreement between Victim and the Commonwealth, that the
outcome of the trial would have been different.” Id. at 10. Still, the
Commonwealth “concedes that a remand for the limited purposes of holding
an evidentiary hearing to establish a record … may be necessary.” Id. at 11.
We accept the Commonwealth’s willingness to place these matters on
the record. While we agree that the evidence of guilt appears to be
overwhelming, we recognize that prosecutors “have a unique role in our
criminal justice system.” See Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 173 A.3d 617,
631 (Pa. 2017) (Donohue, J., concurring). The Commonwealth is required to
seek justice, not win cases. Id. We are not inclined to simply conclude that
any such deal, if it existed, was ultimately irrelevant. Indeed, the
Commonwealth concedes that a limited remand is warranted. We therefore
find that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that no plea
agreement existed without sufficient record support.
Accordingly, we shall vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for
the limited purpose of an evidentiary hearing on this issue. If the court
concludes after this hearing that Appellant has failed to establish that an
agreement was in place at the time of trial for a plea bargain in exchange for
Victim’s testimony, or it concludes that Appellant cannot establish a
reasonable probability that the outcome of trial would have been different if
- 10 -
J-S39028-22
any such agreement existed, then the court shall reimpose the judgment of
sentence.
Because the court is instructed to reinstate the judgment of sentence if
it concludes that Appellant is not entitled to a new trial following an evidentiary
hearing, we now address Appellant’s remaining claims.4 Appellant’s second
and third issues both involve the search warrant for his residence.
[O]ur standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial court’s
denial of a suppression motion is limited to determining whether
the factual findings are supported by the record and whether the
legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. We are
bound by the suppression court’s factual findings so long as they
are supported by the record; our standard of review on questions
of law is de novo. Where, as here, the defendant is appealing the
ruling of the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence
of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense
as remains uncontradicted. Our scope of review of suppression
rulings includes only the suppression hearing record and excludes
evidence elicited at trial.
Commonwealth v. Yandamuri, 159 A.3d 503, 516 (Pa. 2017) (citations
omitted).
Appellant first attacks the sufficiency of the description in the search
warrant regarding the place to be searched. The search warrant authorized a
search of the following premises:
321 Lincoln Way West, second floor apartment is the target of the
search. 321 Lincoln Way West is attached to 319 Lincoln Way
West. 321 Lincoln Way West is a brick house with a first floor and
second floor apartment. 321 Lincoln Way West has white trim
windows. The entry into the second floor apartment is on the west
____________________________________________
4 Additionally, Appellant would be entitled to discharge if the evidence were
insufficient to convict, thus eliminating the possibility of a new trial on some
or all of the counts.
- 11 -
J-S39028-22
side of the building with a set of stones stairs that leads to a
landing/ porch. The landing has [a] white railing and white posts.
Appellant’s Brief at 12 (citation omitted).
Appellant argues that the “Commonwealth searched the wrong
property.” Id. at 13. Appellant appears to claim that the Commonwealth
searched the “wrong” property in that 321 Lincoln Way West does not really
exist. The basis for that assertion is the rental agent’s description for the
second-floor apartment, which described it as 321½ Lincoln Way West. “The
police officer … referenced in his testimony that he knew that the agent that
rented the property specifically referred to the property by a different address,
321½ Lincoln Way West, not 321 Lincoln Way West, Second Floor.” Id.
Appellant states that the officer “was quite aware of the discrepancy” and was
thus required to “specifically reference both addresses.” Id.
We disagree. “[T]he Supreme Court has held a ‘practical, common-
sense’ approach should be taken in determining whether the place to be
searched is specified with sufficient particularity.” Commonwealth v. Irvin,
134 A.3d 67, 73 (Pa. Super. 2016). Where the structure contains multiple
living units, it generally suffices that the warrant singles out a particular unit.
See In Int. of Wilks, 613 A.2d 577, 579 (Pa. Super. 1992) (“A search
warrant directed against an apartment house, or other multiple-occupancy
structure will be held invalid for lack of specificity if it fails to describe the
particular room or subunit to be searched with sufficient definiteness to
preclude a search of other units.”). Detective Todd Harden, who testified at
the evidentiary hearing, verified Appellant’s address through the Borough of
- 12 -
J-S39028-22
Chambersburg’s utility service records and used that address on the warrant
application. That address, in combination with the description, which
specifically referenced the stairs leading to the porch of the subunit, leaves no
doubt that the second-floor apartment was to be searched to the exclusion of
the first-floor apartment.
