Court Opinion

ID: 9384966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 17:07:36.398692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:57.954283
License: Public Domain

J-S45003-22, J-S45004-22, S45005-22, S45006-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
            v.                         :
                                       :
                                       :
 DANTE FOUNTAIN                        :
                                       :
                  Appellant            :   No. 2080 EDA 2021

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 2, 2019
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-CR-0002318-2018

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
            v.                         :
                                       :
                                       :
 DANTE FOUNTAIN                        :
                                       :
                  Appellant            :   No. 2081 EDA 2021

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 2, 2019
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-CR-0002320-2018

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
            v.                         :
                                       :
                                       :
 DANTE FOUNTAIN                        :
                                       :
                  Appellant            :   No. 2082 EDA 2021

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 2, 2019
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-CR-0002321-2018
J-S45003-22, S45004-22, S45005-22, S45006-22

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                                 :
                v.                               :
                                                 :
                                                 :
    DANTE FOUNTAIN                               :
                                                 :
                       Appellant                 :   No. 2162 EDA 2021

          Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 2, 2019
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-51-CR-0002319-2018

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                                    FILED APRIL 5, 2023

        Appellant, Dante Fountain, appeals nunc pro tunc from the judgments

of sentence entered April 2, 2019, as made final by the denial of his

post-sentence motions on October 5, 2021. We quash, in part, and affirm, in

part.

        The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On

September 28, 2017, Appellant forcibly entered the home of complainant,

Dominique Starks, where she lived with three children.              Ultimately, an

altercation ensued upon which, Appellant struck Stark and her five-month-old

child, Za.S.1

        Thereafter, the Commonwealth filed bills of information against

Appellant.      At docket number CP-51-CR-0002318-2018 (“Docket Number

2318-2018”), the Commonwealth charged Appellant with possession of a

firearm prohibited, possession of a firearm without a license, carrying a
____________________________________________

1   Initials are used to protect the identity of the minor child.

                                           -2-
J-S45003-22, S45004-22, S45005-22, S45006-22

firearm on a public street in Philadelphia, making terroristic threats, simple

assault, recklessly endangering another person (“REAP”), possession of an

instrument of a crime (“PWIC”), burglary, criminal trespass and conspiracy.

At docket number CP-51-CR-0002320-2018 (“Docket Number 2320-2018”),

the Commonwealth charged Appellant with simple assault, REAP, aggravated

assault, and PWIC.        At docket number CP-51-CR-0002319-2018 (“Docket

Number      2319-2018”),       the    Commonwealth         charged     Appellant    with

endangering the welfare of a child (“EWOC”), making terroristic threats,

simple assault, REAP, aggravated assault and PWIC.                   Finally, at docket

number     CP-51-CR-0002321-2018,              (“Docket   Number     2321-2018”),   the

Commonwealth charged Appellant with simple assault, REAP and PWIC.

       Appellant’s jury trial commenced on January 31, 2019. On February 4,

2019, the jury found Appellant guilty of aggravated assault, two counts of

simple assault, making terroristic threats, three counts of EWOC, and criminal

trespass.2 On April 2, 2019, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 105 months

to 25 years’ imprisonment.

       Appellant filed a post-sentence motion pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 720 on

April 9, 2019.     Appellant, however, only filed the post-sentence motion at

Docket Number 2318-2018.               Post-Sentence Motion, 4/9/19, at *1-*3

(unpaginated). Hence, Appellant did not file post-sentence motions at Docket

Number     2320-2018,       Docket     Number      2319-2018   or     Docket   Number
____________________________________________

2 18 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(9), 2701(a), 2706(a)(1), 4304(a)(1) and
3503(a)(1), respectively.

                                           -3-
J-S45003-22, S45004-22, S45005-22, S45006-22

2321-2018. On August 7, 2019, Appellant’s post-sentence motion, filed only

at Docket Number 2318-2018, was denied by operation of law.                See

Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(a).

       On August 30, 2019, Appellant filed a pro se petition under the

Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541–9546.           PRCA

Petition, 8/30/19, at 1-10.         The trial court3 appointed PCRA counsel on

September 5, 2019. Trial Court Order, 9/5/19, at 1. On February 17, 2020,

counsel filed an amended PCRA petition in which he claimed that trial counsel

was ineffective for including only one docket number on the April 9, 2019

post-sentence motion and for failing to file a direct appeal. Amended PCRA

Petition, 2/17/20, at 3, 11-18. On August 11, 2020, the Commonwealth filed

a response, indicating that it did not oppose the reinstatement of Appellant’s

appellate rights. Commonwealth Response, 8/11/20, at 6. On May 25, 2021,

the court reinstated Appellant’s right to file post-sentence motions and

Appellant’s appellate rights nun pro tunc. Trial Court Order, 5/25/21, at 1-2.

Appellant filed post-sentence motions at all four trial court dockets on May 31,

2021. The post-sentence motions were subsequently denied by operation of

____________________________________________

3 Under normal circumstances, upon the filing of the PCRA petition, we would
refer to the trial court as a PCRA court. In this instance, however, the court’s
role reverted in and out of PCRA status. For simplicity, we will refer to the
court as the “trial court.”

                                           -4-
J-S45003-22, S45004-22, S45005-22, S45006-22

law on September 28, 2021. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(a). This appeal

followed.4

       Before we address the merits of Appellant’s appeal, we must first

address whether we have jurisdiction over the underlying PCRA petition. “The

timeliness requirement for PCRA petitions is mandatory and jurisdictional in

nature.” Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 181 A.3d 359, 365 (Pa. Super.

2018) (en banc), appeal denied, 190 A.3d 1134 (Pa. 2018) (cleaned up). A

PCRA petition is timely if it is “filed within one year of the date the judgment

[of sentence] becomes final.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). “[A] judgment [of

sentence] becomes final at the conclusion of direct review, including

discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United States and the

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking the

review.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); see also Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (explaining

that an appellant has “30 days after the entry of the order from which the

appeal is taken” to file an appeal).

       “It is well-settled that ‘[a] PCRA petition may only be filed after an

appellant     has    waived      or    exhausted   his   direct   appeal   rights.’”

