J-S27009-17

_____________________________

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.S.A., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: R.S.A., A MINOR

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 3114 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Dispositional Order September 18, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-JV-1000068-2015

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OTT, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JUNE 02, 2017

Appellant, R.S.A., a minor, appeals from the dispositional order 

entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile 

Division, following his adjudications of delinquency for involuntary deviate 

sexual intercourse with a child (“IDSI”), sexual assault, and indecent 

assault.1 We remand for further proceedings.

In its opinion filed May 13, 2016, the Juvenile court accurately set 

forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case.2 Therefore, we 

have no reason to restate them.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3123(b); 3124.1; 3126(a)(7), respectively. 

2 On September 18, 2015, the court adjudicated Appellant delinquent and 

placed him on probation until further order of court. Additionally, the court 

ordered Appellant to attend DelStar (an outpatient program for adolescents 

who are adjudicated of a sexual offense), to undergo random drug screens, 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S27009-17

- 2 -

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

WAS NOT THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT FOR AN 

ADJUDICATION OF DELINQUENCY ON ALL CHARGES, 

INSOFAR AS THE EVIDENCE OF [APPELLANT’S] GUILT 

WAS SO UNRELIABLE AND CONTRADICTORY THAT IT WAS 

INCAPABLE OF SUPPORTING A DETERMINATION OF GUILT 

BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, WAS NOT THE DETERMINATION OF 

GUILT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUCH 

A DEGREE AS TO SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE?

(Appellant’s Brief at 4). 

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Arthur E. 

Grim, we conclude Appellant’s first issue merits no relief. The Juvenile court 

opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of that question. 

(See Juvenile Court Opinion, filed May 13, 2016, at 8-9) (finding: thirteenyear-old Appellant deceived seven-year-old Victim by luring her into 

bathroom under false pretenses during another child’s birthday party; 

Appellant told Victim to close her eyes and open her mouth so Appellant 

could give Victim gum; after Victim complied, Appellant put his penis in 

Victim’s mouth; Victim saw Appellant’s penis when she blinked her eyes; 

Victim identified Appellant in court as her assailant; age of Victim as well as 

circumstances of case precluded consent; Victim’s testimony was very 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

to have no unsupervised contact with children under twelve years old, and to 

be subject to a curfew. 
J-S27009-17

- 3 -

credible; any contradiction in record is result of young Victim not initially 

knowing proper name for penis; Victim was clear throughout her testimony 

which part of Appellant’s anatomy was involved in assault; Victim’s 

testimony was consistent with her earlier statements to her teacher, 

guidance counselor, and mother; Commonwealth presented sufficient 

evidence to sustain Appellant’s adjudications of delinquency for IDSI with 

child, sexual assault, and indecent assault). Therefore, we conclude 

Appellant’s first issue is meritless. 

Regarding Appellant’s second issue challenging the weight of the 

evidence, we observe that generally, a weight claim must be preserved by a 

motion for a new trial. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607 and Comment (stating: “The 

purpose of this rule is to make it clear that a challenge to the weight of the 

evidence must be raised with the trial judge or it will be waived”). 

By contrast, the Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure governing 

delinquency matters “are utterly silent as to how a weight of the evidence 

claim must be presented to the juvenile court so that it may rule on the 

claim in the first instance, which is...a necessary prerequisite for appellate 

review.” In re J.B., 630 Pa. 124, 160, 106 A.3d 76, 98 (2014). 

Specifically, Pennsylvania Rule of Juvenile Court Procedure 620 provides, in 

pertinent part:

Rule 620. Post-Dispositional Motions

A. Optional Post-Dispositional Motion.
J-S27009-17

- 4 -

(1) The parties shall have the right to make a postdispositional motion. All requests for relief from the court 

shall be stated with specificity and particularity, and shall 

be consolidated in the post-dispositional motion.

(2) Issues raised before or during the adjudicatory 

hearing shall be deemed preserved for appeal whether or 

not the party elects to file a post-dispositional motion on 

those issues.

Pa.R.J.C.P. 620(A). Thus, juveniles in delinquency matters face “procedural 

rules [which make] optional the filing of a post-dispositional motion, and 

which [do] not otherwise specify how a weight of the evidence claim [is] to 

be presented in the first instance to the juvenile court in order to preserve it 

for appellate review.”3 J.B., supra at 160-61, 106 A.3d at 98. 

Consequently, the failure to preserve a weight-of-the-evidence challenge in 

a post-dispositional motion does not result in automatic waiver of the claim 

on appeal in juvenile delinquency matters. See id. (holding juvenile did not 

waive challenge to weight of evidence where he failed to raise that claim in 

____________________________________________

3 Rule 620(A)(2) does not aid a juvenile in preserving a challenge to the 

weight of the evidence because the juvenile cannot raise a weight claim until 

after the adjudication of delinquency. J.B., supra at 156-57, 106 A.3d at 

95-96 (explaining juvenile could not raise weight of evidence challenge in his 

closing argument as it is matter of plain logic that claim that adjudication of 

delinquency is against weight of evidence presupposes court has already

made final adjudication; closing arguments take place prior to final 

adjudication and are geared toward convincing trier of fact that evidence 

adduced at hearing failed to prove juvenile was delinquent of offenses 

charged; compare weight of evidence challenge, which assumes evidence 

was sufficient to adjudicate juvenile delinquent but requests court to 

reassess its adjudication to determine whether certain facts of record are so 

weighty that they warrant grant of new adjudicatory hearing). 
J-S27009-17

- 5 -

optional post-dispositional motion; finding of waiver in juvenile proceedings 

has harsher consequences for juvenile than for similarly-situated criminal 

defendant because juvenile cannot raise ineffective assistance of counsel for 

waiver of weight claim under Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), as PCRA 

does not apply to juvenile proceedings; absent this avenue of collateral relief 

there is stronger reason to decline to impose waiver for non-preservation of 

weight claim; although juvenile raised challenge to weight of evidence in 

Rule 1925(b) statement, and court addressed issue in its Rule 1925(a) 

opinion, that fact does not cure deficiency as there likely will be times, under 

similar circumstances, where court will either review weight challenge in its 

Rule 1925(a) opinion in cursory fashion or fail to address claim at all; 

principles of fundamental justice and sound reason necessitate remand for 

filing of post-dispositional motion nunc pro tunc to raise weight of evidence 

claim). See also Interest of J.G., 145 A.3d 1179 (Pa.Super. 2016) 

(declining to waive weight challenge where juvenile did not file postdispositional motion and presented weight of evidence claim for first time in 

Rule 1925(b) statement; under In re J.B., Court held remand was 

necessary to permit juvenile to file post-dispositional motion nunc pro tunc

challenging weight of evidence). 

Instantly, Appellant did not file a post-dispositional motion. Like the 

cases of In re J.B. and Interest of J.G., Appellant raised his challenge to 

the weight of the evidence for the first time in his Rule 1925(b) statement. 
J-S27009-17

- 6 -

The Juvenile court addressed Appellant’s weight claim in in its Rule 1925(a) 

opinion in a cursory fashion after a detailed analysis concerning Appellant’s 

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Following prevailing precedent, 

we will now remand the case to give Appellant the opportunity to file a postdispositional motion nunc pro tunc challenging the weight of the evidence. 

See In re J.B., supra; Interest of J.G., supra. Accordingly, we conclude 

the evidence presented in this case was sufficient to sustain the delinquency 

adjudication, but we remand for further proceedings limited to Appellant’s 

challenge to the weight of the evidence. 

Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction is relinquished. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/2/2017