Even if we accepted that how the rental agent chose to describe the
building was relevant, it is not clear what the “½” designation referred to.
Appellant offers no support for the proposition that a search warrant must
include all possible designations. Moreover, using the rental agent’s
description would itself cause confusion. If the ½ simply conveys that the
two-unit structure was split into equal halves, then specifying “321½ Lincoln
Way West” would probably invalidate the search warrant under the foregoing
principle as it would be unclear which half was the target of the search. No
relief is due.
Appellant’s third issue relates to items that were seized outside the
scope of the warrant. The search warrant authorized the officers to seize the
following items: a wooden baseball bat, dining style four prong fork, blood,
and Victim’s cut hair. The receipt of the items that the authorities seized
included a pair of Nike Zoom shoes, a silver butter knife, a silver blade knife
with a black handle, and a cotton swab that officers used to collect suspected
semen. Appellant argues that these items do not fall within any of the items
referenced in the warrant and that no exception to the warrant requirement
applies. The Commonwealth agrees that the knives and semen sample are
- 13 -
J-S39028-22
not within the scope of the warrant but submits that these items were lawfully
seized pursuant to the plain view exception. As to the shoes, the
Commonwealth argues that the seizure was justified to test the shoes for
blood, which was an item listed on the warrant.
Beginning with the shoes, we agree that the suspected presence of blood
on the shoes justified their seizure. The warrant authorized the seizure of
blood, and thus the authorities could seize items with suspected blood for
further testing. The search team found dried blood in numerous places
throughout the apartment, including on the shoes. Thus, the shoes, which
contained the blood, were lawfully seized.
As to the remaining items, we agree that the officers properly seized the
items under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement:
This doctrine permits a valid warrantless seizure of an item where:
(1) the police have not violated the Fourth Amendment in arriving
at the location from which the item could be viewed; (2) the item
is in plain view; (3) the incriminating character of the item is
immediately apparent; and (4) the police have a lawful right of
access to the item itself. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128,
133 … (1990).
Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649, 656 (Pa. 2010) (footnote and some
citations omitted).
There is no question that the first prong is met as the police searched
the home pursuant to a valid search warrant. As to the second, Appellant
does not claim that the items were not in plain view. His argument centers
on the remaining two prongs. See Appellant’s Brief at 10 (“Additionally[,] the
incriminating character of the items must be readily apparent, which is lacking
- 14 -
J-S39028-22
in this case. Clearly there were no exigent circumstances as law enforcement
had secured the premises to conduct the search.”).
We disagree. Beginning with the third prong, the incriminating
character of the items was readily apparent to the investigating officers based
on their evidentiary value. At the evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s motion
to suppress, the Commonwealth asked Detective Harden, “Item number 4,
silver colored butter knife. Why … was that item seized?” N.T. Suppression,
1/3/19, at 16-17. Detective Harden replied, “During the interview with
[Victim], she explained that [Appellant] attempted to utilize a butter knife for
cutting her hair before [Appellant] used a black handled knife from the kitchen
to actually cut her hair.” Id. at 17. Detective Harden stated that he seized
the items for their evidentiary value. Id. As to the lawful right of access,
under these facts the warrant’s authorization to search supplied the lawful
right of access.
The Horton case, cited by Jones, supra, is instructive on these points.
There, police were investigating an armed robbery and established probable
cause to search Horton’s home for weapons used by the perpetrators as well
as proceeds from the robbery. The magistrate authorized a search for the
proceeds, albeit limited to three specifically described rings. The magistrate
did not authorize a search for weapons.
Officers searched Horton’s home but did not find the stolen property.
While searching for the rings, an officer discovered, in plain view, several
firearms. The officer conceded in his testimony that, while searching for the
- 15 -
J-S39028-22
rings, he was interested in finding other items connecting Horton to the
robberies. The Horton Court rejected the notion that the plain view exception
only applies when the authorities inadvertently come across the items. The
Court’s reasons for rejecting that theory are relevant to our analysis of
Appellant’s claim. Specifically, Detective Harden testified that he knew the
knives were incriminating because of what Victim told him about the attacks.