Commonwealth v. Smith, 244 A.3d 13, 17 (Pa. Super. 2020) (quotation

omitted). “Indeed, ‘[t]he PCRA provides petitioners with a means of collateral
____________________________________________

4 Appellant filed his notices of appeal on October 21, 2021. On October 27,
2021, 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 issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on
April 28, 2022. All issues raised on appeal were included in Appellant’s concise
statement.

                                           -5-
J-S45003-22, S45004-22, S45005-22, S45006-22

review, but has no applicability until the judgment of sentence becomes final.’”

Id. (quotation omitted). Therefore, a PCRA petition filed before the judgment

of sentence becomes final is considered a “premature petition” and “does not

constitute a first PCRA petition.” Commonwealth v. Kubis, 808 A.2d 196,

198 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2002). Instead, it is considered a legal nullity and, as

such, the PCRA court must “dismiss[] the PCRA petition without prejudice as

premature.”    Commonwealth v. Leslie, 757 A.2d 984, 985 (Pa. Super.

2000) (internal citation omitted); see Commonwealth v. Neisser, 2020 WL

603614, at *3 (Pa. Super. Feb. 7, 2020) (unpublished memorandum) (holding

that the appellant “filed his PCRA petition prior to the finality of his judgment

of sentence” and, as such, the appellant’s “filing was a legal nullity, and the

PCRA court lacked authority to consider it and should have dismissed it without

prejudice toward [the a]ppellant’s right to file a PCRA petition once the time

for him to file a direct appeal had expired”).

      Herein, Appellant was charged and convicted at four separate dockets:

Docket Number 2318-2018; Docket Number 2320-2018; Docket Number

2319-2018; and Docket Number 2321-2018.             The trial court sentenced

Appellant on April 2, 2019. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion on

April 9, 2019, but only at Docket Number 2318-2018.          The post-sentence

motion, filed only at Docket Number 2318-2018, was denied by operation of

law on August 7, 2019. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(a). Hence, Appellant’s

judgment of sentence as to Docket Number 2318-2018 was not final until

September 7, 2019, 30 days after his post-sentence motion was denied by

                                      -6-
J-S45003-22, S45004-22, S45005-22, S45006-22

operation of law. See id. Appellant, however, filed a pro se PCRA petition at

all four trial court dockets on August 30, 2019, before the time for filing an

appeal expired at Docket Number 2318-2018 and, hence, before his judgment

of sentence became final in that matter. “Ergo, [Appellant’s] PCRA petition

[with regard to Docket Number 2318-2018] was premature.” Neisser, 2020

WL 603614 at *2. Consequently, Appellant’s PCRA petition at Docket Number

2318-2018, as well as the court’s order granting it, were legal nullities. Id.

For this reason, Appellant’s appeal with respect to Docket Number 2318-2018

is subject to quashal.      See id. (“Case law is clear that a premature PCRA

petition must be quashed.”); see also Smith, 244 A.3d at 17 (quashing

appeal because the appellant filed a PCRA petition prior to his judgment of

sentence becoming final, rendering the PCRA petition and the PCRA court’s

order denying it legal nullities). Based upon the foregoing, we are constrained

to quash Appellant’s appeal at Docket Number 2318-2018.5

       This does not end our inquiry, however. As stated above, Appellant was

charged and convicted at four separate dockets and only filed his April 9, 2019

post-sentence motion at Docket Number 2318-2018. Appellant therefore did

not file post-sentence motions at Docket Number 2320-2018, Docket Number

2319-2018 or Docket Number 2321-2018, rendering his judgments of

sentence at the aforementioned dockets final on May 2, 2019, 30 days after

the imposition of his sentence. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720 (“If the defendant does
____________________________________________

5Docket Number 2318-2018 corresponds to Superior Court Docket Number
2080 EDA 2021.

                                           -7-
J-S45003-22, S45004-22, S45005-22, S45006-22

not file a timely post-sentence motion, the defendant's notice of appeal shall

be filed within 30 days of imposition of sentence.”). Thus, the PCRA petition

filed at all four trial court dockets on August 30, 2019 was filed after his

judgments of sentence became final at Docket Number 2320-2018, Docket

Number 2319-2018 and Docket Number 2321-2018.                      As to those court

dockets, Appellant’s PCRA petition was not premature. We therefore have

jurisdiction   over   Appellant’s   appeal   with   respect   to    Docket   Number

2320-2018, Docket Number 2319-2018 and Docket Number 2321-2018.

      Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

       1. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence?

       2. Whether Appellant’s        sentence   was   unduly       harsh   and
          excessive?

       3. Whether the court erred in granting the Commonwealth’s
          motion to introduce two prior bad acts stemming from
          previous allegations of domestic violence as the prejudicial
          value outweighed the probative value?

       4. Whether the court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to
          introduce two prior bad acts into evidence where notice was
          not given to the defen[s]e pursuant to [Pa.R.E.] 404(B)(3)?
Appellant’s Brief at 9 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

      We have carefully reviewed the certified record, the submissions of the

parties, the opinions of the trial court, and the pertinent case law. Based upon

our review, we conclude for the reasons expressed by the trial court that

Appellant is not entitled to relief on any of his claims. Moreover, as we find

that the trial court has adequately and accurately addressed the issues raised

in this appeal, we adopt the trial court's opinion as our own. Accordingly, the

                                       -8-
J-S45003-22, S45004-22, S45005-22, S45006-22

parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court's April 28, 2022 opinion

to all future filings relating to our disposition in this appeal.

      Appeal quashed with respect to Docket Number 2318-2018 (Superior

Court Docket Number 2080 EDA 2021). Judgments of sentence affirmed at

the remaining docket numbers.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/05/2023

                                       -9-
                                                                                            Circulated 03/27/2023 04:22 PM

                          IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                     FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                              CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH                                                            CP-51-CR-0002318-2018
                                                                        CP-5 1-CR-0002320-2018
                                                                        CP-51-CR-0002321-2018
                                                                        CP-51-CR-0002319-2018

       vs.

