Court Opinion

ID: 9893531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-27 16:09:27.75857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:25.742023
License: Public Domain

J-S36041-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA              :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                           :         PENNSYLVANIA
                    Appellee               :
                                           :
              v.                           :
                                           :
 RONALD WILLIAM TUCKER                     :
                                           :
                    Appellant              :        No. 2754 EDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 20, 2022
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
           Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005079-2019

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA              :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                           :         PENNSYLVANIA
                    Appellee               :
                                           :
              v.                           :
                                           :
 RONALD WILLIAM TUCKER                     :
                                           :
                    Appellant              :        No. 2755 EDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 20, 2022
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
           Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005080-2019

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                            FILED OCTOBER 27, 2023

      Appellant, Ronald William Tucker, appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following

his jury trial convictions for attempted rape of a child, unlawful contact with a

minor, indecent assault of a person less than 13 years old, possession of an
J-S36041-23

instrument of crime, and simple assault.1 We affirm.

       In its opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural

history of this case as follows:

          During the [jury] trial, seven witnesses testified.
          Complainant, [D.G.], testified that on the morning of July 2,
          2019[,] she rode her bike to the corner store at 16 th and
          Clearfield streets to purchase a popsicle. [D.G.] testified
          that upon leaving the store she began to ride her bike in the
          area of the store and across the street at the park. [D.G.’s]
          testimony is that while riding her bike, Appellant begins to
          converse with her from his parked car. [D.G.] further
          testified that moments following this brief interaction, she
          resumes riding her bike and returns to the park. [D.G.] then
          testified that once inside the park she got off her bike to fix
          the seat. Thereafter, [D.G.] testified that as she was
          preparing to get back on her bike[,] Appellant pushed her
          bike and put her [against] the wall. [D.G.] testified that
          Appellant then attempted to touch her breasts and pull her
          pants down to touch her vagina with his fingers while
          simultaneously touching and masturbating his penis inside
          his unbuckled pants and stating, “tell me how big it is.”
          [D.G.] then testified that Nicholas Adams (hereinafter
          “Adams”) walked into the park [and] immediately observed
          the interaction and pushed Appellant. [D.G.’s] testimony is
          that Appellant then pulled a knife and began to swing the
          knife at Adams. [D.G.] testified that as Appellant and
          Adams were fighting, she was scared and crying and
          therefore did not run away. [D.G.] then testified that
          Appellant ran away from the park and got into his parked
          car.

          Next, witness Adams testified that on July 2, 2019[,] he was
          walking towards the basketball court when he observed an
          “older guy” with his pants down to his knees and buttocks
          visible along with a little girl who he quickly recognized as
          the child of an acquaintance. Adams testified that the
          complainant appeared to be “in a daze,” crying and her eyes
____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a) (section 3121(c) related); 6318(a)(1); 3126(a)(7);

907(a); and 2701(a), respectively.

                                           -2-
J-S36041-23

       were big.      Adams testified that his presence startled
       Appellant, causing Appellant to turn toward Adams, at which
       time Appellant’s erect penis was visible. Adams testified
       that he then approached Appellant with his hands drawn and
       in a fighting stance and Appellant responded by pulling out
       a knife and lunging at him. Adams further testified that
       after Appellant made several attempts to stab him with the
       knife, Appellant abandoned his efforts and ran to his car.
       Thereafter, Adams testified that he chased behind Appellant
       and as Appellant was reversing out of the parking spot,
       Adams was able to obtain the vehicle’s license plate.
       Adams’ testimony is that he then called the police and the
       complainant’s stepfather.     Adams testified that shortly
       thereafter the police arrived and escorted him to the 1800
       block of Erie Avenue where he positively identified
       Appellant.

