J

### -S35043-19

NON-PRECEDENTIALDECISION

## - SEE 

### SUPERIORCOURT

### I.O.P

### 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : INTHE SUPERIORCOURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

v. JANICE LIND, Appellee



### Appellant : No. 1825 EDA 2018 Appeal

### from theJudgmentofSentence Entered May 18, 2018 in the CourtofCommon Pleas 

### of Philadelphia 

### County Criminal Division at No(s): 

### CP-51-CR-0006459-2017

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : INTHE SUPERIORCOURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

v. JANICE LIND, Appellee



### Appellant : No. 1826 EDA 2018 Appeal

### from theJudgmentofSentence Entered May 18, 2018 in the CourtofCommon Pleas 

### of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): 

### CP-51-CR-0006458-2017 BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J. and STRASSBURGER,

### J.* MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER,J.: 

### FILEDAUGUST 1, 

### 2019 Janice Lind 

### (Appellant) appeals 

### from the 

### judgment of sentence imposed 

### following her

### convictions 

### for unlawful contact with a 

### minor andtwo counts each of conspiracy to 

### commit rape, endangering the welfare of a child, 

### corruption of

### minors, conspiracyto 

### commit involuntary deviate sexual



### *Retired SeniorJudge assigned tothe SuperiorCourt.J

### -S35043-19 intercourse 

### (IDSI) with a child, and conspiracy to 

### commit incest. Upon review, we

### affirm. Appellant had been charged 

### with the 

### systematic sexual abuse of two 

### of her 

### minor biological 

### children, her [son, AL.F,] and 

### [the] eldest of 

### [Appellant's] three daughters, [A.F. 

### (collectively, Children),] committed in

### concert and 

### independently with her 

### husband[, C]hildren's biological 

### father[, R.F.]. Charges had not 

### [been] brought againstAppellantforthe sexual abuseof her two 

### younger daughters who had also been reported as 

### similarly abused per 

### [Children. R.F.,] who had also 

### participated in the sexual abuse, however, had died before the 

### authorities learned of the 

### [abuse]. The abuse of these 

### [C]hildren had occurred between 2011 and 2013, inside the home where Appellant and [R.F.] had resided 

### together with 

### their minor children, who had ranged [in age 

### from] under 

### eight years to 

### approximately eighteen 

### months[. Children and 

### their sisters] had been removed 

### from this residence by the City of Philadelphia 

### Department of Human Services [DHS] due to 

### inhabitable [sic] conditions in the home and reported narcotics abuse 

### of both parents before any 

### information was related concerning sexual and physical abuse. 

### [A.F.,] who was 12 years old when she 

### testified at 

### trial, had reported being 

### repeatedly sexually abused by both 

### [Appellant and R.F.], 

### particularly when she was six or seven years old. She stated in 

### summary 

### that she and [AL.F] were often abused in 

### Appellant's bedroom. 

### Appellant had played 

### pornographic movies on 

### the television. Appellant directed 

### [Children] to 

### mimic the sexual acts 

### portrayed on the 

### television. [Appellant] had directed them to touch each 

### other's private parts. 

### [A.F.] recalled 

### that Appellant had touched her 

### front private parts and put 

### "burning powder" on her 

### front private parts. She 

### testified 

### that [R.F.] had touched her 

### private parts in 

### concert with Appellant. Appellant had put 

### [R.F.'s] private part into 

### [A.F.'s] private part. 

### [A.F.] testified 

### thatAppellant had been laughing 

### whilethe sexual 

### activitywas 

### occurring. [AL.F.] was 10 years old when he 

### testified. He recalled 

### frequent instances when 

### Appellant had ordered all 

### four children to 

### enter her bedroomwhen [R.F.] was inthe bedroomonlyto be subjected to myriad forms ofabuse. He reported 

### thatAppellant had touched his 

### front and rear 

### private parts. [R.F.] inserted his

- 2 -J