                                               :FILE
                                                                        SUPERIOR COURT
DANTE FOUNTAIN                                APR 2 8 2022                  ~l)g>{) EDA 2021
                                                                            Z 081 EDA 2021
                                              Appeals/Post Trial             2082 EDA 2021
                                           Office of Judicial Records
                                                                             2162 EDA 2021

                                             OPINION

BRINKLEY, J.                                                            APRIL 28, 2022

       A jury found defendant Dante Fountain guilty of aggravated assault, two counts of simple

assault, terroristic threats, three counts of endangering the welfare of a child, and criminal

trespass. This Comt sentenced him an aggregate sentence of 105 months to 25 years state

incarceration. Defendant appealed this judgment of sentence and raised the following issues: (1)

whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; (2) whether the sentence was harsh

and umeasonable; (3) whether the Comt erred "in allowing the Commonwealth to introduce two

prior bad acts under Pa.R.E. 404(b) into evidence stemming from previous allegations of

domestic violence between the defendant and the complainant as the prejudicial value

outweighed the probative value;" and (4) whether the Comt erred when it allowed "the

Commonwealth to introduce two prior bad acts into evidence in that notice was not given to the

defense pursuant to Pa.R.E. 404(b)(3)." This Comt' sjudgment of sentence should be affirmed.

                                                                             0034_Opinion
                                          PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On September 28, 2017, Defendant forced his way into complainant Domenique Starks'

home, threatened her and her three children, and hit both Starks and their 5-month-old son as she

held him. Defendant was arrested shmily thereafter. On January 30, 2019, Defendant appeared

before this Comi for a trial in the presence of a jury. On February 4, 2019, the jury found

Defendant guilty of aggravated assault, two counts of simple assault, telToristic threats, three

counts of endangering the welfare of a child, and criminal trespass. The jury found him not guilty

of burglary. On April 2, 2019, this Comi sentenced Defendant as follows:

         CP-51-CR-0002320-2018 (5-mo-old victim Za.S.):
         Aggravated assault:                    44 to 120 months
         Endangering Welfare of Child:          44 to 120 months (to run consecutive)

         CP-51-CR-0002318-2018 (victim Domenique Starks):
         Terroristic Threats:                  17 to 60 months
         Criminal Trespass:                    17 to 60 months (to run consecutive)
         Simple Assault:                       No Further Penalty 1

         CP-51-CR-0002319-2018 (IO-year-old victim Z.S.):
         Endangering the Welfare of a Child:     24 to 48 months

         CP-51-CR-0002321-2018 (9-year-old victim N.S.):
         Endangering the Welfare of a Child:     24 to 48 months

This resulted in an aggregate sentence of 105 months to 300 months state incarceration, or

approximately 8 % to 25 years. On April 9, 2019, Defendant file a post-sentence motion "for a

new trial and sentencing." This motion was denied by operation of law on August 7, 2019. He

did not file a direct appeal.

         On August 30, 2019, Defendant filed a prose petition for relief pursuant to the Post

Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541 et seq. (eff. Jan. 16, 1996), claiming that

1
 This Court actually stated at sentencing that "simple assault merges," but it does not merge with terroristic threats
or criminal trespass. Therefore, the Comt imposed a sentence of No Further Penalty. See signed Sentencing Order,
412119 (attached).

                                                           2
trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a Notice of Appeal on his behalf. On September 9,

2019, Peter A. Levin, Esquire was appointed as PCRA counsel. On February 17, 2020, counsel

filed an amended petition, arguing that Defendant's appellate rights should be reinstated nune

pro tune. On August 11, 2020, the Commonwealth filed its Letter Brief, stating that it was not

opposed to the reinstatement of Defendant's appellate rights. On May 20, 2021, this Comi

conducted an evidentiary hearing on the matter. That same day, this Court reinstated Defendant's

appellate rights nune pro tune.

        On May 31, 2021, Defendant filed a post-sentence motion, which (1) asked this Comito

reconsider the sentence imposed; and (2) requested a new trial, claiming that the verdict was

against the weight of the evidence. This was denied by operation of law on October 1, 2021. On

October 12, 2021, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal to Superior Comi. On October 27, 2021,

this Court ordered that Defendant file a Concise Statement ofEnors Complained of on Appeal

Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) and defense counsel did so on November 8, 2021.

                                              FACTS

       On January 30, 2019, Defendant appeared before this Court for a jmy trial. First, defense

counsel James O'Connell, Esquire argued a Rule 600 motion, which this Comi denied. (N.T.

1/30/19, p. 3-8). Next, the Commonwealth argued a 404(b) prior bad acts motion. The

Commonwealth sought to admit two instances of domestic violence that had occurred between

Defendant and the adult victim Domenique Starks in order to show the ongoing physical abuse

over the course of their relationship. The Commonwealth described the two instances as follows:

on July 10, 2012, Defendant attacked Starks at a playground, where he punched her, poured

bleach in her face, and then instructed his sister to come over and beat Starks with him. As a

result, Starks received seven stitches to her face, had a black eye, and suffered chemical burns to

                                                 3
her eyes and skin. Defendant was arrested and charged in connection with this attack but the

charges were later withdrawn when Starks failed to appear for court. Subsequently, on October

6, 2012, Starks and Defendant got into an argument regarding child support. Defendant hit her

until she fell to the ground and then continued to punch her in the face with a closed fist until a

bystander pulled him off. Defendant then stole Stark's cell phone and $200 from her purse. Later

that same day, Defendant went to Stark's front door and threatened her, displaying a fireaim

tucked into his waistband. Defendant was atTested and charged for these actions but the case was

withdrawn when Starks once again failed to appear at court. Id. at 11-13. The Commonwealth

argued that these prior bad acts were more probative than prejudicial because they showed the

violent nature of their relationship and how it had evolved. In addition, it would demonstrate "a

common plan, scheme or design of the defendant in demonstrating hostility as well as rebutting

any false inferences raised by the defense as to fabrication, consent or anything of that nature."

Id. at 13-14. The Commonwealth fmiher argued that this would explain Starks' reluctance to

cooperate with the police and the Commonwealth in prosecuting Defendant.

