Com. v. Beach, M. ( 2018 )

J-S75031-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MIGUEL PATRICK BEACH, :
:
Appellant : No. 683 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 17, 2017
in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0000065-2016
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JANUARY 26, 2018
Miguel Patrick Beach (“Beach”) appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed after a jury convicted him of rape and aggravated indecent
assault.1 We affirm.
The trial court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history in
its Opinion, which we incorporate herein by reference. See Trial Court
Opinion, 8/14/17, at 1-5.
In response to Beach’s timely Notice of Appeal, the trial court ordered
him to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal. Beach filed a timely Concise Statement, after which the trial court
issued a Rule 1925(a) Opinion.
____________________________________________
1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3121(a)(3), 3125(a)(1).
J-S75031-17
Beach now presents the following issues for our review:
1. Was the evidence legally and factually insufficient to show
that [Beach] committed the crimes of rape and aggravated
indecent assault beyond a reasonable doubt[?]
2. Was the court[’]s sentence excessive[?]
Brief for Appellant at 7 (capitalization omitted).
Initially, we note that Beach has waived his second issue, as he did not
(1) set forth any argument supporting this issue in his Argument section; or
(2) raise it in his court-ordered Rule 1925(b) Concise Statement. See
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009) (stating that
“where an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with
citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other
meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived.”); see also
Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998) (holding that
“[a]ny issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.”).
In his remaining issue, Beach contends that the Commonwealth failed
to present sufficient evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt of
rape and aggravated indecent assault. See Brief for Appellant at 10-16.
Our standard of review of a sufficiency of the evidence claim is well
settled:
Our standard of review is whether the evidence admitted at trial,
and all reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence, when
viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as
verdict winner, were sufficient to enable the fact[-]finder to
conclude that the Commonwealth established all of the elements
of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
-2-
J-S75031-17
Commonwealth v. Cruz, 71 A.3d 998, 1006 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation
and brackets omitted).
In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances
established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every
possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s
guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so
weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of
fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The
Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element
of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly
circumstantial evidence. … Furthermore, when reviewing a
sufficiency claim, our Court is required to give the prosecution
the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the
evidence.
Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation
omitted). Finally, “the finder of fact[,] while passing upon the credibility of
witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all,
part or none of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 40
(Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).
The Crimes Code defines rape, in pertinent part, as follows: “A person
commits a felony of the first degree when the person engages in sexual
intercourse with a complainant … [w]ho is unconscious or where the person
knows that the complainant is unaware that the sexual intercourse is
occurring.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3121(a)(3).
Aggravated indecent assault is defined, in relevant part, as follows:
Except as provided in sections 3121 (relating to rape), 3122.1
(relating to statutory sexual assault), 3123 (relating to
involuntary deviate sexual intercourse) and 3124.1 (relating to
sexual assault), a person who engages in penetration, however
-3-
J-S75031-17
slight, of the genitals or anus of a complainant with a part of the
person’s body for any purpose other than good faith medical,
hygienic or law enforcement procedures commits aggravated
indecent assault if:
(1) the person does so without the complainant’s consent[.]
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3125(a)(1).
Beach contends that “the record is devoid of any evidence to show
[that] he [] had sexual intercourse with the alleged victim while she was
unconscious.” Brief for Appellant at 15. Beach maintains that the testimony
of the victim was insufficient to support the jury’s verdicts, urging that the
victim (1) “testified that she had been drinking heavily on the date of the
incident[;]” and (2) could not recall what had transpired during the alleged
rape. Id. at 13; see also id. at 14 (wherein Beach points to the testimony
of the nurse who performed the rape kit on the victim that the victim had
stated that she did not remember the rape). Beach additionally argues that
“[t]he Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the
element of ‘lack of consent’ necessary to prove the crime of aggravated
indecent assault. The alleged victim in the instant case testifie[d] that she
does not recall the events of the incident.” Id. at 13-14 (some capitalization
omitted). Finally, Beach challenges the testimony of the police officer to
whom Beach had confessed the rape, Officer Matthew Painter (“Officer
Painter”), asserting that, at the time Beach gave the confession, he “was
scared and was still under the influence of alcohol ….” Id. at 15.