       Police Officer Robert Hopkins (hereinafter “Officer Hopkins”)
       testified that on July 2, 2019[,] he was on patrol in the 39 th
       Police District when he received a radio call for a rape in
       progress. Officer Hopkins testified that he arrived at the
       1500 block of Clearfield street and was approached by a
       distraught Adams and the complainant who appeared to be
       in shock and “a little shaken up.” Officer Hopkins testified
       that he then gathered information from the witnesses
       regarding the details of the crime, the description of the
       perpetrator, and where the crime took place.           Officer
       Hopkins testified that he then provided flash information
       about the description of the perpetrator over police radio.
       Thereafter, Officer Hopkins testified that the complainant
       disclosed that she was riding her bike in the park when
       Appellant approached her, pushed her bike up against the
       wall and began to pull his pants down. Officer Hopkins
       further testified that the complainant further explained that
       Adams then walked into the park and approached Appellant
       who then pulled a knife and began to lunge at Adams.
       Further, Officer Hopkins testified that the complainant also
       stated that Appellant asked if she liked the size of his
       genitals.    Officer Hopkins testified that based on the
       information obtained from the complainant he then
       completed a [Form] 7548.

       Next, Police Officer Jonathan Switaj (hereinafter “Officer
       Switaj”) testified that on July 2, 2019[,] he was working with

                                    -3-
J-S36041-23

       a team in the 39th Police District when he responded to a
       call at the 1500 block of Clearfield Street. Officer Switaj
       testified that when he arrived on location other police
       officers were present and crime scene tape was erected.
       Officer Switaj testified that he was familiar with the area and
       had knowledge of video surveillance cameras at the
       convenience store. Officer Switaj testified that he then went
       to the convenience store to obtain footage of the crime.
       Officer Switaj testified that on the video surveillance footage
       he observed the complainant on a bicycle riding up and
       down the street and speaking to Appellant in his vehicle.
       Further, Officer Switaj testified that he transmitted
       information obtained from the surveillance video over police
       radio to officers surveying the area for Appellant’s vehicle.

       The next witness to testify was Detective Jane Costello
       (hereinafter “Detective Costello”) of the Special Victims Unit
       (hereinafter “SVU”). Detective Costello testified that on July
       2, 2019[,] she was assigned to investigate an attempted
       rape perpetrated by Appellant at the 1500 block of Clearfield
       Street. Detective Costello testified that she advised the
       officers at the scene to preserve the scene. Detective
       Costello further testified that she observed [D.G.’s]
       interview at Philadelphia Children Alliance (hereinafter
       “PCA”) on closed circuit television in a separate room.
       Additionally, Adams was interviewed by Detective Costello’s
       partner at SVU. Detective Costello testified that following
       the interviews she went out to the scene at the 1500 block
       of Clearfield Street and documented the scene by taking
       photos and visiting the corner store to view and save the
       video surveillance. Detective Costello testified that she
       returned to her office to prepare a search warrant for
       Appellant’s vehicle. Detective Costello testified that upon
       searching Appellant’s vehicle a green box cutter and one
       vehicle’s owner’s registration card was recovered.

       Next, Colleen Getz (hereinafter “Getz”) a PCA employee
       testified [D.G.] was accompanied to PCA by her mother for
       a forensic interview. Getz testified that the interview with
       [D.G.] was recorded and a written report was completed.
       Getz testified that to ensure [D.G.] could speak freely about
       her experience without any pressure or concerns, her
       mother remained in a separate room with a family advocate
       while the interview was being conducted.

                                    -4-
J-S36041-23

          Last, Police Officer Clayton Baker (hereinafter “Officer
          Baker”) testified that on July 2, 2019[,] he was assigned to
          the 39th Police District when he received a radio call of a
          rape in progress at the 1500 block of Clearfield Street.
          According to Officer Baker’s testimony there was a “flash”
          of a description for a vehicle and the description of a [b]lack
          male with a gray shirt and blue jeans. Officer Baker testified
          that his partner and himself were surveilling in the area at
          1900 Venango Street for a tan Buick with a license plate
          containing the first three letters “KXS” when they observed
          a vehicle that matched the “flash” at the 1800 block of
          Venango. Officer Baker continued to testify that they
          stopped the vehicle at the 1900 block of Venango and
          approached to find Appellant. Officer Baker testified that he
          observed Appellant was nervous, sweating profusely and he
          saw a green box cutter on the rear seat. Officer Baker
          testified that he asked for the witness from the rape scene
          to be brought over to the 1800 block of Venango to identify
          Appellant. Officer Baker testified that the witness arrived at
          the car stop and made a positive identification of Appellant.