       Defense counsel responded that the Commonwealth failed to provide reasonable notice of

their intent to introduce prior bad acts since he did not receive a copy of the motion until that

very morning. The Commonwealth replied that it was unable to speak with Starks until the day

before when she had to be affested in order to get her and her children to cooperate with the

prosecution. Prior to trial, defense counsel admitted that he already knew about the two domestic

violence cases from 2012 because they already were part of Defendant's criminal extract, but

argued that it would be "so prejudicial that outweighs the probative value and I would ask the

comi to exclude it." Id. at 15-19. This Comi noted defense counsel's objection and granted the

Commonwealth's motion to introduce this evidence.

                                                  4
        Ten-year-old Z.S. testified first for the Commonwealth. She stated that in September

2017, she lived with her mother, her cousin N.S., and her infant brother Za.S. She testified that

prior to the biiih of her brother, Defendant lived with them. Initially, they enjoyed a good

relationship but then he stmied hitting her mother. Z.S. testified that she was "kind of a little

scared of him" and that her mother would have bruises on her face. On the day of the offense,

Z.S. stated that she was at home alone with her baby brother while her mom and N.S. went to the

corner store. Defendant came to the door and told her to let him in, but Z.S. refused.

Approximately ten minutes later, her mother returned from the store and tried to enter the house

without letting Defendant in, but he pushed his way inside. Z.S. testified that her mother told

Defendant she was going to call the police but that Defendant stated he would not leave until she

gave him his wallet and watch. Z.S. testified that her mother was holding her baby brother Za.S.

during this time; Defendant told N.S. to take the baby but she refused. Defendant then hit Z.S. 's

mother and struck Za.S. in the process "on accident." Z.S.'s mother cried out, "he hit my son."

Defendant then grabbed the cell phone out of Z.S.'s mother's hand, left the house, and got into a

car where his girlfriend was waiting. Z.S. stated that her mother chased him outside and tried to

get the phone back, fighting with both Defendant and his girlfriend. Z.S. testified that she told

the girlfriend to leave and they drove away soon thereafter. Z.S. stated that when the police

an-ived, she lied to them and told them that Defendant and his girlfriend had guns because she

was "full of anger" at him for hitting her mom. (N.T. 1/31/19, p. 57-76).

       Eleven-year-old N.S., Stark's niece, testified next. She stated that on the day in question,

Defendant busted into the house demanding his watch and a key. Starks told him to leave

repeatedly and Defendant threatened to throw a candle at the television. N.S. testified that Starks

and Defendant stmied fighting, both verbally and physically. She stated that she did not

                                                  5
remember where Z.S. and the baby were during the fight, and that she did not remember

Defendant speaking to her. After reading her statement to police to refresh her recollection, N.S.

testified that Defendant told Starks he was going to punch her if she did not give him the watch

and an I.D. card. Defendant then told someone, either N.S. or Z.S., to take the baby from Starks,

but that when no one took him, Defendant punched the baby and hit Starks. N.S. testified that

she falsely told police that Defendant had a gun because she was so angry about him hitting

Starks and the baby. Id. at 80-91.

       Domenique Starks testified next. She stated that she and Defendant began an "on and off

again" romantic relationship in 2010 that eventually turned physical abusive. She testified that

she called the police on him more than once after he hit her but did not follow up by going to

court because she was afraid of him. She stated that he lived with her and her children for a few

months in 2012, but she kicked him out due to the "altercations." Starks testified that the incident

on September 28, 2017 was part of an ongoing argument between her and Defendant. A few days

prior, on September 22, she and Defendant were arguing on her front porch, when he pulled her

down the steps and then rifled through her pocketbook. He took her cell phone out, smashed it

down on the sidewalk, and then began hitting her. Starks stated that after he left with her phone,

she broke his Gucci watch in retaliation for taking her phone. Defendant later called and said he

was coming over to give her back her phone. Starks ran into him on the sidewalk as she was

walking to the comer store to buy milk and he told her he wanted his watch. When she returned

to her home, Defendant was waiting by her front door. He pushed his way into the house and

became enraged when she told him she broke his watch. He then threatened to bust the television

with a candle from the coffee table. Starks testified that Defendant told one of the kids to take the

baby from Starks because "I'm about to beat her the F up." Defendant then punched Starks in her

                                                 6
face, punched the baby, and took the cell phone (which belonged to N.S.) out of Starks' hand. He

ran out of the house and got into a van driven by his girlfriend. Starks fought with both of them

but stopped when she heard her kids and baby crying. Starks stated that she called the police

several times but that they did not come until she falsely told them that Defendant had a gun.

Starks testified that she took the baby to St. Christopher's via ambulance and that he was

examined for any injuries to his face. She stated that the swollen red marks on his face turned out

to be mosquito bites. (N.T. 2/1/19, p. 7-21).

         Starks then testified regarding two previous instances of domestic violence involving

Defendant. She stated that on July 10, 2012, she was pregnant and had gone shopping for

clothing and bleach. On her way home, she ran into Defendant at a playground, where she

confronted him as to whether he had taken the money she was planning to use for an abortion.

Defendant became angry, punched her several times, poured the bleach on her face, and then

called his sister over to help him beat Starks. Starks stated that she went to the hospital where

they flushed her eyes and stitched up the lacerations on her face. She also suffered a miscatTiage

as a result of this altercation. Id. at 23-27.

        Starks further testified that on October 6, 2012, she saw Defendant as she was leaving a

bar and told him that she had child support paperwork regarding his daughter from previous

relationship at her house. He followed her out of the bar and began screaming at her about her

"getting him locked up." Defendant then began punching her in the face, knocking her

pocketbook to the ground and spilling its contents. Starks testified that bystanders pulled

Defendant off her and she went to the hospital via ambulance, where she discovered her cell

phone was gone. After returning home, Starks went to a neighbor's house and used their phone

to call the police and make a statement. Later that same day, Defendant aITived at Starks' home

                                                 7
with a gun in his waistband. She admitted that he did not have a gun, however, on the day he hit

her and the baby. Id at 27-32.

         Starks testified that she did not cooperate with the prosecution because she was "scared"

and admitted that she was testifying in Court at this trial only because the police arrested her and

she was being forced to do so. The Commonwealth then played a recorded prison phone call

between Starks and Defendant, where Defendant stated that he didn't mean to hit the baby. Id. at

32-37.