Yet, the search warrant, while listing Victim’s hair as an object of the search,
did not, for whatever reason, list the items used to cut Victim’s hair. The
Horton Court addressed this scenario:
The fact that an officer is interested in an item of evidence and
fully expects to find it in the course of a search should not
invalidate its seizure if the search is confined in area and duration
by the terms of a warrant or a valid exception to the warrant
requirement. If the officer has knowledge approaching certainty
that the item will be found, we see no reason why he or she would
deliberately omit a particular description of the item to be seized
from the application for a search warrant. Specification of the
additional item could only permit the officer to expand the scope
of the search. On the other hand, if he or she has a valid warrant
to search for one item and merely a suspicion concerning the
second, whether or not it amounts to probable cause, we fail to
see why that suspicion should immunize the second item from
seizure if it is found during a lawful search for the first. The
hypothetical case put by Justice W[hite] in his concurring and
dissenting opinion in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S.
443, 516 (1971), is instructive:
“Let us suppose officers secure a warrant to search a house
for a rifle. While staying well within the range of a rifle
search, they discover two photographs of the murder victim,
both in plain sight in the bedroom. Assume also that the
discovery of the one photograph was inadvertent but finding
the other was anticipated. The Court would permit the
seizure of only one of the photographs. But in terms of the
‘minor’ peril to Fourth Amendment values there is surely no
- 16 -
J-S39028-22
difference between these two photographs: the interference
with possession is the same in each case and the officers’
appraisal of the photograph they expected to see is no less
reliable than their judgment about the other. And in both
situations the actual inconvenience and danger to evidence
remain identical if the officers must depart and secure a
warrant.”
Id.[] at 516.
Horton, 496 U.S. at 138-39.
That hypothetical largely applies to these facts. The officers presumably
expected, or at least suspected, that they would find the knives. However,
Appellant does not argue that the officers’ authority to search the premises
was terminated prior to finding the knives and suspected semen. As stated in
Horton:
In this case, the scope of the search was not enlarged in the
slightest by the omission of any reference to the weapons in the
warrant. Indeed, if the three rings and other items named in the
warrant had been found at the outset—or if petitioner had them
in his possession and had responded to the warrant by producing
them immediately—no search for weapons could have taken place.
Id. at 141.
The same is true here. Thus, whether the authorities mistakenly failed
to request to search for the knives and semen, or believed that they did not
have probable cause that those items would be found in the home, the point
remains that the officers observed the recovered items in plain view during a
search for items they were authorized to recover. Accordingly, the scope of
this search was not broadened by the failure to include the knives and semen
- 17 -
J-S39028-22
in the warrant, and their evidentiary nature was immediately apparent to
Detective Harden.5
Appellant’s fourth issue concerns the admission of hearsay statements
relayed by Victim to a nurse. Victim was examined by Nancy Bates, a sexual
assault nurse examiner. During Nurse Bates’ testimony, she referenced the
following conversation with Victim.
[Victim] said that she was homeless[,] and she was an addict and
that she had been living with [Appellant].
[Victim] said that she was in the home[,] and [Appellant] left to
talk with someone by the name of Theresa McGinley[,] and that
Ms. McGinley told [Appellant] that [Victim] had had sex with her
brother [sic]…. [Victim] said that [Appellant] had told her in the
past that he would kill her if she messed with his brothers.
After talking with Ms. McGinley, [Appellant] returned to the house
where … [V]ictim was and beat her up. She said that she was …
beaten with a bat and hit in the head, arms, legs, and she thought
maybe her ribs.
She also reported being stabbed and scraped with a fork and a
butter knife[,] and she had multiple puncture wounds that were
visible. She also had abrasions on her face, arm, and legs[,] and
she said that she had been living with [Appellant] since December
2017….
She states that [Appellant] would withhold drugs from her if she
didn’t do what he wanted her to do[,] and she stated that’s she
[sic] really afraid of what he will do. She stated that [Appellant]
had threatened to harm her sister and her mother if she didn’t do
what he wanted her to do.
