J. 

### A19003/16
NON

### -PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

## - SEE 

### SUPERIORCOURT

### I.O.P. 

### 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIORCOURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MANFRED PHILLIP MAROTTA, No. 3407 EDA 2015 

### Appellant
Appeal

### from theJudgmentofSentence, October8, 2015, in the CourtofCommon Pleas 

### of Bucks County Criminal Division at No. CP-09-CR-

### 0001335-2015

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OTTAND FITZGERALD,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: 

### FILED NOVEMBER

### 08,

### 2016 Manfred Phillip Marotta appeals 

### from the October 8, 2015 

### aggregate 

### judgment of sentence 

### of 4 to 23 

### months' imprisonment, followed by a consecutive 

### term of 2 

### years' probation, 

### after he was found 

### guilty of two counts

### of indecentassault--

### withoutthe 

### complainant's

### consent.' Aftercareful review, we

### affirm. The

### trial courtsummarized the 

### relevantfacts and procedural 

### history of this case as

### follows: The charges 

### against 

### [a]ppellant stemmed from his 

### conduct towards two alleged 

### victims; E.S., his niece, and H.M., a 

### former manager at one of the Dunkin Donuts shops owned by 

### [a]ppellant. At

### trial,

* FormerJusticespeciallyassigned to

### theSuperiorCourt.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 3126(a)(1).J. 

### A19003/16
both E.S. and H.M. 

### testified as to 

### [a]ppellant's conducttowards them. E.S. 

### testified 

### that [a]ppellant started giving backrubs and massages to her when she was 18 or 19 years old, and 

### that this eventually progressed into more 

### intimate contact. (Notes 

### of 

### testimony, 

### 6/29/15 at 27

### -28.) E.S. lived 

### with 

### [a]ppellant, and relied on him 

### for income and 

### stability, as she also worked at one of his Dunkin Donuts shops. (Id. at 20

### -21, 29

### -35.) At

### the bench

### trial, E.S. 

### testified: I would come down 

### after work and I would be stressed 

### out, and he would 

### want to calm me down orfind an answer to help me relax or de-stress, and he would say, come 

### over here, you look stressed 

### out, you need to relax. And then he would rub my back, and then progressively it 

### gotto 

### [sic] pull my pants down and he would rub my butt. And then sometimes he would like spread my legs 

### apart and rub in between my

### thighs, and a few of the times he had put his 

### fingers in myvagina and touched around myvagina and inside

### of it. 

### (Id. at 

### 28.) E.S. also stated 

### that she never wanted her uncle to touch her in a sexual 

### manner, and 

### that shewas 

### intimidated by his physical size. (Id. at 29, 32.) Further, E.S. stated 

### that [a]ppellant touched hervagina aboutten

### times and put his

### fingers inside of her between five and six

### times. 

### (Id. at

### 34.) E.S. decided to come 

### forward about 

### [a]ppellant touching her when she heard 

### that he may have touched 

### anotherworker at Dunkin Donuts, H.M., and 

### felt that her coming 

### forward could help 

### prevent anyone else

### from being

### victimized in

### thefuture. (Id. at 36

### -37.) E.S. 

### testified 

### that she never

### felt like her uncle's touching of her was okay or 

### right. (Id. at 44

### -45.) Further, E.S. stated 

### that she never wanted her uncle to touch her in a sexual 

### way and 

### there were 

### times where she 

### felt like she 

### couldn't

### just get 

## -2J. 

### A19003/16

up and 

### walk away, 

### largely due to the potential consequencesof her doing so, i.e. not having a place to live, not having a 

### job, not having 

### support, and losing her

### family. (Id. at 119

### -120.) H.M. also 

### testified at 

### trial on June 29, 2015. H.M. was a 

### manager at Dunkin Donuts 

### after E.S. held 

### this position. (Id. at 

### 132.) As 

### managerofone of 

### [a]ppellant's Dunkin Donuts, H.M. had to drop money 

### offat 

### [a]ppellant's house atthe end of

### every shift, and she was not 

### comfortable with this arrangement. (Id. at 

### 139.) H.M. 

### testified 

### thatthere were two incidents where 

### [a]ppellant touched her. (Id. at 140

### -141.) In regard to the 

### first incident, H.M. 

### testified: Well, the one 

### night I 

### went to his house 

### for training and I was 

### sitting nextto him in 

### front ofthe computer, and I 

### felt really uncomfortable because it was 

### just me and him atthe house,

### firstofall, so I 

### felt like 

### that was 

### uncomfortable and unnecessary. And then I was 

### sitting training with him, and he was rubbing the inside of my leg while I was 

### sitting nextto him

### training.

(Id. at 

### 141.) H.M. clarified 

### that [a]ppellant was rubbing 

### "the inside 

### [of her legs] 

### towards like where 

### [her] vagina 

### is." (Id.) In regardto the second 

### incident, H.M. 

### testified 

### that she 

### wentto 

### [a]ppellant's house

### "to drop 

### offthe money 

### after [her] shift at 

### work, and 

### [she] put it on the table, and then 

### [[a]ppellant] looked at 

### [her] and told 

### [her] that [she] looked stressed 

### out

# ... [and] then he pointed 

## - he 

### brought 

### [her] over to his bedroom and pointed to his bed and said, lay (sic) 

### down." (Id. at 145.) H.M. stated 

### that she 

### "didn't feel like 

### [she] had a choice 

### [but to listen to 

### [a]ppellant] because [she was] much 

### smaller than him and much

### weaker, so 

### [she] was 

### intimidated, and 

### [she] did 

### it." (Id.) H.M. 

### went on to explain 

### that after [a]ppellant told her to lay (sic) face down on

- 3J. 