         Latricia Dawson ("Dawson") testified next for the Commonwealth. She stated that she

worked as a paramedic for the Philadelphia Fire Department and that she responded to the scene

to treat the infant Za.S. Dawson testified that Starks told her "the baby was hit in the face by the

dad because she was fighting him and she was holding the baby and he punched the baby in the

face." Id. at 48-50. Dawson testified that the baby appeared healthy and responded normally, but

that she transported the infant and his mother to the hospital for fmiher testing. Id. at 51.

         Next, Detective Chris Casee of the Special Victims Unit testified for the Commonwealth.

Detective Casee stated that in 2019, he was asked to help track down Starks in connection with

this case so that she and her children could testify before a grand jury. He stated that he asked the

children's school to call Starks to come in, after which she was arrested by Detective Casee. At

that same time, her children were transp01ied separately to the grand jury so they could give

testimony in this matter. Id. at 54-58.

         Police Officer James Gedraitis testified that he and his partner Officer Ryan Struble

responded to a radio call for a person with a gun at 2248 North Gratz Street. When they arrived

on the scene, Officer Gedraitis was met by Starks, who was crying and holding her baby. Officer

Gedraitis stated that Starks told him she was assaulted by the child's father, who attacked her

                                                  8
while she was holding the baby. Starks told him that Defendant punched the baby in the face,

pulled a gun and threatened Starks' daughter with the gun. Officer Gedraitis stated that he

completed the 7548-D form, where he described Stark as "shaken" and that she was covered with

"scratches on her face and neck." Id. at 61-67.

       Next Police Officer John Keen testified for the Commonwealth. He stated that he arrested

Defendant pursuant to an aiTest warrant. Id. at 67-69.

       Detective Karl Diaz, a member of the Special Victims Unit, testified that he was the

assigned investigator in this case. He stated that he interviewed Z.S. and N.S at the police station

while Detective McGouldrick interviewed Starks. Id. at 73-79.

       At the conclusion of this testimony, the Commonwealth entered its exhibits into evidence

and rested. The defense did not call any witnesses and rested.

       On February 4, 2019, the jury returned with a verdict, finding Defendant guilty of

criminal trespass, two counts of simple assault, tefforistic threats, and three counts of

endangering the welfare of a child. The jury found Defendant not guilty ofburglaiy. (N.T.

2/4/19, p. 71-76).

       On April 2, 2019, Defendant appeared before this Court for sentencing. Nina Greenberg,

on behalf of the Commonwealth, recommended an aggregate sentence of 12 to 24 years

incarceration, a sentence in the aggravated range. Ms. Greenburg argued that an aggravated

sentence was appropriate because Defendant continued to deny any responsibility for the

offenses and that Defendant had lied regarding his drug use and involvement in gun violence.

Ms. Greenburg further argued that Defendant's lengthy criminal history showed he had been

engaged in gun and drug related criminal activity his entire life, and that his domestic abuse of

Starks and other women had been ongoing for years. (N.T. 412119, p. 13-21).

                                                  9
        Starks testified next that this experience "physically drained" her and that she lost

custody of her children because of it. She stated that Defendant had made a mistake, but was a

"good person" and a "great father," and that incarcerating him would "do more damage than

good." Id. at 23-15.

        Todd McGarvey, a child advocate who had been representing Z.S., N.S. and Za.S since

2017, spoke next. He stated that the children were put into foster care during the trial and that

there had been "a lot of fear and a lot of concern and unce1iainty" for their mother, pmiicularly in

light of Defendant's history of gun violence. He asked that this Comi impose a stay-away order

and consider domestic violence probation upon release. McGarvey stated that N.S., Starks'

niece, had not been returned to Starks' care because N.S. did not want to go home. Id. at 26-30.

        Defense counsel argued that Defendant was "tiying to hold a family together as best he

can," and recommended a concurrent sentence "on the low side of the grid." Id. at 36.

        Dina Gill ("Gill"), a prison medical case manager with the Philadelphia Linkage

Program, testified that she had been working with Defendant in prison since 2017. She stated

that she and Defendant had worked on a plan for after his release and that Defendant had agreed

to work with Gill's program to receive medical care, identification, transportation, mental health

treatment, drug and alcohol treatment, housing and counseling. Id. at 37-39.

       Reginald Hill, Defendant's cousin and pastor, testified next. He stated that "everyone

deserved a chance" and asked this Court for leniency. Id. at 43.

       Defendant's mother, Jennetta Fountain ("J. Fountain"), testified that her son's behavior

was the result of him not having a father-figure in his life growing up and that he was "acting

out." She stated that she did not understand how Starks could say Defendant hit her and her baby

and then still visit Defendant in prison. J. Fountain testified that her son had a "rough life" and

                                                 10
was caught up in life on the streets. She asked this Court to have mercy on Defendant. Id. at 44-

45.

           Kenicia Fountain ("K. Fountain"), Defendant's aunt, stated that Defendant had children

by four different women and that she had relationships with all of them and their children. She

testified that Defendant's children all ask when their dad is coming home and want to talk to

him. Id. at 46-48.

           Defendant spoke next on his own behalf. He apologized "for this whole situation" and

asked this Court to consider everything his family members said on his behalf. He stated that he

would "accept responsibilities and, you know, accept what you got in store for me, Your Honor."

Id. 48-49.

           This Comi sentenced Defendant as follows:

           CP-51-CR-0002320-2018 (5-mo-old victim Za.S.):
           Aggravated assault:                    44 to 120 months
           Endangering Welfare of Child:          44 to 120 months (to run consecutive)

           CP-51-CR-0002318-2018 (victim Domenique Starks):
           Terroristic Threats:                  17 to 60 months
           Criminal Trespass:                    17 to 60 months (to run consecutive)
           Simple Assault:                       No Further Penalty2

           CP-51-CR-0002319-2018 (10-year-old victim Z.S.):
           Endangering the Welfare of a Child:     24 to 48 months

           CP-51-CR-0002321-2018 (9-year-old victim N.S.):
           Endangering the Welfare of a Child:     24 to 48 months

This resulted in an aggregate sentence of 105 to 300 months (or 8.75 to 25 years) state incarceration,

with credit for time served. This Court ordered Defendant to earn his GED, complete job training,

complete drug and mental health treatment, undergo anger management treatment, and attend parenting

classes. Upon release, this Court ordered Defendant to seek and maintain employment, pay mandatory

2
    See FN 1.

                                                  11
court costs and fees, and stay away from all three children involved in this matter except as facilitated

through the Support Center for Child Advocates. Id. at 49-57.

