J

- S41021

- 19

____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: G.G., A MINOR

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 414 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered January 23 , 201 9 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Juvenile Division at

No(s): CP

- 06

- JV

- 0000473

- 2018

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED AUGUST 05, 2019

G.G. (Appellant) appeals from the dispositional order 1 entered after the

juvenile court adjudicated Appellant delinquent of six offenses: two counts

each of involuntary deviate s exual intercourse with a child and c riminal

s olicitation to c ommit i nvoluntary d eviate s exual i ntercourse ; and one count

each of r ape of a child and i ndecent a ssault

. Upon review, we affirm.

The juvenile court relat e d the factual and procedural background as

follows:

This case concerns [Appellant’s] perpetration of certain sex crimes against [the victim]

. W e note at the outset that none of the witnesses testified as to the exact dates these crimes occurred, but the parties stipulated that they took place between November 1, 2017, and the middle of J anuary 2018. (N.T.p.107). [The

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 In juvenile proceedings, the final order from which a direct appeal may be taken is the order of disposition, entered after the juvenile is adjudicated delinquent. See Commonwealth v. S.F.
, 912 A.2d 887, 888

- 89 (Pa. Super. 2 006).J

- S41021

- 19

- 2

-

victim] was

. . . either five (5) or six (6) years old, depending on when the offenses occurred. [Appellant] was fifteen (15) years old during this time period.

[The victim] lived

. . . with her Mother [and] her Mother ’ s b oyfriend . . . On weekends [the victim] would stay at her Father’ s house

. . . where he lived with his wife and her son, [Appellant]

. [The victim] and [Appellant] would play together in [Appellant] ’ s

. . . bedroom. At one point , [the victim] and [Appellant] engaged in what [the victim] called “ sexing. ” They both removed their pants and [Appellant] coerced [the victim] int o performing oral sex on him by th reatening to tel l her parents that she was bad. [The victim] engaged in oral sex with [Appel lant] at least three different times
, usually when [Appellant] babysat [the victim] and there were no adults in the house. O n one occasion, at [Appellant] ’ s insistence, [the victim] and [Appellant] removed all of their clothing and [Appellant] had vaginal and anal intercourse with [the victim].

[Appellant] was friends with three (3) brothers, A.O., J.V., and E.V. ages 12, 11 and 6 respectively when the following events occurred. On weekends the boys would visit [Appellant] at his home. During one of these visits [Appellant] and the brothers were in [Appellant] ’ s bedroom playing a game. [The victim] entered and [Appellant] pulled down her pants and she performed oral sex on him. [Appellant] then told her to perform oral sex on A.O. and J.V. which she did. A.O. said that [Appellant] made him engage in oral sex with [the victim]. J.V. said that [Appellant] told him if he told anyone what had happened he would “ get ” him.

After the above incidents took place, [the victim] told her Mother what had happened. [The victim] later met with a representative of the Children ’ s Alliance center where he r testimony about these matters was recorded on a digital video disc which was later viewed at the adjudication hearing.

On October 2, 2018, the Com monwealth filed a petition alleging delinquency, charging [Appellant] with two (2) counts of Involuntary Deviate S exual Intercourse 18 Pa. C

. S. A. §3123(b), one (1) count each of Rape of a C hild 18 Pa. C

. S .A. §3121(c) and Indecent Assault 18 Pa. C

. S.A. §3126(a ) (7), and six (6) counts of Criminal S olicitation to C ommit Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse 18 Pa. C

. S .A. §902(a). The hearing on these chargesJ

- S41021

- 19

- 3

-

was held on December 6, 2018. At the conclusion of the hearing we found [Appellant] involved in two (2) counts of Involuntary Deviate S exual Intercourse, Rape of a Child, Indecent Assault, and two (2) counts of C riminal S olicitation to Commit Involuntary Deviate S exual Intercourse and adjudicated him delinquent. The Court held a disposi tional hearing on January 17, 2019, and ordered [Appellant] to be placed in a residential facility. [Appellant] filed a timely Post Dispositional Motion [challenging the weight of the evidence] , which we denied. This appeal followed.