### -S35043-19 

### front private part into [AL.F's] back 

### private part. He said 

### that Appellant had watched this 

### activity. [AL.F.] said 

### that Appellant had touched and 

### performed sexual acts on all

### three of his sisters including a 

### time when the 

### youngest was

### just a baby. As to the second oldestsister, he said

### thatAppellant had touched her back 

### part whilethe

### fathertouched her

### front part. He recalled 

### that his 

### father had put his 

### private partinto 

### [A.F.'s] private part. [AL.F.] 

### testified 

### thatAppellant had given pillsto 

### [C]hildren to ingest while 

### the sexual 

### activity was 

### occurring. He also remembered 

### that [R.F.] had put a substance on his back 

### private part and 

### that Appellant had also put a substance on the 

### youngest child's 

### front private part. He had 

### frequently observed 

### Appellant give 

### herself an 

### injection with needles. [AL.F.] said 

### that Appellant would 

### "whoop" the children 

### with wires, hangers and belts if 

### they did not 

### comply with all demands of 

### Appellant and [R.F]. C.A. 

### testified 

### that she was the biological sister of [R.F.] and 

### [C]hildren's aunt. 

### After [R.F.] died in January 2016, she discovered 

### that all 

### four children had been removed 

### from Appellant's home and placed in 

### various foster care homes. She contacted [DHS] and arranged to have 

### [C]hildren [and 

### their sisters] placed to live

### with herand her children. 

### After [C]hildren [and 

### their siblings] began living 

### with C.A. and her 

### children, C.A. discovered 

### thatAppellant'syoungest child had displayed sexual 

### behavior to C.A.'s 

### minor children. C.A. 

### immediately questioned [AL.F. and A.F. 

### separately. AL.F.] told her

### thatAppellantand [R.F.] had 

### hurt him in his 

### private partand 

### thatAppellant had played 

### pornographic movies on thetelevision. He told her

### that [R.F.] had put his 

### private part in his back area. [AL.F] also said 

### that [R.F.] put a 

### "powder on his 

### private part which 

### burned." [AL.F.] reported to her

### thatAppellant had made his

### three sisters 

### perform sexual acts. He said 

### thatAppellanttold him and 

### [A.F.] to 

### perform sexual acts on each 

### other. [AL.F.] said 

### that Appellant told him to watch the 

### television and 

### perform the acts which he saw. He said 

### Appellant laughed at 

### the children duringthese 

### horrific acts. 

### [A.F.] independently corroborated [AL.F.'s] 

### report of sexual abuse 

### that had been 

### mimicked. [A.F.] told C.A. 

### that Appellant had played a movie on the

### television, and told her and [AL.F.] to do 

### what was 

### portrayed on the 

### television. She

- 3 -J

### -S35043-19
described sexual 

### activity that had been demanded. 

### [A.F.] said 

### that the sexual 

### activities hurt so much 

### that she had bled. Upon hearing the individual accounts of [AL.F. and 

### A.F.], C.A. 

### immediately called [DHS. DHS] separated 

### Appellant's children and all but one child had been 

### permanently removed 

### from C.A.'s home and placed in homes

### wherein

### other childrendid not reside. 

### Christopher Li, social 

### worker for [DHS], testified 

### that as the initial intake responder, he had conducted 

### minimal fact interviews with [AL.F. and 

### A.F.]. The 

### interviews were 

### "minimal" so as not to re

### -traumatize [C]hildren. [AL.F.] reported to him 

### [] that he remembered being 

### brought into his 

### parents' bedroom, forced to watch 

### pornographic movies, forced to 

### perform oral sex on [R.F.] and forced to engage in sexual 

### activities with his parents and sisters who at 

### thattime ranged in ages 

### from six or sevento less

### thantwoyears old. 

### [A.F.] also said

### that she hadto do 

### "stuff"with her parents and siblings. Mr. Li then referred the case to 

### the Philadelphia Children's Alliance, an agency tasked 

### with interviewing childrenwho suffered sexual abuse. Michelle Kline, a 

### forensic 

### interview specialist 

### with the Philadelphia 

### Children's 

### Alliance[,] testified 

### that she 

### interviewed the 

### four children separately. Videotapes of the 

### interviews were shown to the 

### jury. The 

### videotape recordings depicted [AL.F.'s and A.F.'s] credible separate reporting of long 

### term penetrating sexual abuse 

### committed by 

### [Appellant and R.F.] in response to non

### -confrontational and non

### -suggestive questions posed by 

### the ChildAllianceforensic 

### interviewspecialist. 

### It was 

### stipulated at 

### trial 

### that when the 

### third oldest 

### child[, 

### 0.F.,] had been 

### interviewed by 

### [DHS], she did not disclose sexual abuse. 