                                                ISSUES

    I.         WHETHER THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE
               EVIDENCE.

    II.        WHETHER THE SENTENCE IMPOSED WAS HARSH AND
               UNREASONABLE.

    III.      WHETHER THE COURT ERRED "IN ALLOWING THE
              COMMONWEALTH TO INTRODUCE TWO PRIOR BAD ACTS UNDER
              PA.R.E. 404(B) INTO EVIDENCE STEMMING FROM PREVIOUS
              ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT
              AND THE COMPLAINANT AS THE PREJUDICIAL VALUE
              OUTWEIGHED THE PROBATIVE VALUE.

   IV.        WHETHER THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT ALLOWED "THE
              COMMONWEALTH TO INTRODUCE TWO PRIOR BAD ACTS INTO
              EVIDENCE IN THAT NOTICE WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE DEFENSE
              PURSUANT TO P A.R.E. 404(B)(3).

                                             DISCUSSION

   I.         THE VERDICT WAS NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

           Defendant's claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence is meritless. In

his motion, Defendant argues that the witnesses admitted to lying about "a crucial detail of the

case," i.e. that he had a gun, and that "the lack of physical evidence that any assault occmTed

calls into doubt the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the Commonwealth, such that it

shocks the conscience and undermines that efficacy of the tribunal." Defendant's "Post Sentence

Motions," 5/31/21, p. 4.

          The law for reviewing a weight of the evidence challenge is well settled:

             When reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, we review "the
             trial court's exercise of discretion." Commonwealth v. Johnson, 192 A.3d
             1149, 1152-53 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citing Commonwealth v. Hicks, 151
             A.3d 216, 223 (Pa.Super. 2016) ). A reversal of a verdict is not necessary

                                                   12
           "unless it is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice."
           Id. at 1153. "The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of
           fact, who is free to believe all, none or some of the evidence and to
           determine the credibility of the witnesses." Commonwealth v. Cramer, 195
           A.3d 594, 600 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation omitted). The fact-finder also has
           the responsibility of "resolving contradictory testimony and questions of
           credibility." Id. (citation omitted). We give great deference to the trial
           comi's decision regarding a weight of the evidence claim because it "had
           the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented." Id. (citation
           omitted).

Commonwealth v. Roane, 204 A.3d 998, 1001 (Pa.Super.2019). "One of the least assailable

reasons for granting or denying a new trial is the lower court's conviction that the verdict was or

was not against the weight of the evidence and that a new trial should be granted in the interest

of justice." Commonwealth v. Clay, 619 Pa. 423, 432, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (2013)(quoting

Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 321-22, 744 A.2d 745, 751-52 (2000).

        In the case at bar, Starks, Z.S. and N.S. all testified that Defendant came to their home

angry, forced his way inside, and demanded his watch back. They testified that Starks was

holding her infant son Za.S. when Defendant began hitting her. Starks' testimony, c01Toborated

by police rep01is, showed that Defendant had a long history of physically abusing Starks;

however, Starks had been too afraid to go to court and assist the prosecution in any of these

cases. Indeed, Starks only appeared at Defendant's trial because she was taken into police

custody. (N.T. 211119, p. 56-59). Starks, Z.S., and N.S. admitted to lying to the police about

Defendant having a gun, but Starks explained that they did so because they were ang1y and

unable to get the police's attention otherwise. (Id. at 17). The police officer who responded to the

scene testified that Starks appeared "shaken" and that her face and neck were covered in

scratches. Id. at 61-67. The Commonwealth also played a recorded prison phone call between

Defendant and Starks, in which Defendant told Starks that he did not mean to hit the baby. Id. at

32-37. As discussed above, the fact finder, in this case a jury, was free to believe all, part, or

                                                  13
none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. The jury, after hearing

Starks, Z.S. and N.S. 's testimony, found them to be credible. The jmy believed that Defendant

busted into Starks' home, threatened to destroy property, and hit Starks and her baby. Based

upon the witnesses' testimony, the scratch injuries on Starks' face and neck, the recorded prison

phone call, and Defendant's long histmy of domestic violence, this verdict cannot be said to

shock one's sense of justice. No relief is due.

    II.      THE SENTENCE IMPOSED WAS NOT HARSH AND UNREASONABLE.

          Defendant claims that the sentence imposed was harsh and unreasonable. This claim is

without merit. Under Pennsylvania law, sentencing is a "matter vested in the sound discretion of

the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of

discretion." Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 2006 PA Super. 18, 893 A.2d 735, 739 (2006)

(quoting Commonwealth v. Hyland, 2005 PA Super. 199, 875 A.2d 1175, 1184 (2005)). An

abuse of discretion requires more than the showing of a mere error in judgment; rather, an

appellant must demonstrate that the trial court was "manifestly unreasonable" or exercised

judgment that was the result of "partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will." Commonwealth v.

Griffin, 2002 PA Super. 203, 804 A.2d 1, 7 (2002). In other words, "[a]n abuse of discretion

may not be found merely because an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion,

but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or

such lack of support as to be clearly erroneous." Commonwealth v. Walls, 592 Pa. 557, 564-65,

926 A.2d 957, 961-62 (2007). The appellant must do more than just allege that the sentence

imposed was excessive or harsh; by reference to the record, the appellant must show that the

judge misapplied the law, showed bias, or made a manifestly excessive decision. Commonwealth

v. Lee, 2005 PA Super. 160, 876 A.2d 408, 411 (Pa.Super.2005).

                                                  14
       "[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the [sentencing] guidelines,

Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code."

Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010); see also Commonwealth v.

Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1135 (Pa. Super. 2009). Additionally, "[w]here the sentencing court

had the benefit of a presentence investigation report ("PSI"), we can assume the sentencing comi

was aware of relevant information regarding the defendant's character and weighed those

considerations along with mitigating statutmy factors." Id.

