J-S39041-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

J.T. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1720 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 7, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0009744-2017

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OLSON, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 21, 2020

In related cases, J.T. (J.T.) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed following his conviction in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia 

County (trial court) of two counts each of unlawful contact with a minor, 

endangering the welfare of a child, corruption of a minor, aggravated indecent 

assault of a person less than 13 years of age, rape of a child and involuntary 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S39041-20

- 2 -

deviate sexual intercourse1 at docket numbers CP-51-CR-0009744-2017 and 

CP-51-CR-0009745-2017.

2

 We affirm.

I.

J.T.’s conviction arises from his long-term sexual abuse of his two 

biological daughters, M.T. and L.T. The victims’ testimony at trial showed that 

they lived with J.T. and their three brothers for seven years after they were 

removed from the care of their mother because of physical abuse in her home. 

At J.T.’s residence, M.T. and L.T shared a bedroom, their brothers shared a 

second bedroom and J.T. slept in the main bedroom. M.T. testified that her 

father repeatedly raped her starting from when she was eight or nine years 

old until she was 14 years old. M.T. described the first sexual encounter as 

happening in J.T.’s bedroom while her siblings were asleep. J.T. touched her 

breasts and vagina before performing oral sex on her and anally penetrating 

her. J.T. continued to rape her multiple times per month over the course of 

several years in his bedroom with the door closed while her siblings were 

asleep or out of the house. M.T. explained that she did not tell anyone about 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6318, 4304, 6301, 3125(a)(7), 3121(c) and 3123, 

respectively.

2

Initials are used to denote the names of most of the individuals in this 

Memorandum to protect the identity of the minor children. See Superior Court 

I.O.P. 424(A). We have issued a nearly identical Memorandum at Journal No.

J-S39042-20, as the appeals raise the same issues and the trial court filed 

one opinion at both docket numbers.
J-S39041-20

- 3 -

the abuse for a long time because she was “scared and embarrassed” and was

afraid that “[J.T.] would do something to me.” (N.T. Trial, 1/23/19, at 58, 

62). M.T and L.T. eventually told their two older sisters about the abuse, who 

assisted them in reporting it to police and moving from J.T.’s home.

L.T. testified that J.T. raped her “about two times a week, . . . sometimes 

more,” from the time she was nine years old until she was 12 years old. (Id.

at 117, 119, 127). During these episodes, J.T. performed oral sex on her and 

anally penetrated her. L.T. explained regarding the first incident: “I went 

downstairs because I couldn’t sleep and he started touching me and said he 

wouldn’t hurt me, but he did. And he put his penis in my butt and he told me 

that if anything hurt to tell him, that he wouldn’t hurt me, so I told him that 

it hurted [sic] and he stopped.” (Id. at 120). L.T. testified that J.T 

occasionally digitally penetrated her vagina and that he performed oral sex on 

her “a lot.” She explained: “I would be watching T.V. and he would lay me 

down on the bed and pull down my pants and suck my vagina.” (Id. at 125, 

127). L.T. described an instance on her twelfth birthday wherein she went to 

the basement to help J.T. with laundry and he gave her a 20-dollar bill and 

anally raped her on the washing machine. (See id. at 137). J.T. generally 

did not talk during the incidents, other than to tell her “not to tell anyone.” 

(See id. at 131). L.T. complied with this directive because she felt scared and

embarrassed. (See id. at 125). She explained that her father abused her 

when her brothers were either sleeping or riding their bikes. (See id. at 136).
J-S39041-20

- 4 -

M.T. and L.T.’s older sisters testified that they first learned of the abuse 

in August 2017 when the four sisters met at their mother’s house.

3

 (See id.

at 162, 164, 204). Sister 1 testified that M.T. and L.T. were “crying and were 

shaken up” when they disclosed the abuse and “it was pretty hard for them 

to even say what was going on.” (Id. at 164). When M.T. and L.T. calmed 

down enough to speak, they both explained that J.T. was raping them. (See 

id. at 166). Sister 2 described their demeaner as “really shaken up” and 

“scared.” (Id. at 205). She recounted that they were “crying but didn’t want 

to speak” and that she “could tell something was wrong just by looking at 

them.” (Id.). Sisters 1 and 2 immediately took M.T. and L.T. to the police 

station to report the abuse. (See id. at 206-07).