          Following all this testimony, the jury found Appellant guilty
          [on February 4, 2022,] of criminal attempt—rape of a child,
          unlawful contact with a minor—sexual offense, indecent
          assault of a person less than 13, possession of an
          instrument of crime, and simple assault. Subsequently, the
          trial court sentenced [Appellant] on May 20, 2022 [to an
          aggregate term of 11-22 years’ imprisonment. On May 25,
          2022, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion at each
          underlying docket number. The clerk of courts entered an
          order denying the post-sentence motions by operation of
          law on September 29, 2022.] On October 26, 2022,
          Appellant filed [separate] notice[s] of appeal with the
          Superior Court [at each underlying docket, which this Court
          later consolidated sua sponte2]. On December 1[6], 2022,
____________________________________________

2 According to Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(a), a trial court must decide a post-
sentence motion within 120 days of filing; otherwise, it is deemed denied by
operation of law (absent the grant of any extension). Here, the 120th day was
September 22, 2022. This Court has previously held that a breakdown occurs
when the clerk of courts fails to enter an order deeming a post-sentence
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -5-
J-S36041-23

          this [c]ourt issued an Order pursuant to Rule 1925(b)
          instructing Appellant to file a statement of [errors]
          complained of on appeal. On January 2, 2023, a statement
          of errors complained of on appeal was filed.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 1/9/23, at 2-7) (internal citations and footnotes

omitted).

       Appellant raises one issue for our review:

          Is the verdict of guilty with respect to all charges against
          the weight of the evidence and so contrary to the evidence
          that it shocks one’s sense of justice?

(Appellant’s Brief at 6).

       Appellant argues there was no physical or forensic evidence linking him

to the crimes. Appellant asserts that neither D.G. nor Adams suffered any

injuries despite their claims that Appellant held a knife to D.G.’s neck and

attempted to stab Adams. Appellant claims that D.G. conceded at trial that

her statement during the forensic interview that Appellant followed her into

the park was untrue. Appellant maintains the surveillance video shows that

D.G. rode her bike into the park a few yards behind Appellant.       Appellant

highlights that D.G. said in her interview that she was fearful of older men,

but the surveillance video shows her speaking to Appellant several times on

____________________________________________

motion denied by operation of law. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Perry,
820 A.2d 734 (Pa.Super. 2003). When a trial court denies the post-sentence
motion beyond the 120-day period and the appellant files a notice of appeal
within 30 days of that order, the notice of appeal is considered timely. See
id. Because Appellant filed notices of appeal at each underlying docket within
30 days of the September 29, 2022 order denying the post-sentence motions
by operation of law, the appeals are timely.

                                           -6-
J-S36041-23

the morning in question.      Appellant emphasizes that D.G. admitted that

Appellant did not pull a knife until after Adams began punching him, but

Adams testified that Appellant already had a knife in his hand when Adams

punched Appellant. Appellant contends that D.G. never yelled for help despite

the alleged assault occurring in public in the middle of the day. Appellant

submits that police did not photograph or observe any bricks near the crime

scene, which is inconsistent with testimony of Adams that Adams threw bricks

at Appellant. Appellant emphasizes that police did not recover a knife in his

vehicle. Appellant admits that police recovered a box cutter from his vehicle,

but he points out that no one accused him of using a box cutter in the incident.

Appellant maintains that the evidence presented is “inconsistent, implausible,

and irreconcilable.”    (Id. at 29).   Appellant avers that he could not have

assaulted D.G. in the manner she described while simultaneously holding a

knife to her neck as Adams stated. Appellant submits that the video did not

show Adams dribbling a basketball when he walked into the park, which is

inconsistent with testimony from Adams.       Appellant highlights that Adams

“inexplicitly” waited more than three minutes to call 911.         (Id. at 31).