       Pursuant to§ 9781(c)(2) of the Sentencing Code, a reviewing appellate court "shall

vacate the sentence and remand the case to the sentencing court with instructions if it finds: ...

the sentencing court sentenced within the sentencing guidelines[,] but the case involves

circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable[.]" 42 Pa.

C.S.A. § 9781(c)(2). To determine whether a sentence is clearly unreasonable,

       the appellate court must consider the defendant's background and characteristics
       as well as the particular circumstances of the offense involved, the trial court's
       opportunity to observe the defendant, the presentence investigation report, if any,
       the Sentencing Guidelines as promulgated by the Sentencing Commission, and
       the 'findings' upon which the trial court based its sentence.

Commonwealth v. Coulverson, 34 A.3d 135, 147 (Pa. Super. 2011).

       In the case at bar, this Comi properly sentenced Defendant to an aggregate term of 105 to

300 months state incarceration after the jury found him guilty of aggravated assault, two counts

of simple assault, te1Toristic threats, three counts of endangering the welfare of a child, and

criminal trespass. The record shows that Defendant was sentenced as follows:

       CP-51-CR-0002320-2018 (5-mo-old victim Za.S.):
       Aggravated assault:                    44 to 120 months
       Endangering Welfare of Child:          44 to 120 months (to run consecutively)

       CP-51-CR-0002318-2018 (victim Domenique Starks):
       Tefforistic Threats:                  17 to 60 months

                                                 15
           Criminal Trespass:                          17 to 60 months (to run consecutively)
           Simple Assault:                             No Further Penalty 3

           CP-51-CR-0002319-2018 (10-year-old victim Z.S.):
           Endangering the Welfare of a Child:     24 to 48 months

           CP-51-CR-0002321-2018 (9-year-old victim N.S.):
           Endangering the Welfare of a Child:     24 to 48 months

This sentence was within the standard range of the sentencing guidelines and was reasonable in

light of Defendant's history, the nature of the crime, and the impact on the victims.

           The record shows that Defendant, who had a history of violent behavior, forced his way

into Starks' home, threatened her and her children, and then hit her and their infant son she was

holding. At sentencing, the Commonwealth noted that this was a years-long cycle of domestic

violence between Defendant and Starks, and that three children were now involved in it. Starks

had refused for years to come to comi to testify against Defendant because she was so fearful of

him; she only testified in this case because she was taken into custody and forced to do so. Child

Advocate Todd McGarvey testified that the two girls, Z.S. and N.S., were anxious and fearful of

Defendant continuing to hurt them or Starks. The Commonwealth stated that Defendant had been

mTested 25 times in Philadelphia County, including several times for domestic violence against

women other than Starks; was convicted on 8 prior occasions, which included a murder

conviction; had been incarcerated 4 times; and had violated probation/parole on two occasions.

In addition to Defendant's violent criminal history, he also failed to cooperate with the PSI and

mental health evaluation, where he lied about his past and continued to deny the allegations of

abuse against him. This Court stated at sentencing, "This situation of domestic violence has

continued far too long with this pmiicular family." (N.T. 4/2/19, p. 55). This Comi implored

Defendant to address his medical, mental health, and anger management issues while

3
    See FN 1.

                                                  16
incarcerated so that he could refrain from engaging in violent activity upon release. Id. at 55-56.

Thus, the record demonstrates that this Court gave adequate consideration to the sentencing

factors and properly sentenced Defendant to an aggregate term of 8 % to 25 years state

incarceration.

        Defendant argues that this Court failed to "consider the progress that the defendant had

made while at counseling for a prior conviction" and "the remarks of defendant's character

witnesses at sentencing." These claims are without merit. The record shows that at sentencing,

Defendant's prison medical case manager through the Philadelphia Linkage Program, Dina Gill,

spoke, and indicated that she had been working with Defendant on a discharge plan, and she

outlined the details of that plan, which included treatment and housing. Several character

witnesses, including Defendant's mother, aunt, and pastor, spoke on his behalf, asking this Court

for mercy. This Court listened to each witness and took their words into consideration when

fashioning her sentence. Indeed, this Comi stated to Defendant:

                 Each victim deserves to have you serve a lot of time. And I could
                 have sentenced you consecutive on every last one of them, but I
                 didn't do that. Because see, you and your family asked me for
                 compassion and mercy. And the way that I showed that was to not
                 sentence you consecutive on eve1ything. Okay?

                 Just so you understand you got mercy today, you got consideration
                 today, but you're not going to walk out of here today. Do you
                 understand that? You think it's okay to go around beating around
                 on women? No, it's not.

Id. at 62. After considering the nature of the crime, the negative impact on the victims,

Defendant's long history of violent behavior, and the safety of the community, this Court found

it appropriate to sentence Defendant to an aggregate term of 8 % to 25 years state incarceration.

This judgment of sentence should be affirmed.

                                                 17
    III.      THIS COURT PROPERLY PERMITTED THE COMMONWEALTH TO
              INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC
              VIOLENCE BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE COMPLAINANT.

           Defendant claims that this Comt should not have permitted the Commonwealth to

introduce evidence of previous allegations of domestic abuse between Defendant and Starks,

arguing that the prejudicial value of this evidence outweighed the probative value. This claim is

without merit.

           Questions regarding the admissibility of evidence are within the sound discretion of the

trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Commonwealth v.

Belknap, 105 A.3d 7, 9-10 (Pa. Super. 2014)(citing Commonwealth v. Brown, 617 Pa. 107, 52

A.3d 1139, 1197 (2012)). "An abuse of discretion is not merely an error in judgment, but is

rather the overriding or misapplication of the law, or the exercise of judgment that is manifestly

unreasonable, or the result of bias, prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as shown by the evidence of

record." Id. at 10 (quoting Commonwealth v. Mendez, 74 A.3d 256, 260 (Pa.Super.2013). The

threshold inquiry with admission of evidence is whether the evidence is relevant. Stokes, 78

A.3d at 654. (quoting Commonwealth v. Robinson, 554 Pa. 293, 304-305, 721 A.2d 344, 350

( 1998). "Evidence is relevant if it logically tends to establish a material fact in the case, tends to

make a fact at issue more or less probable, or suppmts a reasonable inference or presumption

regarding the existence of a material fact." Id.

