Court Opinion

ID: 4425894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-08-15 15:49:58.442628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:48.727290
License: Public Domain

J-S32009-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    SYLVESTER LEWIS                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2645 EDA 2017

             Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 23, 2017
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-23-CR-0003949-2014

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.:                              FILED AUGUST 15, 2019

       Appellant, Sylvester Lewis, appeals from the June 23, 2017 judgment

of sentence following his conviction by a jury of three counts of rape of a

child.1 We affirm.

       The trial court summarized the facts of the case as follows:

              In December of 2013 [S.H.] walked in on [seven-year-old
       S.M. (“Victim”),] on top of her [six-year-old] son in a sexual
       position, while [Victim] was spending the night. Due to [Victim’s]
       age, [S.H.] told [D.M., S.M.’s mother (“Mother”),] who then
       questioned her daughter about where she had learned this
       behavior. [Victim] told [M]other that [Appellant], her [relative],
       had been raping her. [Mother] then took [Victim] to the Crozier
       Hospital in Chester Pennsylvania, who directed [Mother] to the
       Children & Youth Services Center (CYS). CYS Doctor Josephine

____________________________________________

1   18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(c).
J-S32009-19

       Parker (at the time Josephine Morales)[2] examined [Victim].
       Ms. Parker recommended [Victim] see a specialist in child sexual
       assault examinations. Dr. June Messam, a specialist in child
       sexual abuse examinations, examined [Victim] and found an
       absence of almost all of [Victim’s] hymenal tissue, consistent with
       repeated penetration of the vagina over an extended period of
       time.

             Officer Robert Graves of the Chester Police Department,
       Juvenile Division, received this case from the Crozier Hospital
       where [Victim] was initially admitted.      Officer Graves and
       Josephine Morales conducted a joint interview of [Victim] at the
       CYS Center. After this interview, Officer Graves received a
       warrant and conducted a search for [Appellant]. [Appellant] was
       discovered at his residence and was brought to the Chester Police
       Station, where Officer Graves and Officer Jones conducted an
       interview of [Appellant]. [Appellant] was then booked and put
       into holding.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/13/18, at unnumbered 1–2 (internal citations to the

record omitted).

       A criminal complaint was filed against Appellant on January 2, 2014.

The trial court entertained myriad pretrial motions including, inter alia, a

motion to suppress with a suppression hearing, motions in limine, motions to

dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, and motions for new counsel. A jury

trial ensued, and on January 13, 2017, the jury convicted Appellant as

described supra. On June 23, 2017, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an

aggregate sentence of sixty to 120 years of incarceration.       Post sentence

____________________________________________

2  Testimony established that Delaware County Children and Youth Services
(“CYS”) caseworker Josephine Morales recently married and changed her
name to Josephine Parker. N.T., 1/12/17, at 60–61. Both the trial court and
Appellant refer to her as Josephine Parker. We also utilize her married
surname.

                                           -2-
J-S32009-19

motions were filed and denied, and Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

      Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

         A. Was the verdict against the weight of the evidence
            presented at trial where the evidence was so inconsistent
            that a verdict of guilt could not be reached?

         B. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by preventing
            [Appellant’s] trial counsel from cross-examining or
            impeaching Josephine Parker (Morales) with the prior
            statements given by [Victim] where Ms. Parker testified that
            the statements given by [Victim] during the investigation
            were similar, despite there being inconsistencies in the
            statements?

         C. Did the trial court commit an error of law by denying the
            motion for a mistrial where the observers were making
            visible gestures during [Victim’s] testimony and had
            conversation with her during a court break, while she was
            still an active witness on the witness stand?

         D. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it sentenced
            [Appellant] to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 60 to
            120 years incarceration where the sentence is above the
            guidelines and the trial court did not follow the dictates of
            42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b)?

Appellant’s Brief at 5–6 (Issues A and D reordered).

      Appellant asserts that his three convictions for rape of a child are against

the weight of the evidence. Appellant’s Brief at 24. He maintains that Victim’s

testimony was incredible and that the record is devoid of any corroborating

evidence.   Id. at 10, 25.     He argues that statements of the examining

physicians contradicted each other, as did testimony of Victim, Mother, and

S.H. Id. at 26–27.

                                      -3-
J-S32009-19

      We have held that a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the

verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence “concedes that there is

sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict.” Commonwealth v. Rayner, 153

A.3d 1049, 1054 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. Widmer,

744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000)).        Our Supreme Court has described the

standard applied to a weight-of-the-evidence claim as follows:

             The decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial based
      upon a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence
      is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Thus, “the function
      of an appellate court on appeal is to review the trial court’s
      exercise of discretion based upon a review of the record, rather
      than to consider de novo the underlying question of the weight of
      the evidence.” An appellate court may not overturn the trial
      court’s decision unless the trial court “palpably abused its
      discretion in ruling on the weight claim.” Further, in reviewing a
      challenge to the weight of the evidence, a verdict will be
      overturned only if it is “so contrary to the evidence as to shock
      one’s sense of justice.”

Commonwealth v. Cash, 137 A.3d 1262, 1270 (Pa. 2016) (internal citations

omitted).   A trial court’s determination that a verdict was not against the

interest of justice is “[o]ne of the least assailable reasons” for denying a new

trial. Commonwealth v. Colon–Plaza, 136 A.3d 521, 529 (Pa. Super. 2016)

(quoting Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013)). A verdict

is against the weight of the evidence where “certain facts are so clearly of

greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the

facts is to deny justice.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 258 (Pa.

Super. 2003) (quoting Widmer, 744 A.2d at 751–752). “[W]e do not reach

the underlying question of whether the verdict was, in fact, against the weight

                                      -4-
J-S32009-19

of the evidence....     Instead, this Court determines whether the trial court

abused its discretion in reaching whatever decision it made on the motion[.]”

Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 107 A.3d 206, 213 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation

omitted).3

       Here, the trial court, who viewed the witnesses’ demeanors at trial,

determined that the verdict did not shock his sense of justice. We ascertain

no abuse of discretion in this determination. In support of our conclusion, we

adopt as our own the well-reasoned analysis of the trial court in its Pa.R.A.P.

1925(a) opinion.      Trial Court Opinion, 7/13/18, at unnumbered 7–8.      We

observe that while Victim offered some testimonial variation in details

concerning the incident between Victim and the six-year-old boy, as compared

____________________________________________

3  A challenge to the weight of the evidence must first be raised at the trial
level “(1) orally, on the record, at any time before sentencing; (2) by written
motion at any time before sentencing; or (3) in a post-sentence motion.”
Commonwealth v. Akrie, 159 A.3d 982, 989 (Pa. Super. 2017). The instant
record is unclear regarding preservation of this issue. Appellant filed a motion
in arrest of judgment and for a new trial on June 28, 2017, but only the cover
sheet is included in the record. Docket Entry 97. The trial court denied the
motion on July 6, 2017. Docket Entry 101. Appellant filed a post-sentence
motion on June 30, 2017, but the record certified to us was missing
paragraphs four–eleven. Docket Entry 98. The trial court denied the motion
on July 6, 2017. Docket Entry 102. “It is an appellant’s duty to ensure that
the certified record is complete for purposes of review,” and a failure to do so
constitutes waiver.” Commonwealth v. Lopez, 57 A.3d 74, 82 (Pa. Super.
2012). Through the efforts of the Superior Court Prothontary to obtain the
missing pages from the above documents from the Delaware County Clerk of
Courts, we have obtained the entire post-sentence motion, which included a
weight-of-the-evidence claim. Supplemental Record, 7/25/19. In addition,
the weight issue was raised in Appellant’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and
the trial court addressed it in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. We consider the issue
preserved and will address it.

                                           -5-
J-S32009-19

to S.H.’s testimony, that incident does not involve Appellant.        The slight

variations also do not establish Victim’s testimony about the rapes as

incredible. As we stated in Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 578 A.2d 960 (Pa.