### It was also 

### stipulated 

### that Appellant was born on December 13, 1975. The respective dates 

### of birth of each 

### of Appellant's 

### four biological 

### children including [AL.F. and A.F.] were entered by way of 

### stipulation as well. 

### Appellant's brother, John Lind, 

### testified 

### that Appellant had a 

### reputation as being a peaceful and 

### nonviolent citizen. 

### Appellant

### testified,without any presented 

### emotional affect, at 

### trial 

### that her

### four biological 

### children had never even entered the 

### bedroom[ with R.F.]. She 

### calmly denied playing any 

### pornographic videos. She denied 

### sexually abusing [AL.F. and 

### A.F.]. She denied 

### witnessing any sexual abuse 

### from [R.F.]. She claimed to have no idea 

### why [C]hildren had accused her. She

- 4 -J

### -S35043-19

had also claimed 

### that her home had been 

### quite suitable 

### for habitation 

### for her 

### family that had also included her disabled 

### mother. Trial Court Opinion, 

### 1/10/2019, at 

### 2-6 (citations 

### omitted). Following 

### trial, on March 2, 2018,

### Appellantwas convicted ofthe 

### aforementioned crimes. On May 18, 2018, following full and

### fair sentencing hearing during which 

### th[e trial

### c]ourt heard 

### argument and 

### victim impact 

### testimony as well as 

### testimony on behalf of 

### Appellant and 

### after review of all sentencing 

### factors and 

### incorporation of considered pre-sentence 

### investigative 

### [(PSI)] report[ and] mental health assessments[, at docket 

### number] CP-51-CR-0006458-2017, Appellantwas sentenced to consecutive

### termsof incarceration of 10 to 20] years of incarceration 

### for conspiracy 

### [to commit rape of a 

### child]; three and 

### one-half [] to seven 

### [] years of incarceration 

### forendangering thewelfare ofchild; and 

### three and 

### one-half [] to seven 

### [] years

### for corruption of minors. The two remaining conspiracy counts merged into the sentence 

### for conspiracy

### [to commit rape

### of a 

### child]. Under CP 

### 51-CR-0006459-2017, 

### [] Appellant was sentenced to consecutive 

### terms of incarceration of [10 to 20] years 

### for unlawful contact 

### with minor; [10 to 20] years 

### for conspiracy 

### [to commit rape 

### of a 

### child,] three and 

### one-half [] to seven 

### [] years

### for endangering welfare of 

### [a] child; [and] three and 

### one-half [] to seven 

### [] years 

### for corruption of minors. The two remaining conspiracy counts merged into the sentence 

### for conspiracy 

### [to commit rape 

### of a child. The sentences at the abovementioned docket numbers were ordered to run 

### consecutivelyto one

### another]. In each case

### Appellant had been deemed

### without objection as a 

### Tier 

### II Sexual Offender. Due notice 

### of reporting and 

### registration requirements were provided. 

### Rehabilitative conditions were imposed which had included no 

### contact 

### [with] Appellant's children and prosecution witnesses. The 

### Commonwealth's representative did not pursue 

### designation of Appellant as a Sexual 

### [Violent Predator (SVP)]. Post

### -sentence motions requesting reconsideration of sentence and a new 

### trial were

### timelyfiled and denied

### without hearing on June 13, 2018. 

### Id. at6-7 

### (unnecessarycapitalization and 

### citations

### omitted).

- 5 -J

### -S35043-19
This appeal

### followed.' On appeal,

### Appellant challengesthe 

### sufficiency and 

### weight of the evidence to sustain her 

### convictions, as well as the 

### discretionary aspects 

### of her sentence. 

### Appellant's Brief at 5. We review these claims

### sequentially. Regarding 

### Appellant's sufficiency claim, before we address the merits ofthis issue, weconsider

### whether she preserved it

### forappeal. An 

### appellant's concise

### statement must properly specifythe 

### error to be addressed on appeal. In 

### other words, the Rule 

### 1925(b) statement must be specific enough 

### for the 

### trial court to 

### identify and addressthe issue [an 

### appellant] wishe[s] to raise on appeal. [A c]oncise 

### [s]tatement which is too vague to allow 

### thecourt to 

### identify the issues raised on appeal is the 

### functional equivalent of no 

### [c]oncise 

### [s]tatement at all. The 

### court's review and legal analysis can be 

### fatally impaired when 

### the court has to guess at the issues raised. Thus, if a concise 

### statement is too vague, the 

### courtmayfind

### waiver. 

### Commonwealthv. 

### Hansley, 24 A.3d 

### 410, 415 (Pa. Super. 