### A19003/16
the bed, he asked to 

### take her

### shirtoff, asked to

### take her bra off, 

### started massaging her, and 

### eventually pulled her pants down and 

### started massaging the skin of her 

### butt under her 

### underwear. 

### (Id. at 146- 149.) 

### Appellant was breathing deeply in a sexual 

### manner the 

### entire time, and H.M. stated 

### that she was 

### "very intimidated" and 

### "very scared." (Id. 

### at 148, 165, 176.) H.M. elaborated

### that: [She] 

### felt like if 

### [she] would have 

### gotten up and ran 

### out of the house, 

### something 

### might have happened to 

### [her]. [She] 

### didn't feel safe. 

### It was only 

### [her] and 

### [[a]ppellant] inthe house, and 

### [she] was under pressure. [She] 

### didn't know how to act, 

### [she] was only 19 years old



# ... [.]

(Id. at 

### 147.) 

### Itwasalso noted by H.M.: I 

### didn't want any of

### thatto ever happen to me. I 

### wouldn't have ever asked 

### for that, and I would never

### want some man, who is 

### that much 

### older and who's my boss to 

### wantto be 

### treating me like 

### that. Iwould never

### wantthat.

(Id. at 

### 183.) The second day of

### trial was on June 30, 2015, and 

### [a]ppellant's counsel, Mr. Geday, 

### started 

### offthe proceedings by raising a 

### corpus delicti issue in regard to evidence 

### that he 

### anticipated would be introduced by the Commonwealth. (Notes of 

### testimony, 

### 6/30/15 at 4

### -5.) Appellant's counsel argued 

### thatthe evidence presented so

### far inthe

### trial was 

### insufficient to establish 

### that the crimes charged had occurred, and 

### therefore 

### that no 

### subsequent statements by 

### [a]ppellant should be admissible and considered. (Id.) In response, 

### the 

### [trial c]ourt found 

### that based on the record 

### there was 

### sufficient evidence to 

### warrant testimony involving any statements 

### that [a]ppellantmay have made. (Id. at 7.) 

## -4J. 

### A19003/16

On the second day of

### trialtherewas

### testimony from Detectives David 

### Kemmerer and Robert McLeod regarding 

### statements made by 

### [a]ppellant. (See

### id. at 2.) 

### Detective McLeod read into the record an apology 

### letterwritten by 

### [a]ppellant to E.S., in which 

### [a]ppellant stated 

### that he 

### admitted to touching her. 

### (Id. at 50.) 

### Further, Detective Kemmerer testified as to his 

### interviews with 

### [a]ppellant, during which 

### [a]ppellant admitted to touching E.S.'s vagina and stated

### that he was 

### sexuallyattracted to her. (Id. at 78

### -79.) At the close 

### of 

### trial, before beginning 

### argument, the 

### [trial c]ourt, after hearing all 

### of the evidence, asked if the Commonwealth was still alleging the same 

### time frames as stated on the criminal 

### information with respect to the charges 

### brought in regard to H.M. 

### (Id. at 

### 188.) The 

### Commonwealth 

### initially alleged a

### timeframe between January and the end of March of2013. In response to the 

### [trial c]ourt's inquiry, and based on H.M.'s 

### testimony, the Commonwealth requested to be granted leave to amend the 

### timeframe on the criminal 

### information to include April of 2013. (Id.) 

### Appellant's counsel objected to 

### this, saying 

### that it was too late 

### for the Commonwealth to make 

### modifications to the criminal 

### information after evidence had closed, and 

### that allowing 

### amendment amounted to an 

### impermissible 

### retroactive change to the charges. (Id. 