Super. 1990), “[t]he jury was free to accept all, some or none of the testimony

presented. The fact that [it] chose to believe the victim[] does not shock this

Court’s sense of justice.” Id. at 963 (internal citations omitted).

      Nor do we find that the verdict was based upon surmise or conjecture.

Appellant underscores that Victim testified the assaults occurred more than

five times but she was unsure whether there were more than ten rapes.

Appellant’s Brief at 25; N.T., 1/11/17, at 120. We have repeatedly stated,

dating back to 1988 at least, that “a child over eleven years of age would

ordinarily have a more fully developed ability to remember the time of events

than would a child of six or seven.” Commonwealth v. Ables, 590 A.2d 334,

339 (Pa. Super. 1990) (citing Commonwealth v. Groff, 548 A.2d 1237 (Pa.

Super. 1988)).   While seven-year-old Victim could not state with precision

how many times Appellant raped her, she was clear that it happened at

Appellant’s house in his bedroom “in Chester,” which was “near E&G’s . . . a

hoagie store,” and that it happened “every time” Mother dropped her off there.

N.T., 1/11/17, at 112, 121–122. After careful review of the record, we agree

with the trial court that the verdict is not so contrary to the evidence as to

shock one’s sense of justice.

                                     -6-
J-S32009-19

      Appellant next argues that the trial court improperly prevented

Appellant “from impeaching Josephine Parker with the prior statements given

by [Victim] because Ms. Parker testified that [Victim] gave two credible

statements.” Appellant’s Brief at 18. Appellant maintains that he wanted to

cross-examine the witness “about the prior inconsistent statements made to

her by [Victim]” so as to “emphasize the lack of credibility and weight the

jurors should place on the witness’s testimony . . . .” Id. at 18–19. Appellant

avers that he “desired to challenge not only the testimony of Ms. Parker, but

also the determination made by Ms. Parker that [Victim] made two credible

statements.” Id. at 19.

      We note first, that while Appellant asserts “the trial court should have

allowed [Appellant] to cross-examine Ms. Parker as to [the] content of those

two statements and to challenge her determination that both statements were

credible,” Appellant’s Brief at 20, he does not refer us to the record where the

trial court denied cross-examination.       Appellant references Ms. Parker’s

testimony that the CYS investigation resulted in an “indicated” finding of abuse

because Victim made two credible statements regarding the rapes by

Appellant. Appellant’s Brief at 20; N.T., 1/12/17, at 62, 68.

      The record does not reveal a denial of cross-examination. Rather, our

review indicates that Appellant requested a cautionary instruction to the jury

that the jury is the sole arbiter of credibility, and the trial court agreed to so

instruct. Id. at 69–70. There is no request by Appellant, nor denial by the

                                      -7-
J-S32009-19

trial court, of something more, and Appellant has not directed us to a place in

the record of its existence.     “It is not this Court’s responsibility to comb

through the record seeking the factual underpinnings of an appellant’s claim.”

Commonwealth v. Samuel, 102 A.3d 1001, 1005 (Pa. Super. 2014). We

rely on the trial court’s treatment of the issue in rejecting it as meritless. Trial

Court Opinion, 7/13/18, at unnumbered 3–4.

      Next, Appellant asserts trial court error in denying his motion for a

mistrial “where the observers were making visible gestures during [Victim’s]

testimony and had a conversation with her during a court break . . . .”

Appellant’s Brief at 20–21.      Appellant submits that he twice requested a

mistrial. Appellant’s Brief at 22. Appellant maintains that the first instance

was on the first day of trial during Victim’s testimony.         Id. (citing N.T.,

1/11/17, at 114). We have examined the record and there is no request for

a mistrial at that point. However, the trial court, sua sponte, outside of the

presence of the jury, told the spectators:

      Those of you in the audience, I understand that this is very
      difficult, but I can’t have you saying anything while the jury is
      present. Secondly, I need you to refrain from doing anything by
      way of body language or anything that is going to interfere with
      the testimony. I know that is very difficult, but I need you not to
      respond. For instance ma’am you are nodding your head to me
      so you are acknowledging what I am saying and I appreciate that.
      But when a witness is testifying I am going to ask you not to do
      anything like that.

            UNIDENTIFIED: I wasn’t nodding, my legs are shaking.

            THE COURT: Well whatever, well that is not the way I was
      taking it and in any event I need you to[.] I know it is not easy

                                       -8-
J-S32009-19

     but I need you all to refrain from that otherwise I may need to ask
     you to remove yourself from the courtroom. Because I need to
     have a situation where the witness can testify without any
     suggestion of the witness being prompted in any way. I need you
     to do that for me. All right now—

           UNIDENTIFIED: Your Honor we are here for support for her.
     That is all we want to do. We don’t discuss this with her, we don’t
     discuss this at all. We are here after all these years to try to just
     be here for her[].

           THE COURT: and you have every right to be here and you
     have every right to be here to support her. Okay but I need to
     make that statement to you because I want to have a fair trial
     here. Anything else we need to put on the record?

N.T., 1/11/17, at 114–115. At the ensuing sidebar, the following exchange

between the trial court and defense counsel occurred:

           THE COURT: I was watching like a hawk because I was
     afraid that they were going to be starting suggesting answers or
     something. There was [sic] no hand signals or anything. The
     worst that has happened was one woman was nodding her head
     up and down, and it was the one I mentioned that I asked her not
     to do that.

          [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And that was my question because
     obviously my back was facing them.

           THE COURT: I was watching them like a hawk. Believe me
     I was watching because I have been in situations. . . .

           [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor they are talking to the
     witness right now. I don’t want to I have no choice but to ask.

     (Sidebar concluded)

           THE COURT: I cannot have you talking to the witness,
     please—

           UNIDENTIFIED: I thought you said when the jury was gone.

                                     -9-
J-S32009-19

            THE COURT: I can’t have you talking to the witness. The
      witness is under oath, please don’t do that.

N.T., 1/11/17, at 115–116. It was at that point that Appellant made a single

request for a mistrial stating, “Your Honor I am loathe to do this, but I mean

in light of the fact that they are speaking in front of the jury, they talk to the

witness now, I have to ask for mistrial.” N.T., 1/11/17, at 116.

      Appellant fails to develop his argument. While he sets forth case law in

his brief explaining the standards for granting a mistrial, he wholly fails to

assert how he was prejudiced.         Appellant’s Brief at 22–23.      Moreover,

Appellant claims that the court did not give the jury a cautionary instruction.

Id. at 23. Our review of the record establishes that Appellant did not request

an instruction. N.T., 1/11/17, at 116. Despite this fact, after denying the

single mistrial request, the trial court commented, “I’ll tell them [the

spectators] if there is any communication, I am going to throw them out, all

right?” Id. at 117. Defense counsel replied, “Yes Your Honor.” Id. The trial

court then reiterated to the spectators that no one was to speak to Victim.

Id. Defense counsel then asked the court at side bar to tell the jury “that

they need to disregard any outbursts.” Id. at 118. The trial court agreed but

noted, “I don’t think there was anything.” Id.

      Our standard of review in this context is as follows:

            The trial court is in the best position to assess the effect of
      an allegedly prejudicial statement on the jury, and as such, the
      grant or denial of a mistrial will not be overturned absent an abuse
      of discretion. A mistrial may be granted only where the incident
      upon which the motion is based is of such a nature that its

                                      - 10 -
J-S32009-19

      unavoidable effect is to deprive the defendant of a fair trial by
      preventing the jury from weighing and rendering a true verdict.
      Likewise, a mistrial is not necessary where cautionary instructions
      are adequate to overcome any possible prejudice.

Commonwealth v. Parker, 957 A.2d 311, 319 (Pa. Super. 2008) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997, 1016 (Pa. 2007)).

