J. S23044/20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

RAMON JAQUEZ MARTINEZ, : No. 1396 EDA 2019

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 22, 2016,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-0001947-2015

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., McCAFFERY, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 24, 2020

Ramon Jaquez Martinez appeals from the March 22, 2016 judgment of 

sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County after 

his conviction in a waiver trial of rape of a child, sexual assault, corruption of 

minors, indecent assault person less than 13 years of age, indecent exposure, 

and simple assault.1 The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 71⁄2 to 

15 years of incarceration followed by 5 years of probation. We affirm.

The trial court set forth the following:

Appellant raped his girlfriend’s daughter [the “victim”] 

on numerous occasions beginning when she was 

approximately 6 or 7 years old until the time her 

mother [“Mother”] found [a]ppellant in [the victim’s] 

bed when she was 9 years old in 2014.

 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3121(c), 3124.1, 6301, 3126(a)(7), 3127(a), and 2701(a), 

respectively.
J. S23044/20

- 2 -

[The victim] lived with her [Mother], [a]ppellant, who 

was [M]other’s boyfriend, and [a]ppellant’s brother, 

Alenjandro [sic] Martinez, along with several children 

of [Mother’s]. Beginning when [the victim] was in the

2

nd grade, [a]ppellant began engaging in sexual 

relations with the child. These incidents would happen 

in both the kitchen and in her bedroom, as well as in 

[M]other’s bedroom. She described [appellant] taking 

off her pants and placing his exposed penis in her 

vagina. He told her not to tell anyone what he did. 

One day, he was sitting on her bed, and [M]other 

walked into the room. Appellant left the room. Over

the next few days, [the victim’s] [M]other asked her 

multiple times if [a]ppellant had touched her. [The 

victim] at first did not tell [Mother] what had been 

happening to her. However, after 2 days and 

[Mother’s] asking her multiple times, [the victim] told 

her [M]other that [a]ppellant had, in fact, been 

“touching” her.

[Mother] took [the victim] to St. Christopher’s 

Hospital for Children the same day [the victim] told 

her about what [a]ppellant had been doing to her. 

Prior to going to the hospital, [Mother] told [the 

victim] to tell the hospital staff what happened, but 

she told her not to tell anyone who did it. [Mother] 

told [the victim] to say she didn’t know who it was 

who had been raping her. After medical personnel 

examined [the victim, M]other spoke to the police and 

subsequently took [the victim] to have a forensic 

interview at the Philadelphia Children’s Alliance (PCA). 

Again, [Mother] told [the victim] to tell the interviewer 

that she did not know who raped her.[Footnote 1] A 

short time later, [the victim] went to live with her 

father [(“Father”)]. It was then that she told [F]ather 

all that had been happening to her in the home with 

[M]other, [a]ppellant and Alejandro 

Martinez.[Footnote 2] [Father] took [the victim] back 

to PCA where another forensic interview was 

conducted. [The victim] told the interviewer that 

name of [a]ppellant and his brother who had been 

assaulting her and told them that [Mother] told her to 

lie. Police arrested [a]ppellant for Rape and related 

offenses.
J. S23044/20

- 3 -

[Footnote 1] [Mother] was arrested . . .

for Intimidation of a Witness, Endangering 

Welfare of a Child and Hindering 

Apprehension. She was convicted of 

Endangering Welfare of a Child and 

Hindering Apprehension.

[Footnote 2] Alejandro Jaquez Martinez 

was arrested . . . for Rape and related 

offenses. He was found not guilty.

Trial court opinion, 9/30/19 at 2-4 (record citations omitted).

Following imposition of sentence, appellant did not file post-sentence 

motions or a direct appeal. Rather, on December 1, 2016, appellant filed a 

pro se PCRA2 petition. Appointed counsel then filed an amended PCRA 

petition that raised trial counsel’s ineffectiveness for failure to file a direct 

appeal. The Commonwealth did not oppose the grant of PCRA relief. The trial 

court then reinstated appellant’s direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc. 

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The trial court ordered appellant to 

file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant timely complied. The trial court then filed its 

Rule 1925(a) opinion.

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

Was the evidence insufficient to sustain the guilty 

verdicts for rape and sexual assault as [a]ppellant 

asserts there was insufficient evidence of any 

penetration, however slight[?]

 

2 Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J. S23044/20

- 4 -

Appellant’s brief at 7.

In his brief, appellant “acknowledges that the uncorroborated testimony 

of a complainant may be sufficient, [but] here, the evidence was much too 

insufficient and lacking to sustain guilty verdicts because of the numerous 

issues with the [victim’s] testimony.” (Appellant’s brief at 13.) Appellant then 

points out that “other children and at least one other adult were present” in 

the home, “none of whom noticed anything.” (Id. at 14.) Appellant goes on 

to attack the victim’s credibility by highlighting an inconsistency between her

testimony and her PCA interview and informing this court that no forensic 

evidence corroborated her testimony. Appellant contends that the victim “was 

at best greatly confused and mistaken as to being assaulted by [a]ppellant.” 

(Id.) Appellant calls this court’s attention to his cooperation with police 

wherein he explained in his police statement “that perhaps there was 

inadvertent contact while the child slept,” but “there was no penetration.” (Id.

at 15.) In so doing, appellant challenges the weight of the evidence, not its 

sufficiency. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710, 713-714 

(Pa.Super. 2003) (reiterating that a review of the sufficiency of the evidence 

does not include a credibility assessment; such a claim goes to the weight of 

the evidence); Commonwealth v. Gaskins, 692 A.2d 224, 227 (Pa.Super. 

1997) (restating that the fact-finder makes credibility determinations, and 

challenges to those determinations go to the weight of the evidence, not the 

sufficiency of the evidence).
J. S23044/20

- 5 -

Appellant failed to raise a weight claim with the trial court in a motion 

for a new trial “(1) orally, on the record, at any time before sentencing; (2) by 

written motion at any time before sentencing; or (3) in a post-sentence 

motion” as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A). Therefore, we have nothing to 

review.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/24/2020