### at 188

### -189.) The 

### Commonwealth countered 

### that criminal informations are 

### typically broadly construed, 

### thatthe change did not 

### impact an 

### elementof the offense, and 

### that the Commonwealth was not seeking to 

### substantively change any of the crimes being charged. 

### (Id.) The 

### [trial c]ourt ultimately stated 

### that amendment of 

### criminal informations is 

### generally allowed as long as 

### there is no 

### inherent unfairness to the 

### defendant and 

### that under the circumstances the Commonwealth would be allowed to amend the criminal 

### information to include April of 2013 as a 

### potential 

### time period 

### with respect to the counts regarding H.M. (Id. at 190- 191.) 

## -5J. 

### A19003/16

Trial 

### court opinion, 

### 12/24/15, at 2-5 

### (citation 

### formatting corrected; footnotes

### omitted). Appellant was charged 

### with multiple counts of aggravated indecent assault and indecent assault in connection 

### with these incidents.2 On June 29, 2015, appellantwaived his 

### rightto a

### jury and proceeded to a bench 

### trial. Following a two-day 

### trial, appellant was found 

### guilty of two counts 

### of indecent assault--

### without the complainant's consent on June 30, 2015. 

### Appellant was found not 

### guilty of 

### the remaining charges. As noted, 

### appellant was sentenced to an 

### aggregate 

### term of 4 to 23 

### months' imprisonment, followed by a consecutive 2 

### years' probation, on October 8, 2015. At 

### sentencing,the

### trial courtdirected 

### thatappellant: 

### [(1)] have no 

### contact with the 

### victims or 

### their 

### families[;] 

# ... [(2)] obtain an 

### independent psychological 

### evaluation geared 

### toward looking into 

### predatory sexual 

### behavior and 

# ... abide by all the 

### treatment conditions following 

### that recommendation[; and 

### (3)] have no 

### contact with anyone under 22years of agewhich is unsupervised and whereyouwill bealone

### with

### that person. Notes of

### testimony, 

### 10/8/15 at 74-75.

2 Specifically, 

### appellant was charged 

### with one count each 

### of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 

### 3125(a)(1) (aggravated indecent assault

### --

### without the 

### complainant's consent), 

### 3125(a)(2) (aggravated indecent assault--forcible compulsion), 

### 3125(a)(3) (aggravated indecentassault

### --

### threatofforcible compulsion), and two counts each 

### of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 

### 3126(a)(1) (indecent assault

### --

### without the 

### complainant's consent), 

### 3126(a)(2) (indecent assault

### --forcible compulsion), and 

### 3126(a)(3) (indecent assault--

### threat of 

### forcible compulsion). 

## -6J. 

### A19003/16 Appellant did not 

### file any post-sentence motions. On November 9, 2015, 

### appellantfiled a 

### timely notice 

### ofappeal. On November 16, 2015, the 

### trial court ordered 

### appellant to file a concise 

### statementof errors complained of on appeal 

### pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule ofAppellate Procedure 

### 1925(b). Appellant filed his Rule 

### 1925(b) 

### statement on December 7, 2015, and the 

### trial court issued its Rule 

### 1925(a) opinion on December24,2015. 

### Appellant raisesthefollowing issues

### forour review: I. 

### Whether the Honorable Trial Court erred by 

### finding 

### [a]ppellant guilty of 

### Indecent Assault when the Commonwealth failed to Prove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt all Requisite Elements 