      The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s mistrial

request.    Appellant has not expressed how he was prejudiced, he

misrepresented the record, and he fails to support his allegation of error. Our

review of the record comports with the trial court’s decision, and we rely on

its explanation, as follows:

      [Appellant’s] counsel timely moved for a mistrial after noticing
      observers making gestures to [Victim]. This [c]ourt chose to deny
      [Appellant’s] motion and instead employed less drastic
      alternatives. This [c]ourt noted the observers nodding and
      watched them “like a hawk” and determined they did not give
      [Victim] any “signals” or “answers.”

            When observers then spoke to [Victim] while she was on the
      stand, this [c]ourt immediately stopped the conversation and
      stated he would remove the observers from the courtroom if
      additional conversation occurred. Instead of a mistrial, this
      [c]ourt instructed the observers twice, had sidebar discussions
      with [Appellant’s] counsel, and dismissed the Jury from the
      courtroom as soon as he witnessed the movements. The [c]ourt
      did not see the Jury reacting to the observer’s movement. For the
      forgoing reasons, the court did not abuse its discretion by denying
      a motion for mistrial.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/13/18, at unnumbered 5–6 (internal citations to the

record omitted).

      Appellant’s final issue assails the sentence imposed as excessive and

beyond the Sentencing Guidelines. The trial court imposed a sentence of 240

                                     - 11 -
J-S32009-19

to 480 months of imprisonment for each count of rape of a child, to be served

consecutively to each other, which amounted to an aggregate sentence of

sixty to 120 years of incarceration. N.T. (Sentencing), 6/23/17, at 16–17.

      Appellant’s issue relates to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. It

is well settled that a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence is a

petition for permission to appeal, as the right to pursue such a claim is not

absolute.    Commonwealth v. Treadway, 104 A.3d 597, 599 (Pa. Super.

2014).     “An appellant must satisfy a four-part test to invoke this Court’s

jurisdiction when challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence,” by (1)

preserving the issue in the court below, (2) filing a timely notice of appeal,

(3) including a Rule 2119(f) statement, and (4) raising a substantial question

for our review. Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d 788, 797 (Pa. Super.

2015) (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa.

Super. 2013).

      In the instant case, Appellant filed a timely appeal, the issue was

properly preserved in his post-sentence motion, and his brief contains a

concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with

respect to the discretionary aspects of a sentence pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.

2119(f).    Accordingly, we must determine whether Appellant has raised a

substantial question that the sentence is not appropriate under 42 Pa.C.S.

§ 9781(b).     Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super.

2010).

                                     - 12 -
J-S32009-19

      The determination of whether there is a substantial question is made on

a case-by-case basis, and this Court will allow the appeal only when the

appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s actions

were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code,

or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing

process.   Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768 (Pa. Super.

2015). “[W]e cannot look beyond the statement of questions presented and

the prefatory 2119(f) statement to determine whether a substantial question

exists.” Commonwealth v. Johnson-Daniels, 167 A.3d 17, 27 (Pa. Super.

2017) (citing Commonwealth v. Provenzano, 50 A.3d 148, 154 (Pa. Super.

2012)). “Our inquiry must focus on the reasons for which the appeal is sought,

in contrast to the facts underlying the appeal, which are necessary only to

decide the appeal on the merits.” Commonwealth v. Knox, 165 A.3d 925,

929 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362,

365 (Pa. Super. 2005)).

      In his Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement, Appellant maintains that his

sentence is excessive, and the trial court did not consider Appellant’s “unique

circumstances in any manner or consider his rehabilitative needs relating to

those offenses but instead focused solely on the seriousness of the offenses.”

Appellant’s Brief at 13.    We conclude that Appellant’s challenge to the

imposition of his sentence as excessive, together with his claim that the trial

court failed to consider his rehabilitative needs, presents a substantial

                                    - 13 -
J-S32009-19

question. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 125 A.3d 822, 826 (Pa. Super.

2015) (excessive sentence claim, in conjunction with assertion that sentencing

court failed to consider mitigating factors, raises a substantial question).

Thus, we grant Appellant’s application for allowance of appeal and address the

merits of this sentencing claim. Caldwell, 117 A.3d at 770.

       Once again, Appellant misrepresents the record.         In his argument,

Appellant states the sentence imposed “deviated from the guidelines,” and

asserts that the trial court “never stated the purpose for the deviation from

the guidelines.” Appellant’s Brief at 16. He does not support this claim with

reference to the record. Our review of the record reflects, instead, that the

sentence imposed was within the standard range of the Sentencing

Guidelines. The Guideline Sentence Form (“GSF”) reveals that the crime of

rape of a child is a first degree felony, the offense gravity score is fourteen,

and Appellant’s prior record score is five. As noted on the GSF, the mitigated

range is a minimum sentence of 180 months, and the standard minimum

range is 192–240 months of imprisonment. GSF, 7/3/17.4 Here, the court

imposed a minimum sentence of 240 months, which is in the standard range

of the Guidelines.

____________________________________________

4 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(e)(1) provides that the statutory maximum sentence for
a conviction of rape of a child, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(c), is forty years.
The Basic Sentencing Matrix, 204 Pa. Code § 303.16(a), establishes the
recommended sentence range for a person with a prior record score of five,
where the offense gravity score is fourteen, is 192 months–the statutory limit,
which in this case is 240 months.

                                          - 14 -
J-S32009-19

      At sentencing, the trial court indicated that it received the presentence

investigation report (“PSI”). N.T. (Sentencing), 6/23/17, at 11. When a PSI

report exists, this Court presumes that the trial court “was aware of relevant

information   regarding   the   defendant’s   character   and   weighed     those

considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.” Commonwealth

v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2016). The instant trial court

also stated it considered:

      the District Attorney’s recommendation, nature and seriousness
      of the violation, as well as [Appellant’s] age, education, familial
      matter and employment status, as well as any comments offered
      on [Appellant’s] behalf by defense counsel, the remarks of the
      victim, the remarks of the victim’s mother and grandmother,
      [Appellant’s] remarks to the [c]ourt and the Pennsylvania
      Sentencing Guidelines.

N.T. (Sentencing), 6/23/17, at 17.

      With respect to the imposition of consecutive versus concurrent

sentences, “long standing precedent of this Court recognizes that 42 Pa.C.S.

section 9721 affords the sentencing court discretion to impose its sentence

concurrently or consecutively to other sentences being imposed at the same

time or to sentences already imposed.” Johnson-Daniels, 167 A.3d at 28

(quoting Commonwealth v. Gonzalez–Dejusus, 994 A.2d 595, 598 (Pa.

Super. 2010) (citation omitted)). See also Commonwealth v. Hoag, 665

A.2d 1212, 1214 (1995) (explaining that a defendant is not entitled to a

“volume discount” for his crimes).

                                     - 15 -
J-S32009-19

      Herein, the record establishes that the trial court considered all of

Appellant’s circumstances.     A PSI report was ordered, prepared, and

considered.   The court took into account the sentencing guidelines, the

protection of the public, the gravity of the offenses, the impact on the victim,

and the rehabilitative needs of Appellant. We will not re-weigh those factors

and impose our judgment in place of the sentencing court. Commonwealth

v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 778 (Pa. Super. 2009).

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/15/19

                                     - 16 -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              7�PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .   :· ..   ·····   :·   ·:   ::   ....   .. :

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     • 1 _0pinron
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 .•• Circulated      patecJ
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                07/25/2019 12:01 13:-18

                                          • . IN1'aE¢out::stffJ�2�itlt1�s'fBlfE'90ili.fv, Y •
                                                       .       .: .   :: :: .. : .. ::-":···:

  .                                               '..                                                                                    ..   .   .

