In the Interest of: J.M. Appeal of: J.M. ( 2019 )

J-S39014-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
JUVENILE : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: J.M. : No. 3501 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered October 11, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-JV-0000013-2018
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 19, 2019
Appellant, J.M., appeals from the dispositional order entered in the
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, following Appellant’s adjudication
of delinquency for rape.1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them. Procedurally, we add Appellant timely filed a post-dispositional
motion on October 22, 2018, and a supplemental post-dispositional motion on
October 26, 2018. On October 30, 2018, the court denied Appellant’s motion.
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on November 27, 2018. The court did
not order Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and none was filed.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3121(a)(1).
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S39014-19
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
DENYING APPELLANT’S POST DISPOSITIONAL MOTION FOR
A NEW HEARING, WHERE THE ADJUDICATION OF
DELINQUEN[CY] TO A CHARGE OF RAPE, IS AGAINST THE
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AS THE OVERWHELMING
IMPORT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWS CONSENSUAL SEXUAL
INTERCOURSE BETWEEN VICTIM AND APPELLANT AND
THAT VICTIM ONLY COMPLAINED ABOUT HAVING BEEN
RAPED AFTER SHE WAS CONFRONTED BY HER BOYFRIEND
ABOUT THE SEXUAL ENCOUNTER WITH APPELLANT.
(Appellant’s Brief at 4).
The following principles apply to a weight of the evidence claim:
The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder
of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of the
evidence and to determine the credibility of the
witnesses. An appellate court cannot substitute its
judgment for that of the finder of fact. Thus, we may
only reverse the…verdict if it is so contrary to the
evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.
Commonwealth v. Small, 559 Pa. 423, [435,] 741 A.2d
666, 672-73 (1999). Moreover, where the trial court has
ruled on the weight claim below, an appellate court’s role is
not to consider the underlying question of whether the
verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Rather,
appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably
abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.
Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444, 832 A.2d 403, 408
(2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939, 124 S. Ct. 2906, 159 L. Ed. 2d 816 (2004)
(most internal citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Nathaniel C.
Nichols, we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion
comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented.
-2-
J-S39014-19
(See Trial Court Opinion, filed January 15, 2019, at 2-5)2 (finding: Victim
provided vivid and credible testimony at adjudicatory hearing detailing how
Appellant assaulted her during social gathering; while in bedroom alone
together, Appellant began kissing Victim and when she told Appellant she did
not want to continue, he did not stop; Victim’s narrative described how
Appellant held her down (which was consistent with photographic evidence of
bruising), forcibly removed her clothing, and violated her body, as well as how
Victim communicated her rejection of Appellant’s advances; other witnesses
testified to Victim’s request not to walk home alone and not to allow Appellant
to accompany her; on day after encounter, Appellant texted Victim that no
one needed to know about it; Victim’s credible rendition of events was clear
and accurate; Victim’s delay in reporting rape was readily explained; verdict
was not against weight of evidence). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of
the trial court’s opinion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/19/19
____________________________________________
2Although signed by the Honorable Linda A. Cartisano, the trial court opinion
was prepared and written by Judge Nichols before he retired.
-3-