           Pursuant to Pa.R.E. 404(b), evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts may be admissible

for the purposes of "proving motive, oppmtunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,

absence of mistake, or lack of accident." Evidence of this kind may also be admissible under the

res gestae exception, "where such evidence became part of history of the case and fo1med pmt of

the natural development of facts." Commonwealth v. Iyy, 146 A.3d 241, 251,

                                                   18
(Pa.Super.2016)(citing Commonwealth v. Solano, 129 A.3d 1156, 1178 (Pa.2015)). In criminal

matters, "this evidence is admissible only if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its

potential for unfair prejudice." Pa.R.E. 404(b).

        Evidence of prior abuse between a defendant and an abused victim is generally

admissible to establish motive, intent, malice, or ill-will. Ivy, 146 A.3d at 252, (Pa.Super.2016)

(citing Commonwealth v. Jackson, 900 A.2d 936, 940 (Pa.Super.2006)). There is no set time

limitation on when evidence of prior abuse is no longer probative and admissible. Jackson, 900

A.2d at 940 (citing Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 570 Pa. 117, 136-37, 880 A.2d 893, 904

(2002)). Additionally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that "the trial court is not

required to sanitize the trial to eliminate all unpleasant facts from the jury's consideration where

those facts are relevant to the issues at hand and form part of the history and natural development

of the events and offenses for which the defendant is charged." !Yy, 146 A.3d at 252 (quoting

Commonwealth v. Hairston, 624 Pa. 143, 84 A.3d 657, 666 (2014); Commonwealth v. Lark, 518

Pa. 290, 543 A.2d 491, 501 (1988)).

       In the case at bar, this Comi properly granted the Commonwealth's prior bad acts motion

because the previous instances of domestic abuse were important to establish "motive, intent,

malice, or ill-will," and evidence of Defendant's and Starks' ongoing violent and tumultuous

relationship had "become part of the hist01y of the case and formed pmi of the natural

development of facts." It was relevant to show how their relationship had developed and

evolved, and rebutted any false inferences raised by the defense as to fabrication. It also

explained Starks' reluctance to cooperate with the prosecution. Indeed, the two prior instances of

abuse were not prosecuted because Starks was too afraid to appear to testify. She only testified in

this matter because she was taken into custody by police and forced to do so. All of this evidence

                                                   19
was necessary for the jury to have a complete picture of Defendant's and Starks' relationship as

well as Starks' state of mind. As stated above, there is no requirement that the trial court sanitize

"all unpleasant facts from the jury's consideration where those facts are relevant to the issues at

hand and form part of the history and natural development of the events and offenses for which

the defendant is charged." lYy, supra. Rather, it was crucial for the jury to know the ongoing

violent trajectory of Defendant and Starks' relationship in order to place the instant matter into

context. Accordingly, no relief is due.

    IV.       THE COMMONWEALTH PROVIDED SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF ITS
              INTENT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF
              DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND THE
              COMPLAINANT.

          Last, Defendant claims that the Commonwealth did not provide sufficient notice of its

intent to introduce evidence of prior bad acts at trial. This claim is without merit. Pursuant to

Pa.R.E. 404(b)(3), "[i]n a criminal case the prosecutor must provide reasonable written notice in

advance of trial so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it, or during trial ifthe court

excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the specific nature, permitted use, and reasoning

for the use of any such evidence the prosecutor intends to introduce at trial." The purpose of this

rule is to "prevent unfair surprise and give defendants time to prepare an objection or rebuttal."

Commonwealth v. Hicks, 625 Pa. 90, 101, 91A.3d47, 54 (2014). However, "there is no

requirement that the 'notice' must be f01mally given or be in writing in order for the evidence to

be admissible." Commonwealth v. Lynch, 57 A.3d 120, 126 (Pa.Super.2012) (citing

Commonwealth v. Mawhinney, 915 A.2d 107, 110 (Pa.Super.2006)). Indeed, as the rule itself

states, the trial comi may excuse pretrial notice upon good cause shown. Id.

          In the case at bar, the Commonwealth sought to introduce instances of past domestic

violence between Defendant and the complainant, Starks. The record shows that on the morning

                                                 20
of trial, the Commonwealth infmmed this Court that it was seeking to admit two specific

instances of prior domestic violence between Defendant and Starks in order to show the "natural

basis of their relationship as it evolved over time," and to show Defendant's common plan,

scheme or design. Defense counsel objected, arguing that he had not been provided with

reasonable notice as the Commonwealth had handed him a copy of the motion at 9:25 am. The

Commonwealth replied that it was unable to prepare the motion any sooner because Starks had

been hostile and uncooperative, and that the prosecution had been unable to speak with her until

she was taken into custody the day before. This Court then asked defense counsel whether he had

known about these two domestic violence incidences from 2012 prior to trial and he replied that

he had been aware of them as they were part of Defendant's criminal extract. This Comi granted

the Commonwealth's motion, finding that introducing this type of evidence, which appeared to

be a continuing pattern of violence, would not be a surprise in another case involving domestic

abuse. (N.T. 1/30/19, p. 8-19). As stated above, the trial comi may excuse pretrial notice when

good cause is shown. Here, the Commonwealth provided good cause when it explained it had

been unable to even speak with Starks prior to trial because she was so hostile, and that she did

not cooperate with them in order to prepare the motion until she was an-ested the day before, and

forced to do so. In addition, defense counsel already was aware of these previous instances of

domestic assault and could not have been surprised that they might be introduced in a subsequent

domestic violence case involving the same individuals. Accordingly, this Court properly excused

pretrial notice and no relief is due.

                                                21
                                           CONCLUSION

       After reviewing the applicable case law, statutes, and testimony, this Court committed no

error. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. This Comt properly sentenced

Defendant to an aggregate term of 105 months to 25 years state incarceration. Last, this Comt

properly granted the Commonwealth' s Prior Bad Acts motion. Accordingly, this Court' s

judgment of sentence should be affirmed.

                                                                             BY THE COURT:

                                                                                                J.

                                              22