·· .. COMJvfON}VEALTii OF·PENNSYLVANIA

                                                                                                                 v.
                                                                 ......                        .. :·.                         .:· ·.
           ·..
                            . .. , .. .: , .. ,., ., . ·,
               . . ... .. ,,,        ;   .... ':
                                                   ,,:::..:.: ::               ..         : ::·:: ..                          :.: .·

           ·· SYLVESTER,·,,LEWIS . . , .. , .:
                          .      .                                          .. ..               .            .                 .     .

                 ... ····, .••. : 'l

 . ·,' Pagartq;J/ ' ..
                                                                                                                         ....
                                                                                  .: .. .:.. . .:::   . . . . . . . ' . . .. ::·.:
                                                                                                 . .:·:·:"':.::·::

                                                                                                       ............
                                                                                                    ....      . .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .
                                     · .On Ja.11uaj"Y.l3, 2,017, foll�wirig �jury trial,•SyJvestet Lewi�•(I)eferid@t)«ia�••··• •'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     .    .                  .

      .. convicted ofthi:l!e dbunts,ofrap� of'11• cbild{�fel<>11yi�ltl1e?first•cl1:grpe:_p{T. ,J/13/i7 .

.· . . •. :::·It:::;:!�,:t�;:::•�1=:�:=:�;;t2oi2.:Augti�.of
  . ·•· least three 6ccasiorts. [N,T.'l/lf/17 p;2j].
                                                                                                                                                            /".:·           ·:::· .: .:;: ..
                                                                                                                                                                       .... :.:::'.:             .
                          •····· ·in Deceml,ef of20l3 St                                                                                              Ji              �alkedjn on s·                   l'M       I       on top of her .. : .

                                     •·'J: .. : : •. •··•·· ._,                                         :,.::,:, .: •::,:.:::::: ·••
       ·.:. to Si   isiag{Ms. H, 'tolaD.' . ... tM : 1;'W.hq th��tjµ�stid11�� h,efqa#�hter a.bout
                                                                                                                 •••• }L ;:.. ;: :/? ::
       .• wher¢ slle hJdJ¢aril�4.thii b¢h�vibr .• [N/t. l/1:t/l7ls�].·f · · · � tvt •••....•. tol�1c�r (at:::: thetirn.6�t>�ephirte:?vt6t�l�s)'examined s1 ·······•· •. (Nfr.in21i71t�o].••
           .                                       .                    .             ....              ;;

   .• . Ms>Par�,er rec.cmunended S' .• . . i set!. a ,speci�listin. p�ild. sexµ�l a�i�,ult ex:�inations .
                                                                                                                 :: ::   ;;
                                                                                                                              .. .

                                                                                                                                · ...
                                                                                                                                                           .· .. ,,                       Jibl�b1]j;r.rof··
                                                                                                                                                                                           .             . .   . . . ..            .. . ...

. , : [N.T. :v1211fp;-67j. Dr. J�ne, Mess/axti, a:sp�datisdn• thild sexuil�buse hxami11atio11�� .
. ···••• ���fu.iried:�t < : a11ziet Hospital. where. s:••• ......• was·initially.admitted,• [N.T .. .: .
   received . this case
   1112117.p. l9-20J 9fficer
 .                     .•         Graves•and Josephine �orales.conducted. a johit.interview·of•
                                          [N{f; • 1/12/l7•pJ9-20] .•• Afterlhfainterview,.Officer•••·· •
                                    .M .•••••• :atthe.CYSCenter.•

  • ·Gravesfeceived.a.wauant·.�d.conducte£f·a··:searcl1•forthe. Defendant.. [N} .• l/l2/17 p.22I.•
     Mr.. Lewis. was disdo;ered. at his reSiqertte and w�s brought to. the. Chester Police Station, •..
                            :. ·1,:

• where (},fficer Graves     Omeer Jones �Qnducted JUI inrervie,v of the defendant. (N.T.:                ana
  l/12/l7ip.22Jl. Mr,[.LeWiswas·then.booked•Jdput.intoholdingJ.[N:T                                                                                                                                                                              .•• 1/12/17 •. p.22].· · ·.
                                                                                      : !n1sdtiss!o�b�tli�DkFk�I)ANT'SAP��Atr • · ·
          Defendant has timely• filed: :: Concise• Stilterrient ofMatters Co111plai11ed of on · ·
                                    I

                                              .   .
                                                          :•

                                                          .       ..
                                                                                            •                   '.......

                                                                                                                                 · .. : ::
                                                                                                                                                 a             ,           :                .•••••••••••••              <•·• .. :                       y .                  · · ·· · ·
                                .                                                                              :·                            :         ···:·       ······: .. ··                                                                                                    .

  ··Appeal in accordance.with Pa.•
                                            l925(b)(4)
                                                        .• The.l)efendant·raises.the .following•••••                               R.A.P; •
   .eight.issues.on.appeal:••.1).\Vhether.me.trial.courtabused.its.discretion.by.failins'toallow•
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ..
   • appellant.to.cross.e1ahlinb.s,.                                                                                                             �i:·.              ..2}•Whether.the.trial.courtabused1ts.discretion., .:
    by preveniing. defe11se .couns�l ·from       itnpeabhing. JoseplH11e. Parker •(Morales). With.prior•.• •. • .
         .:                 :
                                        :··.·:· · ... :· .:· .:: :::·:: ::::·: :: . .
                                    :::::::;·.·:::.;::::::.:::::::·.:::. ::::::.:·:.
                                                                                      . ' ...... :·· .... ::·:·.:: ::.:·::·.:::.::·::::. :::::.::<.:.: .. ::"'.:":

                                                                                                                                                     3) Whethef the trial court abused its discretion bf
    .           ....

        statements given b)'S .                                                                                        M .: .                                                                                                                                                                     .
        .. ··:::·::;:.::: :::: ::):::.::: t: ::'" ::>:.::::: ::::                                                          :::; ::_:::<:: :::.:::::::·:::: ::.:/\:: ;.:::: .:::.::'. ::;::
        allowing the)h& tllistJJ to the testimon}/ofS                                                                                                                                                        ,M •           1   during Jury deliberatioris;A)

       Whethe r the trial courf comIDitteda� orrot�laW by denying a¢fe»danrs Motion for•••••·····
                                          1

                                                                                                                         .. :: ::: :: ::.::· :: -: ::::::: .::::> :·::: ·::::. "::::: -::: ..' :: :
. rilistrial, because observ�rs h� tnade gestures dul'i11g S . . M, .... ii testiI11011Y jd had .
. . ..:a conversation.                > .•.• . he,:
         . . . . <••·!··············· Wjth     • < .• .during
                                                        ·<··········t········
                                                              a court break; ··. < • •5}·• •· Whelhef
                                                                                               < .• > ..the·•··•· trial
                                                                                                                  •·• • . court  ( .• ..• • committed
                                                                                                                                               • .• • • < • • • • .• •an••.•.··••
                                                                                                                                                                               .•.•.• •.•.• •
                                              ·::..                        :.             · ... : .: :·    .                 .                                      ...            ····:··· :.     ···:      : : ...   ·.   :        .· .....                  · :·   .: :    ::   .·:

        erro;·of,law.by·d•enying.defendant s•tnotioh.for·a·mistrial•because.th¢•Jury•witnes.secl•·..
                                                                                                                                             1

                                                  M ..... mother                 i's                           c; .during
                                                                                                                                                 the. expert. testimony .of br. • Messam; 6)• Whet�er the ·.
        verdfot.was agairtst:the .• weight.ofthe.evidende presented· at trial; •7).Whether.the• evidence
        Was .insufficient to .Support Befendant's convictiot1 o,f rape .of�· child; s). \Vhether the trial.
                                         its.discretion.whenit.sentenced.defend�tto.60to.l20:years.incarceration·
    •couit3bused
        and wheilierthis:sentence                                             fonOis.�b.dictates.of 42. Pa.• C.s .• •§.972 t(b).··
                                                              Court.dld•llotAbuse.its:Dlscretion.be(auseI>efendant's.Counsel•
    •Issue.l:.The.Trial .
        did Cross..Exan,.ine S..                                                   . Nt ..