Dr. Marita Lind, a child abuse pediatrician and director of the Child 

Protection Program at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children, testified 

regarding her medical examinations of M.T. and L.T. M.T. and L.T. had 

progressed through puberty and were mature in their genital and anal exams. 

(See N.T. Trial, 1/25/19, at 17, 22, 31). Dr. Lind did not observe signs of 

physical trauma, but opinioned that “lack of trauma is still consistent with a 

child alleging anal penetration.” (Id. at 24; see id. at 31). She explained 

____________________________________________

3 Because the two older sisters share the same initials as one of the victims, 

M.T., we will refer to them as Sister 1 and Sister 2. We will likewise refer to 

the two brothers who testified at trial as Brother 1 and Brother 2 because of 

issues with shared initials.
J-S39041-20

- 5 -

“most children who experience anal penetration or mature children who 

experience vaginal penetration don’t have physical signs of trauma after about 

72 hours of contact because most trauma that you experience [in] those areas 

is superficial, superficial abrasion, superficial bruising and the blood supply to 

this area is really good. So the healing is rapid.” (Id. at 24). Dr. Lind stated 

her medical opinion that “no trauma [is] consistent with sexual penetration.” 

(Id. at 26).

Brothers 1 and 2 testified that they had no knowledge of any sexual 

abuse in the home and they first learned of the allegations when M.T. and L.T. 

moved out of the house. (See id. at 60, 85-87). They also indicated that

Brother 2 slept in J.T.’s bedroom during the last two or three years he lived 

with his father, although he did not have his own bed in the room and slept 

on the floor. (See id. at 57, 72-73, 81).

The trial court held a jury trial on both docket numbers on January 23-

25, 2019, and the jury found J.T. guilty of the above-listed charges. On June 

7, 2019, the trial court sentenced J.T. to a term of not less than 37 nor more 

than 74 years’ incarceration, followed by ten years of probation.4 The court 

also ordered J.T. to comply with all Tier III registration requirements under 

____________________________________________

4 The trial court imposed an identical sentence at Docket No. CP-51-CR0009745-2017, resulting in an aggregate term of not less than 74 nor more 

than 148 years’ incarceration, followed by 20 years of probation. (See

Superior Court Memorandum issued at Journal No. J-S39042-20).
J-S39041-20

- 6 -

Pennsylvania’s Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 

including lifetime registration with the Pennsylvania State Police.5 J.T. timely 

appealed and he and the trial court complied with Rule 1925. See Pa.R.A.P. 

1925 (a)-(b).

II.

J.T. first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his 

conviction.6 J.T. generally disputes every element of all of the offenses he 

____________________________________________

5 See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10-9799.41. SORNA’s effective date is December 

20, 2012, and it classifies offenders and their offenses into three tiers

according to the severity of the crime. See Commonwealth v. Lacombe, 

2020 WL 4148262, at *5 (Pa. filed July 21, 2020). “Those convicted of Tier 

III offenses are subject to lifetime registration and are required to verify their 

registration information and be photographed, in person at an approved 

registration site, quarterly.” Id. at *6.

6

In Commonwealth v. Widger, 2020 WL 4692334, at *2 (Pa. Super. filed 

Aug. 13, 2020) (citations omitted):

The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence

is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light 

most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence

to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond 

a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh 

the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In 

addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by 

the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of 

innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be 

resolved by the fact-finder unless the 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 proof or proving every element of the 

crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly 

circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, 
J-S39041-20

- 7 -

was found guilty of by contending that he lacked the opportunity to commit 

the abuse where his large family lived in cramped living conditions in a small 

home. J.T. maintains that he could not have engaged in such pervasive acts

in the house without another family member knowing about it. In an 

overlapping argument, J.T. specifically challenges his convictions of 

aggravated indecent assault and rape of a child, pointing to the lack of 

corroborating physical evidence of signs of trauma on his daughters to 

establish the elements of penetration and intercourse.

A defendant commits aggravated indecent assault of a person less than 

13 years of age when he “engages in penetration, however slight, of the 

genitals or anus of a complainant with a part of the person’s body for any 

purpose other than good faith medical, hygienic or law enforcement 

procedures.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 3125(a)(7). A person commits the offense of rape 

of a child when he “engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant who is 

less than 13 years of age.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(c).