### of 

### Indecent Assault as Defined in 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 3126(a)(1), specifically 

### that [a]ppellant ever had indecent 

### contact with the complaining witness or 

### that such 

### contact was 

### without consent? 

### II. Whether the Honorable Trial Court erred by 

### admitting into evidence and considering 

### [a]ppellant's statements prior to the Commonwealth establishing the 

### corpus delicti 

### of a 

### crime, or the fact 

### that a crime occurred at all? 

### III. Whether the Honorable Trial Court erred by 

### permitting the Commonwealth to amend the Bills 

### of 

### Information after the

### trial concluded to 

### conform to the evidence 

### that was presented during

### trial, i.e., to extend the permissible date range by a 

### month, especially because 

### [a]ppellant was never on notice 

### of the new date range 

### priorto 

### trial? IV. 

### Whether the Honorable Trial Court erred by imposing a 

### condition of sentence upon 

### [a]ppellant that he have no unsupervised 

### contactwith anyone underthe age

### of22? 

## -7J. 

### A19003/16

Appellant's briefat 4 

### (numeration corrected). Appellant 

### first argues 

### that there was 

### insufficient evidence to sustain his 

### conviction 

### fortwo countsofindecentassault becausethe Commonwealth failed to prove

### that he"had indecent 

### contactwith the complaining witnesses 

### withouttheirconsent." 

### (Id. at 13, 15

### -19.) Thisclaim is 

### meritless. In reviewing the 

### sufficiency of the evidence, we 

### must determine 

### whether the evidence 

### admitted at 

### trial and all reasonable inferences drawn 

### therefrom, viewed in the 

### light most favorable to the Commonwealth as 

### verdict winner, is 

### sufficient to prove 

### every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. As an 

### appellate court, we may not re-weigh the evidence and 

### substitute our 

### judgmentfor

### thatofthefact

### -finder. Any question of doubt is 

### for the 

### fact

### -finder unless the evidence is so 

### weak and inconclusive 

### that as a 

### matter of law no 

### probability of fact can be drawn 

### from the combined circumstances. 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Thomas, 988 A.2d 669, 670 (Pa.Super. 