                      • perendaht clai�s ·that .the.trial courl ··bused. itsdisc�tion. by.nQt •a11owins
        defendahtts COllilSel •to. ctoss-exainit16. s.· ·....                                                             · ;M    .: •.••• .• regarding .a prior. sexual·. incident·
        • .   .        :1I . .. ..•. . •. .•.••·•· .•:.•••••·.::••:   • ·••   .. •• ··•· •· ::. :. •.•• . ·••••.• .   •     ..•

        withMi·R .'• son. This cWmis meritless,> .. •• ••                                                                              .    . ..••....•

    •:r: iiililfJiiii�ii�iiiisJ:\�J1fI!fu.: ·•
    ·�!l:;.)T!iJ;::.f��rtdid:tAb�ttu::1t:t1!!Jt:tif.f:�ti®i°d...l's•••. ••···
                 IJefendant .• claitns·that·the.trial.courtabtis¢clits.discretionhy.not.allowing
                       counsertoJfupeachAosephirte
    : defendant's                                        Parkef \Viili: priot staternents given B:                                                                         hy
          •.••.••• iwhichdefendant.clfilms·�re·inconsfaten\l••1his.clabfi•1smeti�¢SS, ••.•.

                      • · Oeferidan.t's counsel attempted to impeach• s1                                                                     \ Mi
                         I • : • '. : . • ....• • ... , ... : • ..... : •· • ••: . .: •• -: : : . ·:.: ••                              .
        i.   ....••••by
        • given       ·'.Josephine·
                            :       •parker,
                                     ••••.•••••••.•••.••••••
                                                        which•·•••••••·••·•••·••• •••••.•••.•.••• •••··••·••·••
                                                                         is improper.                 pursuant  ·······:·········· ••••.•Pennsylvania·
                                                                                                                              to the:     •••••• .'. •••••••.••••.•••
                                                                                                                                                             Rules    •••·•••·of

. : ••• : Evidence .• Pa;. R..• E.• 607•• lf I)efendJfs. cot111sel. desired to. impeach.                                                                    s�

        I:I;!;i8?il��tr�I[[!:r.�JTiitJ:ig1ot,-:t.hl�¢Qy>
                                                                                                                                           P•R. E[s02.
                  • . JM. . . j• he�••Ja® as sue� is foadmi,Silile.                                                                                              i • · • • ·•· ·•· ·• • .: • . . \ •
                       • The Supreme Court ofPennsylvania e,c;plainecl that one• of the general axioms of.•····
         •inipeachment·is.that.the.contradictory•testimonYitselfffiustbe·adrnissjble·before.it•canbe·•
                                                                                                                                                                                                   ···•• ••.••
 .. .
        ··usedlO:irnpeach.the. creqibiHty·ofthat witnessiCorrunonwealth:v
                                                                                                                                                          .• Baez?   431 • A.2d. 909, ••
                                                   :   :.·....          ...                  .                 .. ::   : ... :.·::                                                    .                                       ..

   912 • (198 l). ·Therefore· the court •properly •sµstained the .objecticm • against iillpeaclunent •of••••• ....
   Josephine Parker by •the C0Jllll1¢11Wealth. • · • • · · • •· · .: · ·
                     .    ..     ..                                                                        '           .

   ::;.;Ji�::tr;urtdi\iQtAb::�i�Wikt:%.l\T:Jtnglh•Juryl•Lbten
                 ••.. •A�pellant's.counsel clairils that{he.�al cOui1.abused '.its discretion·hy.allowingtlle.
                    ... :: :,·:: ::: -. :::·::: ::·:::·:> ::: :: :: /·:::.:::::::: :::::.:;·;                     :::·:::::::        .: ..   ::::::·:::::.·:::::::: :·-::::   ·:--:   :._:;   .:
                                                                                                                                                                                                   :;· ::·:: ·:: .:   .·:·    :.:::   ....

   jury to liste1t to the. testiillOilY <>ff . .                                                       M .: • duririgj� delibera.ticms, whereJhe jury

                 • An. abuse. of discretion "is. not merely an. error of Judgement; if; ill reaching a .•..
                   1.•••· .·• .: .. ·····················•·.······ >•· • •• ••• ···•·•• •·• ·· ·• • ·••·•• ·.• • • ••· ·•••··• ·•••·· • ··· ·•••·•··•·•·• ···•••·• >
  . • coritlusfon. t11J
                                   .court
                                               overrides oi.           111isapplies  the .la\V, .or Judgnient e){ercised •is.shown•.·                     the
      by.the.record.to.be.either.tanifestly.unreasonableottheproductofpartiality
                                                                                                                                                          •• prejudice;.
                    ,.
      bias     or nlwm,           discretiori ha� heen abused." Bulg�eui0. Bulgarelli, 934 ;\;2d
          : :. : .:: ::.::.:<:.\:.:::· ·:: :: ::,:::·:::. ;·:: .. .: .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       l07;Jll
. (Pa. Stiper. 2007). •······
                   . 'Ibough Pa. R. ·. prifu.• P. R.ule 656 prohibits theJ1lfy fr0m having a tr�nscript dr

• •. ., •testitnony. during. trial, the· Supretne •coUtt of Pennsy�v�ia has• .held. that.at1dio-• • • • ·
    tecOnled\e�inlony j. not prohil,ited imder Rule 646. Continonweilth v.• wmiruns. 9.A.3.t ••. •· • • .• • • .... •.

             . . .: ••During: deliherations,• the JUI)'·requested to. listen. to the· audio of 5• • · •                                                                                                                  tM             . ...
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        l    S .. •

    •1113/2017 p.ss1.·Williams. 9 A..3d at•623.• ciearly.•aaitect applicatfo11 ofPeIU1sylvailia
  . ··•·.••
       Suprem�
            .. ••••••< 1•••.•••••··•·•·••••·••••••r       ·> ·•
                                   .Court caselaw •is notJ••.••··•••••             rnanifestly•               unreasonable.
                                                                                                 ··•···••••···••••••··········•·•••••••           prejudicial, Or.
                                                                                                                                        ••••··•••·••••••·•·•·••••••••.····•••·
       : . : ..... : :.:.:: ... ::::.::::: :::: :::,·:;·:: :>:: ·::: ::.· :::: :::: :: ::: .. :.:·. :· ........ '• ... .... ........ .......
                                                                                                                                                                                   in any.• ..sense.a
                                                                                                                                                                               <••••·•··••···•·   •.••••••·· ··•••····
                                                                                                                                                                                 .::.: :.· .· .: .. : .·.

     JJlisapplicati<>n of the                            Jaw/ • ••..
                                  •• {$SU�                       4:.Th� Trial CdJtt (li(l··�ot(]dntltlit:�� Erftjrof tll� b; ))e11ying � Moti�nfor .
                                         a Mistrial:W:hen Ob$ervel'S:MadeGestur�sriversado11i�•tb•ll¢t Dul'i11g:� :Court JJr��k.·                           ...       .
                                                11ieSu eriorCollrt PeIU1s;lyaniahas
                                                       .                                   �                       of                                  ;tateif�r;4:2S J\.�d 7s1, 76J•(P�. Super. '
                             ···:· 19�1).·.&abt1$�'qfd1scr¢tio11, '�isriot:m�rdf�frerrotofiudg�rilentr if; inte�qhing.�·.···
                                     cond�slon, the c�urt o�erri4e�:or JI1ii�pp1jes;tpeJa\V� 9r t�eJudgrii�nt �xercisedAshov.m ):' .
                                    . by the:�e6otd·{� be.�ith�r ·rn�hifestly·uriieaS();rt�b]e or•                                                              th�'. prtjdu�t of �arliali��·;;ejudi��. • · • .. .: '
                                          >. >···discr
                                  . bia�<>r.illwill, ········.··.··: ······················• • ••••••....••..•• : •••••..•.
                                                              �tion•has:bee11al:>1JSeQ.                                                                       ······:·········. > ··· · ···•· . ·
                                                                                                                            : .•..•.•.••••••.•...•.•.•••••••Bulgare1H�9S4A;�d•l07}.1·l·r·
                                                                                                                     ;.Bulgarelliv
                                                                                                                                            1