Juvenile Court Opinio n, 4/5/19, at 1

- 3.

Both the juvenile court and Appellant have complied with Pennsylvania

Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925. On appeal, Appellant presents a single

issue:

1. Whether the lower court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s post

- disposition al motion for a new trial where the inconsistencies presented at trial were so extensive and irreconcilable as to render the finding of involvement contrary to the weight of the evidence.

Appellant’s Brief at 8.

We review Appellant’s weight of the evidence claim mindful of the

following:

A weight of the evidence claim concedes that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, but seeks a new trial on the grounds that the evidence was so one

- sided or so weighted in favor of acquittal t hat a gui lty verdict shocks one’ s sense of justice. Thus, we may reverse the juvenile court ’ s adjudication of delinquency only if it is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’ s sense of justice.

In re A.G.C. , 142 A.3d 102, 109 (Pa. Sup er. 2016) (citations om itted).

It is well

- settled that the hearing judge sits as the finder of fact, and the

weight to be assigned the testimony of the witnesses is within the exclusiveJ

- S41021

- 19

- 4

-

province of the fact finder. In re R.D. , 44 A.3d 657, 664 (Pa. Super. 2012)

(citations omitt ed ). “This Court applies the same standard for reviewing

weight of the evidence claims in juvenile cases as those involving adults.” In

re J.G., 145 A.3d 1179, 1187 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citatio n omitted). “An

appellate court’ s standard of review when presented with a weight of the

evidence claim is distinct from the standard of review applied by the trial

court[.]” Commonwealth v. Clay , 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013). An

allegation that the verdict is against the weight of th e evidence is addressed

to the discretion of the trial court ; a n appellate court reviews the exercise of

discretion, not the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the

weight of the evidence. In re J.G., 145 A.3d at 1187 (citations omitted)

. Appellant does not individually challenge the weight of the evidence as

to his adjudication of six separate offenses. Rather, he holistically claims that

the juvenile court’s finding that he “ was involved was so contrary to the weight

of the evidence presented as to shock one’s sense of justice. ” Appellant’s

Brief at 14. Appellant argues “no testimony was credible, as each story

presented to [the juvenile court] in the Commonwealth’s case in chief

presen ted irreconcilable differences. Each incident testified to by [the victim]

was contradicted, whether by herself or the other so

- called witnesses.” Id.

at 13. Appellant further states that “the case is rife with inconsistencies,”

where “not one person te stified consistently on the incident . . .” Id. at 15

-

16. Appellant’s argument is meritless.J

- S41021

- 19

- 5

-

The juvenile court recognized the contradictions in some of the

testimony. See generally , Juvenile Court Opinion, 4/5/19, at 5

- 7. However,

the court also refer enced the sometimes “faulty memory of [the] 6 year old

[victim]” and the use of anatomical drawings at the hearing in opining that

“contradiction in her testimony . . . did not compromise [the victim’s]

credibility[.]” Id. at 6. The court explained:

We h eard and observed all the witnesses. Although only six years old, and understandably engaging in childish behavior at times, [the victim] testified about the essential facts in this case forthrightly, at times graphically, and always credibly. This Court has no doubt that what she described actually happened. Likewise, the testimony of A.O. and J.V., also juveniles, was straightforward and unshaken on cross

- examination. Finally, the Children’s Alliance ’s DVD of [the victim’s] explanation of what transpi red between herself and [Appellant] was compelling, heartbreaking, and credible. Therefore, the finding of [Appellant’s] involvement with the above crimes was not against the weight of the evidence but fully supported by the record.

Juvenile Court Opinion, 4/5/19, at 7.

It is well settled that any conflicts or contradictions in testimony a re for

the juvenile court to resolve. See, e.g., In re J.M. , 89 A.3d 688, 692 (Pa.

Super . 2014). Accordingly
, the juvenile court did not err in reject ing

Appella nt ’ s weight claim.J

- S41021

- 19

- 6

-

O rder affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 8/5/2019