### 2011) 

### (internal citations and 

### quotations 

### omitted). Appellant's Pa.R.A.P. 

### 1925(b) 

### statement does not specify precisely which 

### elements of which crimes she contends the Commonwealth failed to prove. 

### See Concise 

### Statement, 

### 6/14/2018 ("Counsel intends to raise a claim

### thatthe 

### verdictswere against the 

### sufficiency ofthe evidence."). This Court has 

### repeatedly required an 

### appellant to specify in the Rule 

### 1925(b) 

### statementthe 

### particular element or 

### elements upon which the evidence was 

### insufficient. See, 

### e.g., 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Roche, 153 A.3d 1063, 1072

1 Both 

### Appellant and the

### trial courtcomplied 

### with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 

## -6J

### -S35043-19 (Pa. Super. 

### 2017). "Such 

### specificity is 

### of 

### particular importance in cases 

### where, as here, the 

### appellantwas convicted of

### multiple crimes each ofwhich contains numerous 

### elements 

### that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable 

### doubt." 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Stiles, 143 A.3d 968, 982 (Pa. Super. 

### 2016) (citing 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Garland, 63 A.3d 339 (Pa. Super. 

### 2013)). Based upon this Court's desire to apply Rule 1925 in a 

### "predictable, uniform 

### fashion,"this Court has 

### determined 

### thatwaiver applies even

### where,

as here, the Commonwealth fails to 

### object and the 

### trial court addresses the issue in its Rule 

### 1925(a) opinion. 

### Roche, 153 A.3d at 1072 (holding 

### that where Rochewas convicted of

### first-degree 

### murder and 

### criminal conspiracy, a concise 

### statement asserting only 

### that the evidence was 

### insufficient to sustain these convictions resulted in 

### waiver); 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Tyack, 128 A.3d 254, 260 (Pa. Super. 2015) (holding 

### that Tyack's 

### "boilerplate" concise 

### statement declaring 

### "that the evidence was 

### insufficient to 

### support his 

### conviction" was too vague even 

### where Tyack was convicted only ofone 

### crime). In 

### light ofthe 

### foregoing,wefind 

### Appellant'ssufficiency claim waived. Regardless, even if 

### Appellant did not waive her sufficiency claim, she would still not be 

### entitled to relief. Our standard of review in challenges to the sufficiency ofthe evidence isto

### determine whether, viewing all 

### the evidence 

### admitted at 

### trial in the 

### light most favorable to the 

### [Commonwealth as 

### the] verdict winner, there is 

### sufficientevidenceto enable

### thefact

### -finderto find 

### every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying 

### [the above] 

### test, we may not weigh 

### theevidence and 

### substitute our

### judgment for the fact-finder. In 

### addition, we note 

### that the

- 7 -J

### -S35043-19 facts and 

### circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude

### every possibilityof innocence.Any doubts regarding a

### defendant's 

### guilt may be resolved by thefact

### -finder unlessthe 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 meansof

### whollycircumstantialevidence. 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711, 716 (Pa. Super. 

### 2015) 

### (citation

### omitted). On appeal, 

### Appellant argues 

### "[t]he evidence was 

### weak and 

### inconclusive" based upon the inconsistencies in A.F.'s 

### testimony. See Appellant's Brief at 10-11 

### ("[A.F.] stated at

### trial the events concerning the sexual abuse 

### took place when she was seven or six. However, at a 

### preliminary hearing 

### [A.F.] stated she could not 

### remember how old she was when the sexual assaults 

### took place. Also, when being 

### interviewed by the Philadelphia 

### Children'sAlliance, [A.F.] could not 

### rememberwhen the events 

### took place. 

### [A.F.] stated 

### that the sexual 

### assault happened in 

### [Appellant's]

room on 

### multiple days. At a 

### preliminary hearing 

### [A.F.] testified 

### that it happened on one 

### day.") (citations 

### omitted). Furthermore, Appellant noted 

### that despite A.F. 

### testifying about 

### Appellant's abuse 

### of Children's 

### younger siblings, DHS 

### took no 

### further action regarding these 

### allegations and 

### "[i]n fact, itwas 

### stipulated at 

### trial 

### thatwhen O.F. was 

### interviewed[,] she did not disclose any

### abuse." 

### Id. Here, 

### while presented as a 

### sufficiency claim, Appellant's 

### argument on appeal is 

### essentially challenging the 

### weight of the evidence, asking 

### this

- 8 -J