-4-
J-S75031-17
It is well settled that “[a] rape victim’s uncorroborated testimony to
pen[ile] penetration is sufficient to establish sexual intercourse and thus
support a rape conviction.” Commonwealth v. Wall, 953 A.2d 581, 584
(Pa. Super. 2008). Indeed, by statute, the uncorroborated testimony of a
sexual assault victim, if believed, alone is sufficient to support a sex offense
conviction. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3106; see also Commonwealth v. Izurieta,
171 A.3d 803, 807 (Pa. Super. 2017) (observing that “[t]he uncorroborated
testimony of a sexual assault victim, if believed by the trier of fact,
is sufficient to convict a defendant.” (citation omitted)). Here, the jury was
well within its province to believe the testimony of the victim, and disbelieve
Beach’s contrary testimony. See Melvin, supra.
Moreover, there was additional, compelling evidence that could allow
the jury to permissibly find Beach guilty of rape and aggravated indecent
assault. Beach confessed the crime to Officer Painter. Beach’s semen was
found inside of the victim’s vagina. Further, the victim awoke in Beach’s bed
with most of her clothes and her tampon removed.
Accordingly, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to
the Commonwealth as verdict winner, was amply sufficient to support the
jury’s guilty verdicts beyond a reasonable doubt.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-5-
J-S75031-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/26/2018
-6-
Circulated 01 /02/2018 03:34 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF FAYETTE COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA,
vs.
MIGUEL PA TRICK BEACH,
Appellant. No. 65 of 2016
OPINION IN SUPPORT OF JURY VERDICT
VERNON, J. August 14, 2017
Following a trial by jury, Appellant, Miguel Patrick Beach, was found guilty of rape)
and aggravated indecent assault without consent". Appellant was sentenced and the sentenc6
was then amended to a term of incarceration of six to twelve years on the rape conviction at
Count 1 and no further penalty was imposed for the remaining conviction. Appellant has
appealed to the Superior Court and this Opinion is in.support of the jury verdict and sentence
imposed.
On appeal, the Appellant raises the following issue:
(1) Was the evidence insufficient [to] find the Appellant guilty beyond a
reasonable [ doubt] of the criminal charges of rape and aggravated indecent
assault?
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
{C:s) \
M G · .,a thirty-two year old female, woke only wearing her shirt on the morning
of January 9, 2016, in the bed of Appellant, her ex-coworker, with Appellant lying beside
her. N.T., 1/9/17-1/11/17, at 18-21. The evening prior G was in the Parks Bar drinking
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §3121(a)(3)
2
18 Pa.C.S.A. §3125(a)(l)
- I -
r; I ,.-., ?. I
beer with her friend, Jamie Umbel, when Appellant, who resides in an apartment above the
bar, joined the women. Id. at 21-23. Appellant invited the two upstairs, and feeling bad for
Appellant, G. said that she would have one drink upstairs in the apartment. Id. at 25.
Appellant brought an opened beer bottle to G , and the three took shots of liquor. Id. at 27-:
28. G: said that she was going to leave to get cigarettes and Appellant insisted that he
would get them for her, leaving the women alone in the apartment, repeating to her to drink
her beer. Id. at 28-29.
G was in the apartment with her friend when she started feeling disoriented and
nauseated. Id. at 29. The last thing she remembers is Appellant returning and shaking the
cigarettes at her. Id. at 30. G woke the morning of January 9, 2016 in Appellant's bed
with no recollection of the previous six hours noting that she was only wearing her shirt and
specifically that her tampon was removed. Id. at 31. G returned home when she decided
to go to Uniontown Hospital on the suspicion that she was raped and underwent the testing of
a rape kit. Id. at 32. G responded to all questions from the medical staff with the answer
that she was "unsure" what had occurred because she was unconscious. Id. at 42-43. G
'
relayed that she was a heavy drinker, but on that evening only had a couple beers, and that
she believed she had been drugged. Id. at 44.