### 2009),

### appeal denied, 4 A.3d 1054 (Pa. 

### 2010) 

### (citationsomitted).
A person will befound

### guilty of indecent assault: if the person has indecent 

### contact with the 

### complainant, causes the 

### complainant to have indecent 

### contact with the person or 

### intentionally causes the 

### complainant to come into 

### contact with seminal 

### fluid, urine or feces 

### for the purpose of arousing sexual desire in the person or the 

### complainant and

# ... the person does so 

### without the 

### complainant's

### consent[.]



## -8J. 

### A19003/16

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 3126(a)(1). The phrase

### "indecentcontact" is defined as

### "any touching of the sexual or 

### other intimate parts ofthe person 

### for the purpose ofarousing or

### gratifying sexual desire, in 

### eitherperson." Id. § 3101. Viewing the evidence in the 

### light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the 

### verdictwinner, we find 

### thatthere was ample evidence 

### for the 

### trial court, as 

### fact

### -finder, to conclude 

### that appellant was 

### guilty of indecent assault--

### without the 

### complainant's consent. At 

### trial, E.S. 

### testified 

### that appellanttouched hervagina on 

### approximatelyten occasions, and 

### "put his 

### fingers inside of 

### [her]" between 

### five or six 

### times. (Notes of 

### testimony, 

### 6/29/15 at 

### 34.) E.S. indicated 

### that she did not 

### want appellantto touch her
in 

### this sexual 

### manner and did not feel it was 

### "okay." (Id. at 29, 44

### -45.) H.M., in 

### turn, testified 

### that appellant had rubbed or massaged the inside of her legs, back, and 

### buttocks on 

### multiple occasions. (Id. at 140

### -141, 148- 149.) H.M. 

### further testified 

### that she did not 

### want appellant to engage in such 

### "inappropriate" conduct, noting 

### that 

### "I would never 

### want some man, who is 

### that much 

### older and who's my boss to 

### want to be 

### treating me like 

### that[.]" (Id. at 

### 183.) Moreover, both E.S. and H.M. 

### testified 

### thattheywere 

### intimidated by 

### appellant because he was 

### larger in size and held a position of 

### authority overthem. (Id. at 30

### -32, 176, 183

### -184.) Additionally, the Commonwealth introduced the 

### testimony of Detectives David 

### Kemmerer and Robert McLeod regarding various 

### inculpatory statements appellant made 

### following his 

### arrest. Specifically,



## -9J. 

### A19003/16
Detective McLeod read into the record an apology 

### letterwritten by 

### appellant to E.S., 

### wherein he stated 

### that he touched E.S. (Notes 

### of 

### testimony, 

### 6/30/15 at 50.) Detective 

### Kemmerer, in 

### turn, testified 

### that during his 

### interview of 

### appellant, appellant acknowledged touching E.S.'s vagina and stated

### that he was

### sexually

### attracted to her. 

### (Id. at 78

### -79.) 

### It is well established 

### that the 

### testimony of a 

### complainant, even standing alone, is 

### sufficient to 

### convict in sex offense prosecutions. 

### See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Castelhun, 889 A.2d 1228, 1232 (Pa.Super. 

### 2005). Based on the 

### totality of evidence presented in the case 

### sub

### judice, we conclude 

### that appellant's claim 

### that there was 

### insufficient evidence to sustain his 

### convictions

### for indecentassault mustfail. Appellant next argues 

### that the 

### trial court erred in 

### admitting his 

### inculpatory statements because the Commonwealth failed to establish 

### "the 

### corpus 

### delicti of a crime, or the 

### fact 

### that a crime occurred at 

### all." (Appellant's briefat

### 20.) Wedisagree. Our standard 

### of review 

### for a challenge to the 

### corpus

### delicti rule is well 

### settled. The 

### corpus

### delicti rule is a rule 

### of evidence. Our standard 

### of review on appeals challenging an 

### evidentiary ruling of the 

### trial court is 

### limited to a 

### determination of 

### whether the 

### trial court abused its 

### discretion. The 

### corpus 

### delicti rule places 

### the burden on the prosecution to establish 

### that a 

### crime has 

### actually occurred before a confession or admission 

### of the accused connecting him to the crime can be 

### admitted. The 

### corpus 

### delicti is 

### literally the body of the 

### crime; it consists of 

### proof

- 10 -J. 