### -S35043-19 Court to assess the 

### credibility of 

### testifying witnesses and reweigh the evidence presented at 

### trial. This we will not do. Our case law is clear 

### that the 

### finder of 

### fact is 

### "in the best position to 

### view the demeanor of the Commonwealth's witnesses and to assess each 

### witness'[s] 

### credibility." 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Olsen, 82 A.3d 1041, 1049 (Pa. Super. 

### 2013) 

### (citation 

### omitted). Thus, it was 

### within the province of the 

### jury, as 

### fact

### -finder, to believe A.F's

### testimony

### thatAppellant engaged in physical and sexual abuse of Children and 

### discreditthe

### testimony ofAppellant

### that shewas 

### innocent of the crimescharged. 

### See

### Commonwealth v. 

### Charlton, 902A.2d 554, 562 (Pa. Super. 

### 2006) (recognizing 

### that"testimonyof a sexual assault 

### victim, if believed by the 

### trier of 

### fact, is 

### sufficient to 

### convict a 

### defendant, despite 

### contraryevidence

### from defensewitnesses. 

### Ifthe

### factfinder reasonably could have 

### determined from the evidence adduced 

### that all 

### of the necessary 

### elements of the 

### crime wereestablished, then

### that evidence will be deemed 

### sufficient to 

### support the 

### verdict.") (internal quotation marks and 

### citations 

### omitted). See 

### also Commonwealth v. 

### Miller, 172 A.3d 

### 632, 642 (Pa. Super. 2017) ("Resolving

### contradictorytestimony and questions of

### credibility

are 

### mattersforthe

### finderof

### fact."). Moreover, even ifwewere to review this issue as a 

### properly preserved 

### sufficiencyclaim, wewould conclude

### thatthe Commonwealth met its burden of proving each and 

### every element of the crimes 

### for which 

### Appellant was convicted. As

### aptlyset

### forth bythe

### trial court: 

## -9J

### -S35043-19 Rape 

### of a child involves sexual 

### intercourse by 

### forcible compulsion or 

### threat of forcible compulsion where the 

### victim is under the age of 

### 13[.] 18 Pa.C.S. 

### [§] 3121. 

### [IDSI] with a child involves anal 

### intercourse by 

### forcible compulsion or 

### threat of forcible compulsionwherethe

### victim is underthe age of 

### 13[.] 18 Pa.C.S. 

### [§] 3123, 18 Pa.C.S. 

### [§] 3101. 

### Incest involves sexual 

### intercoursewith a 

### descendant[.] 18 Pa.C.S. 

### [§] 4302. Endangering the welfare of children involves 

### violating a 

### duty of care, 

### protection or 

### support[.] 18 Pa.C.S. 

### [§] 4304. 

### Corruption of minors involves any act 

### that tends to 

### corrupt the morals of a 

### minor[.] 18 Pa.C.S. 

### [§] 6301. Unlawful 

### contact with [a] minor involves being 

### intentionally in 

### contact with a 

### minor for the purpose of 

### committing a sexual offense 

### enumerated in Chapter 31 of Pennsylvania Consolidated 

### Statutes[.] 18 Pa.C.S. 

### [§] 6318. At

### trial itwas 

### overwhelminglydemonstrated 

### thatAppellant [and R.F.] had entered into a conspiracy to 

### systematically sexually and 

### physically abuse 

### their four minor children over a period of years. 

### Their 

### abhorrent ongoing 

### conduct included 

### forcible anal and 

### vaginal intercourse, thedisplay of 

### pornographic movies, the touching of 

### private parts of 

### their bodies, applying substances to 

### their bodies, physical beatings and 

### directing and 

### ordering of the children to engage in sexual 

### activities with each other.Rather than 

### attempt to stop the abuse as a responsible parent, 

### Appellant had 

### pleasurably participated with [R.F.] as he and 

### [Appellant] sexually violated every private orifice of each 

### minor child, who ranged in ages 

### from sixyears old to a 

### toddler. Appellant cruelly laughed 

### while the children engaged in these forced sexual 

### activities. Trial Court Opinion, 

### 1/10/2019, at 8-9. In 

### lightoftheforegoing, Appellant's sufficiencyclaim fails. We now 

### turn to 

### Appellant's 

### weight-of-the-evidence issue. In 

### support of her 

### weight claim, 

### Appellant cites the same inconsistencies in A.F.'s 

### testimony as set 

### forth supra. 

### Appellant's Brief at 

### 11-12. In sum, 

### Appellant

- 10 -J