          • .... ·.                           . • :·:: -:         I•      .• ::: .... ·        .:
                                  ·. (Pai·Silper; 2007).• •

                             . • •. . td¢770 A.2d 762,
                                                        ... :·
                                                              768· (Pa.
                                                                  I . ·.
                                                                         Super.
                                                                            ... .
                                                                                  2001),
                                                                                     --= ..
                                                                                            A·inistrial
                                                                                                ·::······
                                                                                                          is�=-
                                                                                                                extreme,
                                                                                                                     .·.
                                                                                                                         remedy
                                                                                                                            ·· .. ·· •
                                                                                                                                       thatis.only
                                                                                                                                           =·                          ·===

 . . . . ..
.. . . .                 .
                                     proper \Vltet¢ ,;hiall¢ged Jrejudic�al J�entniky r�as611a�ly b� �aid to depriv.cf tlle ·
                             ••.• defenda11t6f�•fair �rtd.�mpartiallttial,:J�:·ar7�·a .••.
                                                     :: .• Her¢,therfi:w�·s.nq flagra�tabuse:o:t4i�cretion. '.Vher�:�:pr¢J�dicia1¢vyntt(}the:
                                  ·. defend�t.occ�rs.dur:in�'.tri�I,·thciyrnai·:ove.fdr�:�is�ial.Jh�ntllW.·e�enf i[•Jiic1b�e�;·:
                                  • · i>i.Jt:.• crim1Pl ��e' ' was> qn the
                                                                  .

                                                                        ..• h
                                                                                 e n.•••. ·o  .e
                                                                                           . bs
                                                                                                     .•..
                                                                                               . :··rv    e·.
                                                                                                            r.·.
                                                                                                              e
                                                                                                               s.
                                                                                                                · ·.•.
                                                                                                                     t .
                                                                                                                       h · · .                   -:                              ,whUe                        · ·this
                                                                                                                                                                                                      '.•:• .:s�nd,     . .• · .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .: Court
                                                                                                                           .

                             ::                       .:            ·       ·• .
                                                                        .

                                                             ..   ..        ..                                ..
                                                                                                          .

                                                                                                                                  ..
                                                                                               .

                                    . immecli'at¢ly �topped the �b11versi1ti6� anlstated •he would\remov¢ Ute observ�r� f;oni .tile ••• : '
                                  •.                 �        �                                   �                �
                                     cciurtroo�•if a didohal: onVeriaHottoicJrr£.·•rk.1)·•11111 01,;,•p.11;J.·hlste d'.ora•; •
                                                                                                                               •·
          .: rriis,trfat, '.this tbtirt i11stnict¢d •the• obsek!�rs tWi�e, �ad sid�blri • a.isc�ssiohs with • • • .
        •.•. Defendant'scput1S�l�•and dismtssedthe.Jfuj•.fron:i:thec94rtro{)tji:as.s9on·as·p� witn�ss¢d·•·
             the movements. The Court did not s�c,. the Jury r�a�ting .to the :obs�t.ver�s)hovelll��t · · .:
        . •· [N. T- l /11 /201 ; p! For th�               ll8].
                                            fofgJilgJreasohs, �e
                                                                    C()urt noFabuselfa liscretioX by ••                                d��j                                                                J .:   •   • •• ..

        . den.yins a motiori fpl'mistri�l. • •
         .·.Issue s,!of�he l975(k)St�t���rtt:.i�e 'rri,l C,()Ur1 �1:an()� corttb)ltJhl�tror.ofL�w· •.•
                                 I

           by Denfing the l.\1otfon: for a :Mistrial after the Jurors �awS        M . �s Mother
           Cry    During Dr.•Me$siun· ' s!T e$timony. · ·      · ·           ·             ··

  · . •::::[� :1:a��: ;l::�'.=�::; �i�j�: ��.��:: :=:;a·
         .. .: ··• fJe Sup�ridtb�urt of �e11J1sylvarii� J�;stated that?the decisibn wheth�r to

                    .... ·   I       :

                             Herlthere Was no fl�giaptibuse bf d,i�creti�n. '\\lh�re• a pt¢Jµdic.i�l �V�Ilt t({t�e .

        . ::�rt:::�.:::[tt:::·:071;:;:rlrf::1�:·rr;:1:;::: =:� .(
                                                                                                                                                                                                 1

    -. ·. • [N/r. ! l/12/2017 p.}�4], .WJiJn �be. i11.ciqertt ()b�llri�cl, this c�� otdbred a t�c�is. arid•• .: ·••· • ·. • .:
  • •             •• .       I           . ··.••   .   . . ••••        . ···• •:    .: :. .   ..:       .:.> .. ··• : >:-          i   :=        .. : •:   •i .           . ..•• •: . .: ..   •.i .   .:
    · consulted.Defendarit's.counsel .befo,e qetetfulnihg 110�.tojssµe ajliry instruction. This
          .... • ·····•••.!            <·•······· •.. ····· . .....................•.• ·•····•······ ...• ···········•:,•••. ·••·••·········· •. ·.·•· .... ·•·•··
        .• COurtUS1              ecl:s6.uhd.djsct�tfon•to• detertnirie·t�at·���Vel"r::[chil�:r���].�al)is:g()i�g•td'hav�·,•••
...••.• SC>�e·d�gt��dfthi1>·�C>rt.(?ft�ifig:.•...• 1fuic11.it.Wduldbe.itnpos�iblet9.tb�any·.i�6idjt•s�:ai·····
                             [I saw it l st�pped the proctfod�n$ .•. "¥1� t6of�jµl)' �r�� •.• ' ·: .][in ofdet Jha{th� .•
                             I

        . $0()11 t\S
          jutylg�hsJi c�ancejo ¢9ofif ip.fact:th¢}ii'�fbe�libt1�J� forahy ieaso11;'�: [N ..t
 · · ·: ·�n$2��.1�:NisVi · · · • ·•· •. ,... : , :: . . . ·                                                                  ··:·::··::: :: .. :·.:::
                                                                                                                              . :::>:::· ... ;: ;                           .. .........
                                                                                                                                                                          . . ;; ... :· .: .:·

        .; Defendt::;�:::=��:::!:�::;:::.::::•;::::l:R:.:;;;uch'•. •                           : .. ::::. ::: :::·:.: .. :                  ·::··::-::::: .: ... : .t.'

           contemplative: ¢pnduct· dpes not·                                       meet th¢.lugh:J:,urde11.of•ahµ�e··�f rr()l,orated iestfrnony of a victi111 ()f sexual ass<1tilt, ifbelieved by the fact.·.•.• •
        finder,.is.alone.sufficfont'.to                desp1t�·contrary.evidellce.that.1nay.be
                                         •. con0ict,•.                                         •• presented.by

     •.:the·•·• defense;
              ...
                             .. / >
                ·•• . . f i C:(}1nJ11onwealth
                                    .
                                                 ... 650 A:2c:l 452, • 455.>••.
                                              v/Davis;                      (PtL · Super. • 1994) .. • •
                                                                                      :················              ··
                                                                                                                                        < < .         :·:·:.::· ::·:·:::        .. ::: .::: .. :          :::   :     :                                  ·;:·       ·:·::·::::·::.: : ..

                                                                    Jr
                          I.