In order for the Commonwealth to establish the elements of a sexual 

offense, it is well-settled that “the uncorroborated testimony of the 

complaining witness is sufficient to convict a defendant.” Commonwealth v.

____________________________________________

the entire record must be evaluated and all the evidence actually 

received must be considered. Finally, the trier-of-fact, while 

passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the 

evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the 

evidence.
J-S39041-20

- 8 -

Castelhun, 889 A.2d 1228, 1232 (Pa. Super. 2005); see also 18 Pa.C.S.

§ 3106 (“The credibility of a complainant of an offense under this chapter 

[relating to sexual offenses] shall be determined by the same standard as is 

the credibility of a complainant of any other crime. The testimony of a 

complainant need not be corroborated in prosecutions under this chapter.”

Instantly, both M.T. and L.T. testified that their father abused them 

when other family members were either asleep or out of the home. They 

described in detail the ordeal of their abuse, starting when they were each 

about nine years old and lasting for several years. M.T. and L.T. explained 

that the incidents consisted primarily of J.T. performing oral sex on them and 

anally raping them several times per month and, in L.T.’s case, multiple times 

per week. Both sisters maintained that they did not inform anyone about the 

abuse because they were embarrassed and were afraid of J.T. Sisters 1 and 

2 testified that M.T. and L.T. disclosed the abuse while shaken, crying and 

visibly frightened.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth 

as the verdict winner, we conclude that it presented sufficient evidence to 

support J.T.’s convictions. The jury, as fact-finder, heard and weighed the

testimony regarding the lack of corroborating physical evidence and the 

brothers’ testimony that they were unaware of any abuse and was nonetheless 

free to credit M.T. and L.T.’s testimony that their father sexually abused them

on a regular basis when their siblings were asleep or not at home.
J-S39041-20

- 9 -

Additionally, the detailed descriptions given by M.T. and L.T. of J.T.’s 

oral contact on their genitalia and of J.T. “putting his penis in [their] butt[s]” 

was clearly sufficient to establish the elements of penetration and intercourse

for the aggravated indecent assault and rape convictions. (N.T. Trial, 1/23/19, 

at 54). The Commonwealth did not need to present any additional testimony 

to support M.T. and L.T.’s painstaking accounts of the abuse, as a victim’s 

uncorroborated testimony alone can provide sufficient evidence to establish 

sexual assault. Further, as to J.T.’s claim regarding the lack of physical 

evidence of abuse, Dr. Lind explained that most children do not show signs of 

physical trauma after 72 hours of an anal assault, and the lack of physical 

evidence was entirely consistent with and in no way undermined the accounts

of abuse. (See N.T. Trial, 1/25/19, at 24, 31). Based on the forgoing, we 

conclude J.T.’s sufficiency claims lack merit.

III.

J.T. next challenges the legality of his sentence by arguing that his 

lifetime registration requirement imposed pursuant to SORNA is

unconstitutional.7 J.T. contends that SORNA is punitive because it impinges 

on his reputation and that it violates due process and the ex post facto clause. 

J.T. acknowledged in his appellate brief that the issue of SORNA’s validity was 

____________________________________________

7 Because this claim presents a question of law, our scope of review is plenary 

and we review the trial court’s legal determination de novo. See Lacombe,

supra at *3.
J-S39041-20

- 10 -

then pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and he briefly 

addressed this issue in order to preserve it in the event the Court struck down 

the statute as unconstitutional.

After J.T. filed his brief in this Court, our Supreme Court issued 

Lacombe, supra, in which it upheld the constitutionality of SORNA. After 

exhaustive review, it determined that SORNA registration requirements are a 

civil remedy at their core and do not constitute criminal punishment. See id.

at *1, 17-18.

Further, we agree with the trial court that J.T.’s retroactivity argument 

fails and he is plainly subject to SORNA registration requirements because his 

abuse of M.T. occurred from approximately 2011 through 2017 and of L.T 

from 2014 through 2017, well after SORNA’s 2012 effective date. (See Trial 

Court Opinion, 12/31/19, at 9-10). J.T.’s challenge to the legality of his 

sentence merits no relief.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/21/20