### -S35043-19 claims

### "[t]he inconsistent

### testimony is a shockto one's sense of

### justice and

a new 

### trial should be

### granted." 

### Id. at 12. Appellate review of a 

### weight claim is a review of the exerciseof discretion, not ofthe underlying question of

### whether the 

### verdict is 

### against the weight ofthe evidence. Because the 

### trialjudge has had the

### opportunity to hear and seethe evidence presented, an 

### appellate court will givethe gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the 

### trial judge when reviewing a 

### trial court's 

### determination 

### thatthe

### verdict is 

### against the 

### weight ofthe evidence. One of 

### the least assailable reasons 

### for granting or denying a new 

### trial is

### the lowercourt'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. However, the exercise of 

### discretion by the 

### trial court in 

### granting or denying a 

### motion 

### for a new 

### trial based on a challenge to the 

### weight of the evidence is not 

### unfettered. The 

### propriety of

### theexerciseofdiscretion in such an instance may be assessed bythe appellate process when it is 

### apparent

### thatthere was an abuse

### of

### thatdiscretion. 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 753 (Pa. 

### 2000) 

### (internal citations 

### omitted). See

### also 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Britton, 134A.3d 83, 86 (Pa. Super. 

### 2016) ("The 

### trier of 

### fact while passing upon the 

### credibility of witnesses and the 

### weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, 

### partor noneofthe 

### evidence.") (citation 

### omitted). The 

### trial court found the 

### testimony of Children to be 

### "credible and compelling. The 

### heartbreaking accounts 

### of unspeakable horrors was 

### corroborated by 

### the 

### testimony of" C.A., Mr. Li, Ms. Kline, "and the videotapes of 

### [Children's] interviews. The 

### cumulative evidence of 

### guilt was 

### overpowering."Trial CourtOpinion, 

### 1/10/2019, at 10.J

### -S35043-19
In reviewing the issue before us, we 

### reiterate

### 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." 

### Widmer, 744A.2d at 753. The 

### term 

### 'discretion' imports the exercise of

### judgment, wisdom and skill so as to reach a 

### dispassionate conclusion, 

### within the 

### framework of the law, and is not exercised 

### for the purpose of giving effect to 

### the will of the 

### judge. Discretion 

### must be exercised on the 

### foundation of reason, as opposed to 

### prejudice, personal 

### motivations, caprice or 

### arbitrary actions. Discretion is abused when the course pursued represents not 

### merely an 

### error of

### judgment, butwhere the

### judgment is 

### manifestly unreasonable orwhere the law is not applied or where the record shows 

### that the action is a 

### resultof

### partiality, prejudice, bias or ill

### will. 

### Id. (citation omitted). With 

### this in 

### mind, upon review of the record, we discern no abuse of 

### discretion in the 

### trial court's 

### determination. Here, the 

### jury had the 

### opportunityto hear all evidence presented and assessthe

### credibilityofthose who 

### testified. This included listening to defense counsel speak at length during closing 

### about the inconsistences in the

### testimony presented. Despite 

### this, it is

### evident bythe

### jury'sverdict

### thattheyfound 

### that not only wasA.F. credible, but

### that her

### testimony, in 

### conjunction with the additional evidence and 

### testimony, including 

### corroborating 

### testimony from her 

### brother, AL.F., supportedthefinding 

### thatAppellant physicallyand 

### sexuallyabused Children. Moreover, 

### Appellant has not alleged, and we do not conclude, 

### that the

### trial court acted 

### unreasonably, or displayed 

### prejudice, bias, or ill

### -will when denying 

### Appellant'sweight claim. No 

### relief is due.

- 12 -J