N.T., 4/5/2021, at 141-42.
____________________________________________
5 We note that the Pennsylvania Constitution rejects the “good faith” exception
to the exclusionary rule. Plain view, however, is an exception to the warrant
requirement and does not involve the exclusionary rule.
- 18 -
J-S39028-22
Appellant submits that this evidence was not admissible under any
hearsay exception and therefore we must assess whether its admission was
harmless. The Commonwealth does not address whether the evidence was
properly admitted and/or whether it was harmless. The Commonwealth
instead maintains that Appellant failed to preserve this issue.
We agree with the Commonwealth. The challenged testimony contains
hearsay, double hearsay, and triple hearsay. The first level of hearsay is the
statements by Victim to Nurse Bates. The double hearsay consists of what
Ms. McGinley told Victim, which was then related by Victim to Nurse Bates at
the first level of hearsay. The third level of hearsay consists of what Appellant
told Ms. McGinley, which in turn was related to Victim and up the chain through
the levels of hearsay as described. While Appellant’s statements to Ms.
McGinley would be admissible as an admission had Ms. McGinley testified,
Appellant is correct that the statements of Ms. McGinley relating those
admissions to Victim (and consequently the Victim’s relating that hearsay to
Nurse Bates) must be separately admissible.
Turning to issue preservation, Appellant lodged an objected when the
Commonwealth asked Nurse Bates, “And what did [Victim] tell you occurred?”
The Commonwealth responded, “I believe this is a statement for purposes of
medical treatment or diagnosis that has comes [sic] into direct contradiction
by [Appellant]. They have brought this up by witnesses on the witness stand.”
N.T., 4/5/21, at 139. Appellant replied that he was not sure what the
prosecution was referencing. The Commonwealth stated, “[Appellant]
- 19 -
J-S39028-22
indicated with regard to whether or not [Victim] had used controlled
substances on the date that she reported[,] and he cited to the medical
records indicating as such. [T]hese are statements for purposes of medical
treatment and diagnosis. They are admissible on that basis alone.” Id. at
139-40. The trial court overruled the objection.
We agree with the trial court and Commonwealth that the objection was
properly overruled at the outset, as the prosecution indicated that Nurse Bates
would provide answers relevant to the hearsay exception for medical
treatment and diagnosis. Our Supreme Court has explained the rationale for
this exception, as well as its limits, as follows:
The common law traditionally excluded statements to physicians
as to the cause of an injury (in contrast to statements of
symptoms and sensations) from coming in as substantive
evidence. See Joseph, Evidence in America, Rule 803 at p. 57
(1994)(“Statements of cause were excluded as inherently
unreliable.”). See, e.g., Cody v. S.K.F., … 291 A.2d [772,] 776
(Pa. 1972) (“statements which related to the cause of the injury
were not admissible unless they were part of the res gestae [i.e.,
excited utterance].”) Prior to Cody, testimony repeating
statements made by patients concerning the cause of the injury
were not admissible as substantive evidence. However, Cody
expanded the law and permitted such testimony regarding the
cause of the injury. The law was again extended in
Commonwealth v. Blackwell, … 494 A.2d 426 (Pa. Super.
1985), to include testimony repeating statements made to nurses
for the purposes of medical treatment and diagnosis.
The second requirement for a statement to come within the
medical treatment exception is that the statement be pertinent to
medical treatment. By way of example, a person’s statement, “I
was hit by a car,” made for the purpose of receiving medical
treatment would come within the exception. It is important for
doctors to know how the person sustained the injuries. However,
a person’s statement, “I was hit by the car which went through
- 20 -
J-S39028-22
the red light,” would not come within the exception, or at least
that part of the statement which indicated that the car “went
through the red light” would not. It is inconsequential and
irrelevant to medical treatment to know that the car went through
the red light.
Commonwealth v. Smith, 681 A.2d 1288, 1291–92 (Pa. 1996) (some
citations omitted).
The trial court concluded that many of the statements plainly exceeded
the medical treatment exception but opined that Appellant’s claim was waived
due to the failure to object once Nurse Bates’ testimony went afield of the
medical treatment exception. We agree. Appellant was required to make a
further objection once Nurse Bates’ testimony strayed from the bounds of the
medical treatment exception. We therefore find that the issue has been
waived.
