Com. v. Oree, J. ( 2017 )

J-S95027-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JOEL OREE
Appellant No. 426 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 21, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000859-2014
BEFORE: STABILE, J., MOULTON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MOULTON, J.: FILED MAY 23, 2017
Joel Oree appeals from the August 21, 2015 judgment of sentence
entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas following his
convictions for rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (“IDSI”), sexual
assault, indecent exposure, and indecent assault.1 We vacate Oree’s
judgment of sentence for sexual assault and affirm as to his remaining
convictions.
The trial court set forth the following facts:
[Ikea] Rogers [(“Victim”)], the victim in this case, first
met [Oree] on the Broad Street Line train on November
11, 2013 at approximately five or six o’clock in the
evening. [Victim] was homeless at the time, and [Oree]
asked if she wanted to spend the night at his residence.
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3121(a)(1), 3123(a)(1), 3124.1, 3127(a), and
3126(a)(2), respectively.
J-S95027-16
[Victim] and [Oree] disembarked at the Susquehanna-
Dauphin stop and walked to [Oree]’s apartment.
Once at the apartment, [Oree] gave [Victim] pajamas
and said she could sleep on the couch. [Victim] fell asleep
but was later awoken by [Oree] and asked to perform oral
sex in exchange for staying the night. [Oree] then
grabbed [Victim] by the neck, forced her on her knees,
and made her perform oral sex. [Oree] ejaculated in
[Victim]’s mouth and told her to swallow it, and she did.
[Oree] then grabbed [Victim] by both arms and led her
to his bed. [Oree] told [Victim] to remove her pajamas,
and she complied. [Victim] asked [Oree] to wear a
condom, but [Oree] refused. [Oree] then put his penis
inside [Victim]. [Victim] told [Oree] to stop, but he did
not. [Victim] “just kept screaming no” and tried to push
[Oree] away. According to [Victim], [Oree] was on top of
her “[a]ll night long.”
Early the next morning, [Victim] gathered her clothes
and escaped the apartment while [Oree] used the
bathroom. The next day, having seen her therapist,
[Victim] met with police a[t] St. Joseph’s Hospital who
subsequently took her to meet with Special Victims Unit.
[Victim] now fears for her life, carrying knives and mace in
her pocketbook every time she is out.
1925(a) Opinion, 7/11/16, at 2-3 (“1925(a) Op.”) (internal citations
omitted).
On February 5, 2015, following a bench trial, the trial court convicted
Oree of the aforementioned crimes. On August 21, 2015, the trial court
sentenced Oree to 7 to 14 years’ incarceration followed by 6 years’ probation
for the rape conviction, and two concurrent terms of 10 years’ probation for
the IDSI and sexual assault convictions. The trial court imposed all
probation terms concurrently. Oree filed a post-sentence motion, which the
-2-
J-S95027-16
trial court denied by operation of law on January 4, 2016. On February 3,
2016, Oree timely filed a notice of appeal.
Oree raises the following issues on appeal:
A. Did the lower court err as a matter of law by imposing
separate sentences on the charges of sexual assault,
rape and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, where
sexual assault is a lesser included offense of the latter
two offenses?
B. Were the verdicts against the weight of the evidence
where Ms. Rogers gave inconsistent descriptions of the
night in question and appell[]ant offered a simple
explanation for their meeting?
C. Did the lower court abuse its discretion by imposing a
sentence in excess of the guideline range without
properly stating the basis for doing so on the record?
Oree’s Br. at 5 (full capitalization omitted).
Oree first claims that the sexual assault conviction merged with the
rape and IDSI convictions for sentencing purposes.
“A claim that crimes should have merged for sentencing purposes
raises a challenge to the legality of the sentence,” for which our standard of
review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v.
Nero, 58 A.3d 802, 806 (Pa.Super. 2012) (quoting Commonwealth v.
Quintua, 56 A.3d 399, 400 (Pa.Super. 2012)).
The statute governing the merger of sentences provides:
No crimes shall merge for sentencing purposes unless
the crimes arise from a single criminal act and all of the
statutory elements of one offense are included in the
statutory elements of the other offense. Where crimes
-3-
J-S95027-16
merge for sentencing purposes, the court may sentence
the defendant only on the higher graded offense.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9765. The statute “prohibits merger unless two distinct facts
are present: 1) the crimes arise from a single criminal act; and 2) all of the
statutory elements of one of the offenses are included in the statutory
elements of the other.” Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 985 A.2d 830, 833
(Pa. 2009). Sexual assault is a lesser-included offense of rape and IDSI.
See Commonwealth v. Buffington, 828 A.2d 1024, 1032 (Pa. 2003) (“As
the rape and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse offenses at issue
subsume a lack of consent, although each requires more, and sexual
intercourse is common to the offenses, we conclude that sexual assault
constitutes a lesser-included offense of these crimes.”).2
____________________________________________
2
Section 3101 of the Crimes Code defines sexual intercourse as
“intercourse per os or per anus, with some penetration however slight;
emission is not required.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 3101. The Pennsylvania Supreme
Court in Commonwealth v. Kelley, defined sexual intercourse and deviate
sexual intercourse as “includ[ing] vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, oral
intercourse, and penetration by a foreign object.” 801 A.2d 551, 556 (Pa.