### -S35043-19 Lastly, 

### Appellant challengesthe 

### discretionary aspects of her sentence. 

### Appellant's Briefat 

### 13-14. Accordingly, we bear in mind 

### thefollowing. Challenges to the 

### discretionary aspects of sentencing do not 

### entitle an 

### appellant to review as 

### of right. An 

### appellant challenging the 

### discretionary aspects of his 

### [or her] sentence must invoke this Court's 

### jurisdiction by 

### satisfying a 

### four-part test: We 

### conduct a 

### four-partanalysis to

### determine: (1) 

### whether appellant has filed a 

### timely notice ofappeal,

### see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 

### 903; (2) 

### whether the issue was 

### properly preserved at sentencing or in a 

### motion to reconsider and 

### modify sentence, 

### see Pa.R.Crim.P. 

### 720; (3) 

### whether appellant's 

### brief has a 

### fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 

### 2119(f); and (4) 

### whether there is a 

### substantial question 

### that the sentence appealed 

### from is not 

### appropriate under the Sentencing Code,42 Pa.C.S.[] §

### 9781(b). 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa. Super. 

### 2013) (some citations 

### omitted). Here, 

### Appellant

### timelyfiled a post-sentence motion and notice 

### of appeal, and included a 

### statement pursuant to Rule 

### 2119(f) in her brief. We now 

### turn to consider 

### whether Appellant has presented a 

### substantialquestion

### forour review. The 

### determination of 

### what constitutes a 

### substantial question must be evaluated on a case

### -by-case basis. 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Paul, 925 A.2d 825, 828 (Pa. Super. 

### 2007). "A 

### substantial question exists only when 

### the appellantadvances a colorable 

### argument

### thatthe sentencing

### judge's actions

were 

### either: (1) 

### inconsistent with a specific provision 

### of the Sentencing Code; or (2) 

### contrary to the 

### fundamental norms which 

### underlie the

- 13 -J

### -S35043-19 sentencing process." 

### Griffin, 65 A.3d at 935 

### (citation and 

### quotation marks 

### omitted). In her 

### 2119(f) statement, Appellant's claims her sentence is 

### "manifestly excessive and imposed in 

### violation of the Sentencing 

### Code[.]" Appellant's Brief at 13. 

### Specifically, Appellant contends her 

### aggregate sentence of44 to 88

### years'incarceration "is

### virtually a life 

### sentence." 2 

### Id. Under 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 9721, the 

### [trial] court has 

### discretion to impose sentences 

### consecutively or 

### concurrently and, 

### ordinarily, a challenge to 

### this exercise of 

### discretion does not raise a 

### substantial question. The 

### imposition of 

### consecutive, 

### rather than 

### concurrent, sentences may raise a 

### substantial question in 

### only the most 

### extreme circumstances, such as where the aggregate sentence is 

### unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the length of

### imprisonment. 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 

### 171-72 (Pa. Super. 

### 2010) 

### (citations 

### omitted). [A] sentence can be so 

### manifestly excessive in 

### extreme circumstances 

### that it may create a 

### substantial question. When 

### determining whether a 

### substantial question has been raised, we have focused upon 

### whether the decision to sentence 

### consecutively raises the aggregate sentence to, 

### what appears upon its face to be, an excessive level in 

### light of the criminal conduct in

### this case. 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 

### 133-34 (Pa. Super. 

### 2014) 

### (citations and 

### quotation marks

### omitted).

2

### Within the

### argumentsection 

### ofher 

### brief,Appellant contendsthe

### "trial court failed to 

### sufficiently take into 

### consideration the 

### rehabilitative needs of 

### [Appellant], her lack 

### of prior record and 

### the sentencing guidelines when imposing 

### sentence." Appellant's Briefat 14.

- 14 -J

### -S35043-19
In this case, 

### prior to 

### sentencing, the 

### trial court set

### forth the guideline ranges 

### for each 

### of the crimesAppellant was 

### convicted. N.T., 

### 5/18/2018, at 6-9. 

### Furthermore, the 

### trial court noted 

### that "in addition to presiding 

### over the

### jurytrial and listening to all 

### the

### testimony,

### th[etrial court had] reviewed
in depth the mental health assessment of 

### [Appellant] as well as the [PSIS] 

### report conducted 

### pursuant to the 

### [trial c]ourt'sorder." 

### Id. at 5. Moreover, the 

### trial court heard 

### statements made by

### Appellant, her 

### brother and cousin,

aswell as listened to