                         � tfils caBe                                                     M .•.. ••. • testified tltaltne defendant, Sylves\e( Le.vis, raped he(

      multiplttimes frQ)U 201 Z fo ;!0]3.                                                                            JN.r,Jlllll7p. ti j-2 i).]fls clear that \heJur)'
     . determined s1                                                  M .:": ·s �sti111J11y fo be citedibte and chJse ndtto believe the
           ·• . r
    ··testimony  !> of• llaniec;e
                        · · · • ·• • •· · · •· ffolrnes,                                        <
                                               . •· · • • Defendant's ex-gii'l:frienc:l. ·.The· mere fact that Defendant's
                                                                                                       testimony.
                                                                                                                            .:
                                                                                                                 < ·• · ··• • • .                               <                                         .                                          ,                                           >
· ' · counsellpfesentetl ·.Raniece Holmes a ·witness. Who contradfotedthe                                                  as
                                                                                                                  of.•. ·• • • • • •·. • •
            .. •·•. · :M      doesnot111ean thattheJury                            find                                        on                     coulaflot                                            tile I>efendanrguilt)thased
       thetestirilony.ors•···
                                             . lM l.. Davis•• 65oA.2d•at4ss .. Itis.wen.establisheffthat.So ••
                •the•                                                      de1entt1ned.
        tong •• fina... of ra¢t reasonao1Y C4u,a have                                        £,om• ilieevidenceruiduCCd •
                                                                  crin1e.were•.
                            of
      • that an• me• necessary• elenients Or                                      established••        that evidence shall.      the                                                                                                        then
 be   deemed sufficientfost1Pport the verdict. 9()ll11llOJ1w.ea1th "· 11o�kins,741 A,2d9to,
 914 (Pa. Super. 2000)> •..
                                            _: : .. :: :: ;···:::; .. : ::                                              .                       :.           .:::": :: .:<: :: .. :_ .:                       ·::: ·:;:·:.:::::: :: .. :.: ::: :: ::::: ::·                                                .:: :; \;·        ·::::, : .. :.:.

               .
                           It is thejury's duty, .as the. finder of fact, to judge the. bredibility Ofwitilesses• ancl •
                              .     .       .         .                .                   . .          ..    ..    .          .. .                  .     ..     .                 .. .     .                ..                    ..      .       .        ..                                    .        . .                            .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .
 to weigh· the evidence pres�nted
           .                            .        .            ..           .. .. . .      . ..   .            ..    . .. . ....
                                                                                                                               at trial. in order to reach .a vefdict.. Champney,. 832 A.2d
                                                                                                                                          . .        ..                      .. .     ..    .. ..            ..         .....                   .   .    .          .     .                  .   .. ..                             .

 at409. y�rding to the above mandardo, this Court eannoiconorode th4tthe ver4ict
                                                                                                   /
  reached•by.theJurywas· so against the .weigltt ofth.e\eyiqence
                                   ..   :                     .:
                                                              ..
                                                                         "as.to
                                                                       :· :· -:
                                                                                shock one's·se11se•of
                                                                                       ·:: :· ::·::: ..            :·::·.·:       ..   ····:· :: ·:: :: ·::··:: : ....                     : ...    .:                 .:·· :::.· .... : ...            : .. :::·        .. ::   ·:: .: ... :          :   ... ·:: ..   ··:::.:.       :

. justice.'\.Id•.at.408 .•• 'fher�fore,.this .Court conCtudeslhat.the.Jerdict.was suPport�d.by.the•••···
· weight                  .Jfthe•. evidence .• and .accordingly the. Defendant's. co�plaint. of error :must fail.· ••••.••• • •
.••S.1·���M!!t.�i!��!t�n:�::t:n!!Ltt:;r;::
                                                             �:Jt:.:1t:�i:.
                                                            1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      1."'
                                    ····································

                       . • nefendant.argues •that. the                                                                                                                                      i"$Ufficfem M1' matter.of law.to convict• ..
                                                                                                                                       CVi!\enco•was.
                             .1                           :: .                                       : :. .             : ..   ' ::       .:: :: ::·                  ··:.      ·:. ·:: .·.:· ...        .        ..     . .    ::·:·:: .. : :      .:: .: ·:           ... :.·: ,:     ::        .:. ::: .:: ::-:··· ">'.'"···        :::
                              1.                          •        .                                     •          .: •• .: .••••..•• .: •••             .: ..       ••        •••·•       ••. •·•••·•••               ••.••••.••..•••••. • .•• :                            •.••••..•••.•.•••.•                        ••••·         .••••

 him •of arape of child. because there was insufficienf eviµence tc> .proye that. he engaged in •• ·.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ili � .
 sexual intercourse with S                                                                                                     M

                       . ·• The.manda,4 thisCourtmust. apply·in.reviewlng sufficiencY·.f �VidJ� is •
                          .all
. . •whether, .viewing lhe. eyidence. admitted
                                                             triaj. the .light.
                                                                   in             most .favorable. tp the ....••.                                                            at
             •.winner,.                         .evidence to•enable
     verdict            there·. is. sufficient•          •.           .the. fact-finder. to ••find. •every.element
      •.••.••..•• ; .• j •••·•••· • ·•••• •••·•••·•••• ....•••..•••..••..•.••.• , •••••••.•..••••.•••••••.••. ·.•.•..••••••••••••.••••.•.••••.•.••••••••.••••...••.••• : •.•••••••.•••.. : ••••••.••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••
  ofthe crime beyond a reasonable doubt, Corrimbriwealth v. Bricker, 41 • A3 d • 872, 877 · •. • •..

  (Pa.
   • ·········:·····I·•••           >••••        ·••··• •·••·• •·• • <
             Super. 2012).• This Courtis.not:pen:nitted,
                                                 \       how�wer, 1<>.weigh.the          evidence and
                                                                       <···:•• ••••••·•••••··•••·•••••••••·••·•••••••••••••                                                            > ·•• • • • ·•·• • • •                                                                                                                                  •• .

  !It!tu��]!tt:d:hlhl!i !W:ii�Il �tt�Jf!J�J]IT[�J]!tW:t
  weight    of the . evidence.•
      :· .. .J ::··::: ·::-:: :: ···...
                                       1d.•:·:A.s.  such., the jury is free believe all,. part;. or 11011¢
                                               :: . : ·:·· ... :::·::::.: :::. ::: -: ·: ··. ··::··.: < ": .. :: ., . ·:·: ··:·:·· .·
                                                                                                                                                ofa
                                                                                                                                      .. ·. ::· .. :':
                                                                                                                                                                                                             to
      ::               .: .. ::l:::: :·              .:
                                                              ...
                                                                       : ..
                                                                              ::·:;: .:::::·:::. ::           :::>: '._:;:: :::-:··:· ::.::::::::· ·::: ::: :: : :<::. ·:: ::.:: ::: .. ·::::: .. :. ::_::: :: :·_:::
    witness's testimony• and ·to• believe all; part oruone of the evidence. •Id.•·
                   .

             The.Pennsylv�faCrimeS•code.statesthat a.person•commits.the•offense•of
                                                                                                                                                                                                     11

           •                                                                             rape
        a•child,ia•felony•ofthe:first•.ae�ree�whertth�·person.engages•insexual.1ntercoursewim
.•.. of                                                                                       •..
                    .                                .                                                    ·   ..    •                  ..   .               ..                ..                             ..                                         .   .                                        .        .• ··•··· .: .

. aComplainantwho . is foss.than.13.years ofage.0 •• 18 Pa •. C.S.A.1§312l(c)(2018);···Itis ••
                                                                                                                                                                    :·:.:: .:::·::::              .:         ·::·::· :::   ·::::::··: ::.::·:::: :: ::            .::   :                      ::: ;:: ;:· ;:·.:::.:: ::·:·:":
                                     . was• betoi •the. age or .13! \Vhen defendant .allegedlY raped••
                        .               :                .:              :       · .:          :                                                        .                                               :·                                                                  ..            :.
                        .               .                                                  .