2002).
Sexual assault occurs when a “person engages in sexual intercourse or
deviate sexual intercourse with a complainant without the complainant's
consent.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 3124.1.
Rape occurs when a “person engages in sexual intercourse with a
complainant . . . [b]y forcible compulsion.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121.
IDSI occurs when a “person engages in deviate sexual intercourse with
a complainant . . . by forcible compulsion[.]” 18 Pa.C.S. § 3123.
-4-
J-S95027-16
The trial court convicted and sentenced Oree for three separate
criminal acts. In its 1925(a) opinion, however, it acknowledged that the
sexual assault conviction arose from the same criminal acts as the rape and
IDSI convictions. 1925(a) Op. at 4. We agree.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has previously explained that
an overarching chain of events does not constitute a single
criminal act when there is a break in that chain. A break
requires both that: (1) the acts constituting commission of
the first crime were completed before the defendant began
committing the second crime; and (2) proof of the second
crime did not in any way rely on the facts necessary to
prove the first crime. In addition, the break must be
either: (1) a significant temporal lapse; or (2) where
applicable, indicated by a change in the criminal intent of
the defendant at some point during the sequence. Where a
defendant is convicted of two or more crimes and there is
no break, the court must then proceed to the merger
analysis as above described. If the acts that make-up the
first crime are complete before the defendant begins the
second crime, if proof of the second crime does not rely on
any of the facts supplying proof of the first crime, and if
there is either a significant temporal break or a change in
the defendant’s intent, the defendant will have committed
multiple criminal acts.
Commonwealth v. Gatling, 807 A.2d 890, 900 (Pa. 2002). The Court
warned against an overly broad definition of “single criminal act” based on
its “concern . . . to avoid giving criminals a ‘volume discount’ on crime.” Id.
at 897 (quoting Commonwealth v. Anderson, 650 A.2d 20, 22 (Pa.
1994)).
Here, although there is evidence that Oree engaged in two separate
-5-
J-S95027-16
criminal acts,3 the Commonwealth did not establish a third act to form the
basis of the sexual assault conviction. The Commonwealth argues that there
were at least three criminal acts because “[t]he sexual assault continued
throughout the night.” Cmwlth’s Br. at 7. However, there must be a break
in the “overarching chain of events.” Gatling, 807 A.2d at 900. The
Commonwealth’s contention that the sexual assault continued throughout
the night does not indicate a significant temporal lapse or a change in Oree’s
criminal intent that would support a “break” between two separate criminal
acts. Id. Thus, the trial court, based on its own factual findings, erred in
imposing a sentence on the sexual assault conviction, which merged with the
rape and IDSI convictions.
Remand, however, is not necessary because the trial court imposed
concurrent sentences of 10 years for sexual assault and IDSI. Vacating the
judgment of sentence for sexual assault does not affect the overall
sentencing scheme. See Commonwealth v. Lomax, 8 A.3d 1264, 1268-
69 (Pa.Super. 2010) (finding remand not required when vacating judgment
of sentence would not disturb overall sentencing scheme).
____________________________________________
3
Oree first forced [Victim] to perform oral sex on him until he
“ejaculated in [Victim]’s mouth and told her to swallow it.” 1925(a) Op. at
2-3. Next, Oree “led her to his bed [and told her] to remove her pajamas
. . . [and] then put his penis inside [her].” Id. at 3.
-6-
J-S95027-16
Next, Oree claims that the verdicts were against the weight of the
evidence. This court reviews a weight of the evidence claim for an abuse of
discretion. Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013). “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.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Widmer 744 A.2d 745,
753 (Pa. 2000)). “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.” Id.
Oree claims the verdict was against the weight of the evidence
because Victim gave inconsistent descriptions of the events when she stated
that Oree was on top of her the entire night but then testified it was only for
about two hours. Oree further claims Victim’s testimony that he violently
handled and hurt her are not credible because there were no bruises or
injuries apparent during her examination. However, the trial court, as the
fact-finder was free to credit Victim’s testimony. See Commonwealth v.
Page, 59 A.3d 1118, 1130 (Pa.Super. 2013) (credibility determination “lies
solely within the province of the factfinder”); Commonwealth v. DeJesus,
860 A.2d 102, 107 (Pa.Super. 2004) (“The weight of the evidence is
exclusively for the finder of fact, which is free to believe all, part, or none of
-7-
J-S95027-16
the evidence, and to assess the credibility of the witnesses.”). The trial
court did not abuse its discretion when it found the verdict was not against
the weight of the evidence.
Finally, Oree challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence,
arguing that the trial court failed to state on the record its reasons for
imposing a sentence in excess of the guideline range. However, Oree has
waived this claim by failing to raise it in his Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
Procedure 1925(b) statement. See Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d
306, 309 (Pa. 1998) (“Any issues not raised in a [Rule] 1925(b) statement
will be deemed waived.”).
Judgment of sentence for sexual assault vacated. Judgment of
sentence affirmed as to the remaining convictions.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/23/2017
-8-