Jamie Umbel testified that she met G and Appellant at Parks Casino Bar on the
evening of January 8, 2016, and that G was drinking draft beer. Id. at 47-52. Umbel
confirmed that she and G. went upstairs to Appellant's apartment where he served drinks, a
beer to G , and then left to get cigarettes. Id. at 52-55. Umbel and G remained in the
apartment talking and within minutes of finishing her beer, Umbel sat on Appellant's bed in
the efficiency apartment looking very sleepy. Id. at 55-56. Appellant returned and G was
-2-
fully dressed lying on Appellant's bed. Id. at 56. Appellant and Umbel began conversinl
when Umbel realized G was unconscious. Id. Umbel slapped G: across the face, put he
fingers in G 's nostrils, and kept repeating, "M ., let's go." Id. Umbel explained
"there's no way that we were just having a conversation and speaking, [G · � takes a coupl
sips of this beer and she's comatose, like she's not responding to me." Id. at 58. Umbel
described that she continued to slap G and that she did not respond. Id. at 59. Umbel wa
not physically strong enough to move G and asked Appellant for assistance to which h
responded that G was fine, that she had a hard day, that she had a lot going on in her life
and that she was okay. Id. Umbel tried for a half hour to wake G with Appellant repeatin
that she was okay. Id. at 59-60. Appellant "tucked in" G by pulling the covers over he
and then reassured Umbel that she was safe and okay. Id. at 61. Umbel then left G a
Appellant's apartment on his bed, fully clothed wearing black leggings and long sweater type
shirt. Id. at 60-61. G called Umbel about 7:30 the next morning with an hysterica
demeanor. Id. at 62.
Ashley Hugland, a Registered Nurse at Uniontown Hospital, was recognized by th
Court as an expert certified to administer a rape kit, and was on duty the evening of Janua
]
9, 2016, when G arrived at the hospi ta!. Id. at 6 8- 72. G. had Ii tt! e recollection of thl
events that occurred the evening prior with Appellant, but noted that her tampon was
removed through that night so she believed that she had vaginal intercourse. Id. at 74. G I
stated that Appellant had given her a beer with the cap already off and that she had no
recollection after drinking the beer. Id. at 78.
Officer Matthew Painter of the Uniontown Police Department responded to th
Uniontown Hospital on the suspected rape of G met with G , and requested a searc
-3 -
warrant based on the information that she provided. Id. at 99-102. Officer Painter execute
the search warrant at Appellant's residence where he removed G 's coat, a bottle o
Naproxen pills, and sheets from Appellant's bed. Id. at 103. Officer Painter advise
Appellant that he was not under arrest and asked if he would speak about the night prior an
asked Appellant what happened. Id. at 104. Appellant stated that after Umbel had left, h
removed G 's clothes and began to have inappropriate contact with her while she wa
sleeping, that he removed her tampon, and had vaginal intercourse by inserting his penis i
G while she was not awake. Id. at 105. Appellant stated that he did not use protection
and that he only had sex for a few seconds before he realized how wrong it was and h
stopped. Id. at 106-107.
Following his voluntary statement, Appellant was transported to the Uniontown Cit
Police Department and read his Miranda warnings where he provided Officer Painter with
written statement. Id. at 108-112. In the written statement, Appellant admitted that he lai
next to G: on the bed, took her clothes off, and tried to have sex with her when he stoppe
and told himself that it was wrong. Id. at 112. Appellant wrote that he "felt so bad about it. '
Id.
Zachary Tanczos was recognized as an expert as a forensic scientist in the field o
DNA evaluation and testing who testified that he tested samples swabbed from G _'s perso
against a single profile provided to him of Appellant's DNA and gave the opinion th
neither Appellant nor his paternally related male relatives could be excluded as th
contributor of the DNA found in the vaginal swab from G Id. at 86-94.
-4-
With the above principles in mind, we now consider whether the Commonwealth
presented sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant's convictions of rape and aggravated
indecent assault without consent.
Viewed under the aforementioned standard, and with this law to guide us, we find
Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence frivolous. A review of the record
reveals evidence, sufficient in kind and quality, presented at trial, such that the trier of fact
permissibly concluded that Appellant committed the offenses when M G was
unconscious on his bed, that G 's tampon and clothing had been removed, that Appellant's
DNA was located inside G "s vagina, and by also, Appellant's admission to Officer Painter
of the Uniontown Police Department. The evidence presented, again as believed by the trier
of fact, establishes that the jury found credible the testimony of M G. , Jamie Umbel,
the expert witnesses, and the policemen and rejected the testimony offered by Appellant.
Wherefore, it is respectfully submitted that the entire appeal is without merit and should be
denied.
BY THE COURT:
.-
ATTEST: D/t_J__ _
FO L_ __
PD_l ...
\f'Jf.:..r::: .;
.. f
C/, .
f:
c
f.
t:�(,-'.. �;,.::._ . .: .. ··..;;���L__.r
-6- L.. �j4. / __]ol!YYtJ. I '� I