### A19003/16 

### that a loss or 

### injury has occurred as a 

### result ofthe criminal conductofsomeone. 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Hernandez, 39 A.3d 

### 406, 410-411 (Pa.Super. 

### 2012), 

### appeal denied, 63 A.3d 1244 (Pa. 

### 2013) 

### (citation, internal 

### quotation marks, and emphasis

### omitted). Courts in 

### this Commonwealth have recognized 

### that Pennsylvania law requires courtsto 

### applythe

### corpus

### delicti rule intwo 

### distinct phases: In the 

### first phase, the 

### court determineswhether the Commonwealth has proventhe

### corpus

### delictiofthe crimes charged by a preponderance ofthe evidence. 

### If so, 

### the confession 

### of the defendant is admissible. In the second phase, the rule requires 

### that the Commonwealth prove the 

### corpus 

### delicti to the 

### factfinder's satisfaction beyond a reasonable 

### doubt before the 

### factfinder is 

### permitted to consider the confession in assessing the 

### defendant's innocence or 

### guilt. 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Otterson, 947 A.2d 1239, 1249 (Pa.Super. 

### 2008), 

### appealdenied, 958 A.2d 1047 (Pa. 

### 2008), 

### cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1238 

### (2009), quoting 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Reyes, 870 A.2d 888, 894 n.4 (Pa. 

### 2005). 

### Instantly, we discern no abuse 

### of discretion on the 

### part of the 

### trial court in 

### rejecting appellant's 

### corpus

### delicti claim. The record establishes 

### that the 

### corpus

### delictiof the indecent assaults was 

### sufficiently proven by the Commonwealth prior to the 

### admittance of 

### appellant's inculpatory statements. As discussed, 

### the Commonwealth sought to 

### introduce the 

### inculpatory statements at issue, 

### over appellant's 

### objection, on June 30,J. 

### A19003/16 2015, the second day of

### trial. Prior to 

### this 

### time period, 

### the 

### trial court had 

### already heard 

### extensive 

### testimony from both E.S. and H.M. on the

### first day of

### trial

### thatwas 

### consistentwith the indecentassaults having occurred. 

### Accordingly, we conclude 

### that the 

### corpus 

### delicti of the indecent assaults was 

### sufficiently proven and the 

### trial court did not abuse its 

### discretion in 

### admitting appellant's 

### inculpatory statements into evidence. 

### Additionally, as the evidencewas 

### sufficientto establish beyond a reasonable 

### doubt 

### that appellant had indecent contact 

### with both E.S. and H.M. 

### without their consent, we conclude 

### thatthe

### trial court did not abuse its 

### discretion in considering 

### appellant's admissions in reaching its 

### verdict. See 

### Otterson, 947A.2d at 1249. 

### Appellant next argues 

### that the 

### trial court "erred by 

### permitting the Commonwealth to amend the Bills of 

### Information afterthe

### trial concluded to 

### conform to the evidence

### that was presented during 

### trial, 

### i.e., to extend the permissible date range by a 

### month, especially because 

### [he] was never on notice

### ofthe newdate range 

### priorto

### trial." (Appellant's briefat

### 21.) Amendments to a 

### criminal information are governed by Pennsylvania Rule ofCriminal Procedure 564, which provides as

### follows: The 

### court may allow an 

### information to be amended when 

### there is a defect in 

### form, the description ofthe 

### offense(s), the description of any person or any 

### property, or the date charged, provided the 

### information as amended does not charge an 

### additional or 

### different offense. Upon 

### amendment, the 

### court may 

### grant such 

### postponement of 

### trial or 

### other reliefas is necessary in

### the interests of

### justice.

- 12 -J. 

### A19003/16

Pa.R.Crim.P. 564. We have explained 

### that the purpose 

### of Rule 564 is to 

### inform a 

### defendantofthe chargesfiled 

### against him so

### that he may

### properly prepare a defense. 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Sinclair, 897 A.2d 1218, 1223 (Pa.Super. 

### 2006). Allowing the 

### amendment of the 

### information is not 

### proper where doing so prejudicesthe defendant. 

### Id. This 

### court must consider the following factors in 

### determining whether

an 

### amendmentresults in 

### prejudiceto the defendant: (1) 

### whether the 

### amendment changes the factual scenario 

### supporting the charges; (2) 

### whether the 

### amendment adds new facts 

### previously unknown to the 

### defendant; (3) whether the 

### entire factual scenario was developed during a 

### preliminary hearing; (4) 

### whether the description of the charges changed

### with the 

### amendment; (5) 

### whether a change in defense 

### strategy was necessitated by the 

### amendment; and (6) 

### whether the 

### timing of the Commonwealth's request

### foramendment allowed 

### for ample notice and 

### preparation. 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Veon, 109 A.3d 754, 768 (Pa.Super. 

### 2015), 

### appeal 

### grantedin

### part, 121 A.3d 954 (Pa. 2015) 

### (citationomitted). Upon review, we agree 

### with the 

### trial court's determination 

### that appellantwas not prejudiced bythe Commonwealth's decision to amend the bill 

### of 

### information in 

### this case. The 

### trial court's December 24, 2015 opinion 

### comprehensively discusses and 

### properly disposes of this issue, and 

### therefore, we

### adoptthefollowing rationale ofthe

### trial court as ourown:

- 13 -J. 