### victim impactstatements. In 

### addition, the

### trial court gave

### sufficient

### justification forany 

### deviation from the guidelines. Specifically, at 

### sentencing, the 

### trial court set

### forth the 

### following. [T]o the 

### extent I 

### deviate upward, it is 

### for the following reasons, 

### ma'am. The 

### amount of damage 

### thatyou have done to 

### your children, to whom you have been 

### entrusted 

### their care, is 

### immeasurable. The damage is 

### permanent. The 

### trauma 

### that resulted had a 

### rippling effect to 

### traumatizing other children 

### within 

### their sphere. The genesis 

### of all of

### that isyou. And 

### yetyou sat here and you spoke. The 

### only

### time I saw any, any ounce 

### of emotion, whatsoever, was when I said you were supposed to be weaned 

### off of the methadone 

### that has been 

### your crutch, and 

### that [was 

### it]. I

### tookgreatcare

### throughoutthis

### trial to listen 

### very intensely to 

### everything. I daresay 

### that the rippling effect of the 

### trauma 

### that was in 

### this case was 

### felt by even folks in my 

### courtroom, including the

### jury and our 

### court officers. This case will haunt me.

3 

### "[W]here the sentencing

### judge had 

### the benefit of a [PSI] 

### report, it

### will be presumed 

### that he or she was aware of the 

### relevant information regarding the defendant's 

### character and weighed those 

### considerations along 

### with mitigating 

### statutory factors."

### Commonwealth v. 

### Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028, 1038 (Pa. Super. 

### 2016).

- 15 -J

### -S35043-19

I have evaluated and 

### tried to 

### understand 

### what cannot be understood. I 

### take into account 

### your longstanding abuse of 

### various narcotics 

### that you give 

### varying versions in reference. You stand before me at the age of

### forty-three years old 

### with an alcohol and narcotics abuse 

### history beginning at 

### the age 

### of fourteen. Your abuse 

### of various narcotics to which [R.F.] also died in January 2016, 

### your co

### -abuser, was 

### extensive but by no means an excuse 

### for your behavior. 

### It was alcohol, progressed to 

### marijuana, heroin, 

### morphine, cocaine, 

### methamphetamine, PCP. And itwas remarked by the mental health assessment

### that methadonewas

### your drug ofabuse beginning at the age

### twentyfour along 

### with heroin 

### most 

### particularly.

* * * 

### It did not go unnoticed by

### th[etrial 

### c]ourtthat in

### addition to the sexual abuse 

### committed by 

### you, the reason 

### that these children were removed 

### from your care in the 

### first place was because of the 

### horrendous, horrendous conditions 

### that were 

### very visible within 

### their home to 

### anybody

### thatactuallywould go

### there.They were removed 

### from a home 

### that you 

### wouldn't put dogs or cats in. The 

### longstanding nature and methods of

### your abuse are 

### part and parcel 

### ofmy sentence. You used 

### yourchildren, 

### your babies, as sexual 

### playthings for 

### your enjoyment and the 

### enjoyment of 

### [R.F.]. And you can shake

### your head all you 

### want, but I believe 

### them. 

### It is beyond my comprehension as to 

### why the need 

### for self

### -gratification in

### that manner. N.T., 

### 5/18/2018, at 

### 29-31. 

### It is clear to 

### this Court 

### that the 

### trial court took into account all necessary 

### considerations, including the 

### mitigating factors presented by 

### Appellant. Nonetheless, 

### for the reasons cited 

### supra, the 

### trial court determined

### that a 

### lengthy period of 

### incarceration was 

### appropriate in 

### light of the heinous 

### nature of the crimes 

### Appellant was convicted of. We find no abuse 

### of discretion in 

### this 

### determination. Nor has 

### Appellant demonstrated to 

### this Court 

### that "thesentencing 

### court ignored or misapplied the law,

- 16 -J

### -S35043-19 exercised its

### judgmentfor reasons 

### of 

### partiality, prejudice, bias or ill 

### will, or arrived at a 

### manifestly unreasonable 

### decision."

### Commonwealth v. 

### Johnson, 125 A.3d 822, 826 (Pa. Super. 2015) 

### (quoting 

### Commonwealth

v. 

### Disalvo, 70A.3d 900, 903 (Pa. Super. 

### 2013)). Accordingly, 

### after a review of the briefs, record, and applicable case law, we are not persuaded 

### that Appellant's issues 

### warrant relief from this Court.

### Judgment ofsentence

### affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. 

### Seletyn, Esq. 

### Prothonotary

Date: 

### 8/1/19

- 17 -