Appellant’s fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth issues all concern the
sufficiency of the evidence to convict. The legal principles applicable to all
four issues are identical:
Whether sufficient evidence exists to support the verdict is a
question of law; our standard of review is de novo and our scope
of review is plenary. We review the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict winner to determine whether there is
sufficient evidence to allow the [fact-finder] to find every element
of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d 788, 792 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations
and quotation marks omitted). As this case centers on the credibility of Victim,
we add that “It is well-established that a victim’s testimony alone can be
sufficient to sustain a conviction.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 180 A.3d
- 21 -
J-S39028-22
474, 479 (Pa. Super. 2018). “[A] solitary witness’s testimony may establish
every element of a crime, assuming that it speaks to each element, directly
and/or by rational inference.” Id. (italics omitted).
Appellant argues his fifth issue, concerning his conviction for IDSI,
together with his sixth issue, concerning his conviction for rape, as both crimes
involve the common element of “forcible compulsion.” Regarding IDSI,
Appellant was charged with violating 18 Pa.C.S. § 3123(a)(1), which applies
to “engag[ing] in deviate sexual intercourse with a complainant … by forcible
compulsion.” Appellant does not assail the deviate sexual intercourse
component and instead focuses on a purported absence of forcible
compulsion. As to rape, Appellant was charged with one count of violating 18
Pa.C.S. § 3123(a)(1), which prohibits “sexual intercourse with a complainant
… [b]y forcible compulsion.” Appellant argues that the evidence for “forcible
compulsion” is lacking, as Victim testified, “I don’t know if I used the word
[‘]no[’] but he knew that I didn’t want to.” Appellant’s Brief at 20 (quoting
N.T., 4/5/21, at 104). Additionally, Victim testified that Appellant knew she
would not want to have sex because “she didn’t make advances toward him,”
id. (quoting N.T., 4/25/21, at 121), and thus only her demeanor conveyed
that she did not wish to have sex. Moreover, the two had a “friends with
benefits” relationship and had consensual sex before the abuse commenced.
According to Appellant, “[a]t best there may have been a mere showing of a
lack of consent, which is insufficient to sustain the element of forcible
compulsion.” Id. at 21.
- 22 -
J-S39028-22
In assessing whether “forcible compulsion” exists, fact-finders are
entitled to consider the context surrounding the encounter. In
Commonwealth v. Fears, 836 A.2d 52 (Pa. 2003), the appellant argued that
there was no factual basis for his plea to IDSI as forcible compulsion was not
established. The appellant argued that the prosecutor’s factual summary
established only that the victim “did not respond to this particular act [the oral
sodomy] with resistance.” Id. at 66 bracketing in original).6 As such, the
appellant claimed that there was no factual basis to support forcible
compulsion.
Our Supreme Court disagreed, relying in large part on Commonwealth
v. Rhodes, 510 A.2d 1217 (Pa. 1986), which examined the sufficiency of
evidence to support the element of forcible compulsion where a twenty-year-
old defendant performed sexual acts on an eight-year-old girl after luring her
into a building and instructing her to lie on the ground. The Superior Court
had reversed the rape conviction on the basis that no force was used. The
Rhodes Court reversed, explaining that “forcible compulsion” includes “not
only physical force or violence but also moral, psychological, or intellectual
force used to compel a person to engage in sexual intercourse against that
person’s will.” Id. at 1226. The Rhodes scenario was inherently one that
would prevent resistance because the child was younger, smaller, and less
____________________________________________
6As the Fears Court noted in a footnote, the Commonwealth proceeded on a
Section 3123(a)(1) charge even though the victim was under thirteen years
of age.
- 23 -
J-S39028-22
mature. “In such cases, forcible compulsion or the threat of forcible
compulsion derives from the respective capacities of the child and the adult …
without the use of physical force or violence or the explicit threat of physical
force or violence.” Id. at 1227. The same was true in Fears, as the appellant
confessed to telling his twelve-year-old victim to “stand up and [Fears] pulled
down his underwear and started to have oral sex with him.” Fears, 836 A.2d
at 66-67 (quoting plea transcript). The incident took place “[at] dusk[,] and
[Fears] and the victim were in a secluded river location.” Id. at 67.