### A19003/16 Here, it was not 

### error to allow the Commonwealth to amend the bill of 

### information to extend the 

### timeframe in which the incidents were alleged to have occurred by a period of one 

### month, because the 

### amendment did not change or add any charges 

### brought against 

### [a]ppellant, and 

### therefore did not 

### prejudice 

### [a]ppellant as he was always on notice 

### of the charges 

### against him. Just as in 

### [Commonwealth v. 

### 1.F., 800 A.2d 942 (Pa.Super. 

### 2002), 

### appealdenied, 812 A.2d 1228 (Pa. 

### 2002)], in the present case the Commonwealth amended the bill 

### of 

### information to

### "merely change[] the

### date" by a period 

### ofone 

### month, and 

### "neither additional charges nor a 

### different set 

### of events were added to the 

### information 

# ... [and] the offenses set 

### forth in the 

### amendment[] involved the same

# ... elements and the same 

### factual situations as specified in the original 

### information[]." 

### [Id. at 

### 945.] Accordingly, we suggest 

### that it was not 

### error to allow the Commonwealth to amend the bill 

### of 

### information to extend the 

### time frame alleged in regard to the incidents involving H.M. by a period 

### ofone 

### month. Trial 

### courtopinion, 

### 12/24/15 at 13 

### (citation

### formatting amended). Lastly, 

### appellant argues 

### that the 

### trial court "erred by imposing a 

### condition ofsentence upon 

### [a]ppellantthat he have no unsupervised contact 

### with anyone under the age 

### of 

### 22." (Appellant's brief at 23 

### (capitalization 

### omitted).) Appellant avers 

### this condition "is unreasonable because it is so broad, unrelated to 

### [his] rehabilitative needs 

# ..., and 

### unduly restricts his 

### liberty." 

### (Id. at 25.) Where an 

### appellant challenges the 

### discretionary aspects of his sentence, as is the case here, the 

### right to 

### appellate review is not absolute. 

### See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Allen, 24 A.3d 1058, 1064 (Pa.Super. 

### 2011). Rather, an 

### appellant challenging the 

### discretionary

- 14 -J. 

### A19003/16 aspectsof his sentence 

### must invoke

### this court's

### jurisdiction by 

### satisfying the following 

### four-parttest: (1) 

### whether the appeal is 

### timely; (2) 

### whether Appellant preserved his issue; 

### (3) 

### whether Appellant's brief includes a concise 

### statement of the reasons relied upon 

### for allowance of appeal 

### with respectto the 

### discretionary aspects ofsentence; and (4) 

### whether the concise 

### statement raises a 

### substantial question

### that the sentence is 

### appropriate underthe sentencing code. 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Carrillo-Diaz, 64 A.3d 722, 725 (Pa.Super. 

### 2013) (citations 

### omitted). 

### "[I]ssues challenging the 

### discretionary aspects 

### of sentence must be raised in a post-sentence motion or by presentingthe claimto the

### trial court during the sentencing proceedings. Absent such 

### efforts, an 

### objection to a 

### discretionary aspect 

### of a sentence is 

### waived." 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Barnhart, 933 A.2d 1061, 1066

### -1067 (Pa.Super. 

### 2007) 

### (citations and 

### internal quotation marks 

### omitted); see 

### also Pa.R.A.P. 

### 302(a) (stating, 

### "[i]ssues not raised in the lower 

### court are waived and 

### cannot be raised 

### for the

### firsttime on

### appeal[]"). 

### Instantly, appellant failed to file a post-sentence motion raising his sentencing claim, or 

### point to the place in the record 

### that indicates he objected to the sentencing condition 

### that he was to have no unsupervised contact 

### with anyone under the age 

### of 22. Consequently, we find 

### that appellant'sfinal claim iswaived. 

### See

### Barnhart. Judgment ofsentence

### affirmed.

- 15 -J. 

### A19003/16

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. 

### Seletyn, Prothonotary Date: 

### 11/8/2016

- 16 -