Appellant concludes the verdict was against the weight of the evidence on all

convictions, and this Court must grant a new trial. We disagree.

      In reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, our standard of

review is as follows:

            The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder
            of the fact who is free to believe all, part or none of

                                       -7-
J-S36041-23

            the evidence and to determine the credibility of the
            witnesses. An appellate court cannot substitute its
            judgment for that of the finder of fact. Thus, we may
            only reverse the… verdict if it is so contrary to the
            evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.

         Commonwealth v. Small, 559 Pa. 423, [435,] 741 A.2d
         666, 672-73 (1999). Moreover, where the trial court has
         ruled on the weight claim below, an appellant court’s role is
         not to consider the underlying question of whether the
         verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Rather,
         appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably
         abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.

Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444, 832 A.2d 403, 408

(2003), cert denied, 542 U.S. 939, 124 S.Ct. 2906, 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004)

(most internal citations omitted).

      Instantly, the trial court analyzed Appellant’s issue as follows:

         [D.G.] testified credibly that she was riding her bike when
         Appellant initiated conversation with her several times.
         [D.G.] then goes to ride her bike in the park and Appellant
         accosts her by knocking over her bike and pushing her
         against a wall. Appellant then succeeded in engaging in
         unlawful contact and indecently assaulting [D.G.] [D.G.]
         was questioned and interviewed multiple times on July 2,
         2019. Each time [D.G.] was interviewed she remained
         consistent with detailing the most important facts of the
         event. [D.G.’s] interviews were taken contemporaneously
         to the crime while the information was very fresh in her
         memory.

         Additionally, [D.G.’s] testimony was corroborated by
         Adams. Adams entered the park and observed Appellant
         with his pants down and his buttocks exposed. Adams acted
         as a good Samaritan and quickly intervened. It is by
         happenstance that Adams was not injured as Appellant
         repeatedly lunged at him with a box cutter. The accounts
         of events from [D.G.] and Adams are factually similar except
         for the order in which some of the events occurred. These
         slight differences in no way diminish the insurmountable

                                      -8-
J-S36041-23

         detailed factual evidence presented at trial.

         Appellant hinges his argument [on] the jury ascribing
         greater weight to some evidence by pointing out the
         inconsistencies of [D.G.] and Adams’ testimony.        Said
         plainly, [D.G.] and Adams’ testimony was credible. The
         credibility of the witnesses was resolved by the jury.

                                  *    *    *

         While there were some minor discrepancies, this [c]ourt
         does not find that the evidence was so tenuous, vague and
         uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the
         court. [D.G.] was an 11-year-old girl at the time of the
         crime. On that date she provided [an] interview describing
         with detail exactly how Appellant attempted to rape her. At
         trial, almost three years later [D.G.] testifies reliably, and
         the most important details of Jul[y] 2, 2019 are unchanged.
         Furthermore, discrepancies in testimony are credibility
         determination[s], exclusively within the purview of the jury.

(Trial Court Opinion at 11-12). We agree with the court’s analysis.

      Here, it was within the jury’s purview to determine the credibility of

D.G.’s and Adams’ testimony. See Champney, supra. The court expressly

noted that any inconsistencies in D.G.’s testimony were not critical to her

description of the assault that occurred. See Commonwealth v. Fuentes,

272 A.3d 511, 519 (Pa.Super. 2022) (holding victim’s conflicting testimony

regarding assault does not rise to level of “shocking the conscience of the

court” given victim’s overarching ability to provide salient facts relevant to

sexual assault she had experienced). Additionally, the jury heard that some

of D.G.’s and Adams’ testimony was inconsistent, and still deemed their

testimony credible. We will not substitute our judgment for the jury as fact

finder. See Champney, supra. On this record, we cannot say that the trial

                                      -9-
J-S36041-23

court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s challenge to the weight of

the evidence. See id. Accordingly, we affirm.

     Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: October 27, 2023

                                   - 10 -