The logic of Rhodes and Fears applies here. A rational fact-finder could
conclude that Victim could either submit to Appellant’s sexual demands or risk
further violence. The context of Appellant’s crime demonstrates that “no” was
an unacceptable answer. The first attack began when Appellant confronted
Victim about having sex with Appellant’s brother. He brutally attacked her,
causing her to bleed on multiple surfaces within the apartment. He forced
Victim to take a shower and shortly thereafter began striking her with the
wooden bat. Appellant put Vaseline on the bat and ordered her to insert it
into her rectum. This evidence is plainly sufficient to conclude that the Victim,
who was isolated from the outside world, had the choice of complying with
Appellant’s demands or risk further beatings. The same is true of the later
rape, when Appellant inserted his penis into Victim’s vagina.
The seventh issue asks whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient
evidence to sustain strangulation. Pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 2718(a), to be
found guilty of strangulation, the Commonwealth must establish that the
- 24 -
J-S39028-22
person “knowingly or intentionally impedes the breathing or circulation of the
blood of another by person by … applying pressure to the throat or neck[.]”
18 Pa.C.S. § 2718(a)(1).
We conclude that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to
support strangulation. It is axiomatic that “intent may be established by
circumstantial evidence since there is rarely any direct evidence of one’s
subjective state of mind.” Commonwealth v. Utter, 421 A.2d 339, 341 (Pa.
Super. 1980). The jury was entitled to rationally infer that Appellant’s conduct
was designed to impede Victim’s breathing. Victim testified that she was on
her back after Appellant attacked her with the fork and knife. Afterwards,
Appellant “put his foot on my throat and applied enough pleasure [sic] so I
couldn’t breathe.” N.T., 4/5/21, at 56. Appellant applied enough pressure
that Victim said she felt like she would pass out and ended up urinating on
herself. Id. at 57. The circumstantial evidence suffices to justify the inference
that Appellant’s intent in applying pressure to Victim’s throat was to impede
her breathing.
Appellant’s argument to the contrary rests on his cross-examination,
wherein Victim agreed that “it might have been hands and feet” that Appellant
used to strangle Victim, whereas in earlier testimony at a bail hearing and in
police interviews, she did not mention his feet. N.T., 4/5/21, at 113. See
Appellant’s Brief at 22 (arguing that if “[Victim] herself was unsure of
Appellant’s actions, she could not be sure of his intentions. [V]ictim testified
throughout trial that she was a regular user of drugs and was under the
- 25 -
J-S39028-22
influence during this event.”). At most, Victim’s testimony created a credibility
issue, which the jury was entitled to resolve as they saw fit. Commonwealth
v. Cahill, 95 A.3d 298, 300 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“Finally, the [fact-finder,] while
passing upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence
produced, is free to believe all, part] or none of the evidence.”) (bracketing in
original).
Appellant argues in his eighth claim that the conviction for aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon must be discharged. The statutory language for
that crime states, “A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he … attempts
to cause or intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a
deadly weapon.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(4). “Deadly weapon” is defined to
include, inter alia, any “device designed as a weapon and capable of producing
death or serious bodily injury, or any other device or instrumentality which,
in the manner in which it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely
to produce death or serious bodily injury.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2301.
Appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed to establish he used a
deadly weapon as “the record is devoid of any evidence that [V]ictim suffered
bodily injury due to the use of a weapon.” Appellant’s Brief at 23. The trial
court opinion aptly explains why Appellant’s argument fails:
Although the wooden bat is no Louisville Slugger, it is
unquestionably capable of producing death or serious bodily
injury. Measuring just under two feet in length, the wooden bat
would make a sturdy weapon much akin to a fireplace poker or
tire iron – items that easily lend themselves to being weapons if
the wielder chose to use them as such. That is how Appellant
used the wooden bat, striking [V]ictim repeatedly leaving welts
- 26 -
J-S39028-22
and bruises all over her back and causing bleeding on the brain.
Under the applicable legal standard, we find that the
Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence[.]
TCO at 16-17. We fully agree. Appellant’s claim fails.
Appellant’s final issue challenges the discretionary aspects of his
sentence.7 These appeals are not as of right and an appellant must satisfy a
four-part test to invoke our jurisdiction. Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh,
91 A.3d 1247, 1265 (Pa. Super. 2014).
An appellant has sufficiently complied with the four-part test
when:
(1) the appellant preserved the issue either by raising it at
the time of sentencing or in a post[-]sentence motion; (2)
the appellant filed a timely notice of appeal; (3) the
appellant set forth a concise statement of reasons relied
upon for the allowance of appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
2119(f); and (4) the appellant raises a substantial question
for our review.
Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652, 662 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(citation omitted). To present a substantial question, an appellant
must set “forth a plausible argument that the sentence violates a
provision of the sentencing code or is contrary to the fundamental
norms of the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Dodge,
77 A.3d 1263, 1268 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted).
Commonwealth v. Fuentes, 272 A.3d 511, 519–20 (Pa. Super. 2022).
Appellant satisfied the first, second, and third conditions. However, we
find that Appellant has failed to establish a substantial question. Appellant’s
____________________________________________
7 Appellant has abandoned his ninth issue, which asked whether the
convictions for rape and IDSI merge. He concludes that, under the
circumstances, they do not. As this issue relates to the legality of his
sentence, we add that we agree with the trial court that the sentences do not
merge because the crimes arise from distinct acts.
- 27 -
J-S39028-22
statement merely states: “The imposition of consecutive sentences … is, on
its face, so disproportionate as to implicate the ‘fundamental norms which
underlie the sentencing process.’” Appellant’s Brief at 24 (citing 42 Pa.C.S. §
9711(c)).
This is a wholly conclusory statement that does not set forth any type
of plausible argument that the sentence violated the fundamental norms of
the sentencing process. Appellant’s complaint is merely that the consecutive
sentences are unwarranted under the circumstances of the case. We disagree.
Appellant forced Victim to sodomize herself with a wooden bat, raped her, and
beat her so severely that a CAT scan showed signs of bleeding on Victim’s
brain. The aggregate sentence is lengthy, but by no means unduly harsh in
light of the horrific abuse Appellant inflicted upon Victim.
Had Appellant set forth a plausible argument to warrant merits review,
we would discern no abuse of discretion. Appellant merely relitigates his
complaints that Victim’s testimony was insufficient. He argues that the
sentence is excessive “considering Appellant’s age and the facts of this case.
Appellant is 41 years of age. The parties were in a sexual relationship, [and]
even if Appellant assaulted [V]ictim, there was no evidence presented that
Appellant forced [V]ictim to later engage in sex.” Appellant’s Brief at 25. To
the contrary, the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, amply demonstrates that Appellant not only forced Victim to
engage in sexual acts, he also brutally assaulted her over several days.
- 28 -
J-S39028-22
Appellant’s additional claim that the court failed to consider his
rehabilitative needs fails to account for the countervailing facts, which the trial
court was required to consider in fashioning a proper sentence. As the trial
court stated at sentencing, Appellant had been released from incarceration
three days before his attacks on Victim began. N.T. Sentencing, 6/30/21, at
25. The court also cited Appellant’s comments at sentencing that his own
mother had been addicted to drugs. Referencing Victim, Appellant stated, “At
no point do I want to harm anyone or take advantage of someone who was
exactly like my mom, but if that’s the way she feels and whatever reason she
needed to do this, I understand and, you know, I wish you the best life.” Id.
at 22-23. The court quite reasonably concluded that Appellant was “blaming
her. It’s like she’s doing this to you when you are the one that did these
things to her.” Id. at 27. Considering Appellant’s lack of remorse, his blaming
Victim, the severity of these crimes, and the fact that Appellant committed
these crimes almost immediately after being released from incarceration, it is
hardly surprising that the trial court determined that a lengthy sentence was
needed. We would observe no abuse of discretion in this sentence.
- 29 -
J-S39028-22
Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded with instructions to hold
evidentiary hearing consistent with this memorandum. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
President Judge Panella joins this Memorandum.
Judge Nichols concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/21/2023
- 30 -