 @contested thaJ SJ                                                                                           :M

 her,' as. she was io. years. old. whe11 she testified al tfbil. on Jatitlary 11, 2()17. [N{I'.: 1/11/17
         ..     .           :.         :.· .. :: ..              :                       :: ::: :..                                    . · .. : ··:                  ..       :···. :. :::.:::.·.:.: .::: .:: :.·.          ::·    ···::.:.:::·. :· :.      :·:     : ·:::        :: .. : .. : ..    :        : ·::····       ::.::::.:      :

                                               the Commonweal�.
 p. l 09J. Therefore the. only de1nent. that.                          was. requited. to .proye to .the ••••
               beyonda.reasollable.doubt.was                                                                                                                                              the.[)efendatit,.SylvestetLewis,
·Jury                                                                                                                                                                         that                                                                                                             .engaged ·in
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     :::;_.::::: :.::    :·:::::: :::·:::::_::::.                ·::.    ::: ::.·.;: ::'/ :::: :::·:·               ...          ::
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     . .•...•• [N.f •l/13/17 p.76-7}; •Howeve,,the
                             .              .   .             . . ..         ... ..... ...           .          .       .          .            .              .          .    ...

 sexualJntercourse \vitll his daughter, S.
  .: .. . • •.•• • i .                          •
                                                         ••••
                                                                •••
                                                                      ••••
                                                                               ••.
                                                                                     •••• ••• ••••

 Comfoonwealth was. nonetjufred to prQVide evidet1ce that precluded. every possibility of.
                                                                                                     .:
                                                                                                              ••••••
                                                                                                                             • .
                                                                                                                                       •• •• ••
                                                                                                                                                        • •.                  > . . ., .: ) •i / >                                                 . • •. . • .•. .• • • • . . . . < :

• •rtamely,'thattheDefend�tengaged
   ·•• ; ::•• >                             ). > with. S .....
                                 . in} sexualintetcourse   :.:M... ..•..••.}d.
                                                                           •.••• ••• at9f4.
                                                                                     . • •••·•· ·•·•·
                                 : •. . . • .•. •.•.. ••
           . As used in 18. Pa. c.s.A. • §312l(c), ''s�xu.al int¢rcQUrse" is,. !'in. addition to its • ·. •
                                                                                                                                            :                                                           :·< .•.•. )                                                                                  •:: <•
                        ••.•.•.••              per. .or.per �us
 .:ordinary. meaning, intercOurse •• OS                       ..     •. with.     .penetration .however                                                                                                                                   some
                                                                 §3101.(201 s}.· s:.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    1

                                  required." .ts• Pa.• C.S.f\.•
   slight;•.emissionis. not •.                                                       . . ·M.·
· ·that.Syin•�.Le�s.penetrated.her both vagina1wand.anaJ1y•on moredian.s O¢caslQn•···
· �1201.2 •.
  expert in this case;testified thats
                                                                     and20.i;.•[N,T.·1n1111·p.120J .•Moreo�,.Dr•• June Messam,.the•ohlY.
                                                                                                                                                                                      1   M.. . .. has ilverylittle hy111enaltissue'' whichis.··.
 •..abnormal
      .   : at her. age .. [N.T/ .. l/?11117 p.l          . M�sSarn.
                                             . . 13· 16]. Dr;.                • also •te�tified··.• that SC>me··········)
                                                               ···············••>·········                          type

  . .:
          I over
•··.<
              . . • •·1•
                        ••••••t.period
                      along                       wo\dd
                                       ofti1ne ).·•·•·.
                                   >>••••·•·•·•·•
                                                     .,
                                                              bel'eqQired fofS)
                                                       ••i•••··••·•·•·•·•••···•••··•••••••··.··•·····•··· ·>·••·•. ··to
                                                                                                                     ····•·····•·······•·•······••••····•···
                                                                                                                           have this ·• ..                                                                                                                              ·····

•.............. ···1·•·············································································
    abnorinalhynienaltissue•absericeattheage.of7.•[N.1\.•lllll17•p;l18],
   . •        . •••••I.                             ·• .. ·.• •·• ·•·. .: •
                                                                                                    .. ·ot.Messamalso••. ..
                                                                                                               ··•··•·                 .: • •                      . ·••• .:         .:   • ·••        • •••• ••• .. .: • ••••• • ..          •••• .: .•. ·•• • ·•••                    .: .:": .: .: • ..": •            .       .: • .: • •·•

  · ·• · • ·•••.• . :•that.
  testified.          • ••·• in>her c�re¢r
                                      ••• .>.•••·••.•••••
                                            as• a Child•<••••
                                                          A.bµse   T
                                                              •••• Pediatrician, • specializing               in ·child•
                                                                                   <······•·••·•·•••••••••••••··••••···           sexual
                                                                                                                        ·••···•·••·••••······•>                                                                > /.• · • •                                                                                                            • ••

    ..': •••···
 · assault      I
                examinatio11s, she has perfonned
                        >·········•
                                 . .   .
                                                 approximately 2,000examinatfons and< S'>
                                             t•••••·•••·••••·•·••••·••
                                                ,.,.,                                                                       •,••
                                                                                                                                                    :       · .:    .,    ·::··:      ··.·:::·    ::·.:: ·::..              :::       >•••••••••••••••••••••••··••••••
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       :: .:  ··. ·: ·· .. :·:: :::·.::                        ·:·       · . ·. ·::.
       :·    .   .:    ·: :           -::.:\:    ):·:        ::    .::   ...   ;;_ ...

  [N.'f. lll l/l7 p.l}6�22]; ..
         • As stated eafoer, if �e ju�, as the trler-0ffact,. believes the U!\corrobora!ed •
          : :·:··\.·:· :::::.::. /·-: ;::\-< .:·.:: \: ::(<: ;:,:· ::::_::,::· ::(\'.":::·::::::::::: :< :\·)::: . ··::: :::: : .: :: ::·· .. :·::·:::: .: .:,- :I:::::::. ::::
 · testimony <>fa vfotim. of sexµaj assault,. in tliis. ¢�S¢ S1......... t M. . . .. , th�n hef testimony
                      .sufficient: evidence.lo                       the.defendant.Davis, .650.A;2d.at.455.• Ihthfa.case

                                                                                                                                                                                     :�.T.
.. alone· is                                                 convi�t
                                                testified aefendartfrapirig
            . . . M,                         '.          to                 ·her on multiple occasions.     l/ll/17
                 : : :::. :;:.::::·;::: ::< /;: ::::/.\(::::.;::(<: ;:.::;::::::- :�.\)::.:I::: : ::::: .: .. :<-:::: ::. ·:: ::::·::: :::::::.::::: :::::::· :::::::· :--::: .: ;:::::::.:::
                 • It i� obvious that! the jury belteved f..... . ..•. i testitnon)'                                                                                  and
                                                                                                                                               found het to be • •... . .
··credibte.••• White thisalone.would.be.sufficient •evi<••·•·•••t/•••·•
   •••.••··········· i··••••••••/
···consistent                                                       < . ..... ••·••···•••·••·.[N.T
                                     lorigperiod ofvaginalpen.etra.tioti;                      ••••• .•<•••·•·•.•··•·•
                                                                                                       •lll2l17 >••··     .... >·••·•·?.:•••·.
                                                                                                                       p.ll3-ll8].      The          Jury···
                                                                                                                                               ···•••·,·.•

                              that.:this                     evidence.                              .that
   . detertnihed •.                      was• sufficient                to .conclude                       ·the. Defendant,. Sylvester'•
                                                  with
  Lewis, engaged sexuaHntercourse               in       s: . . . M,
      •.•. • •••
                 •.Therefore,. giyen lhe .evidenc;. testimony pr�sentea
                                                   and                           the
                                                                                     .ComJrtonwealth,
                                                                                                                                                                      by
                     cannot.          lthe]ury.Was.
 •this·.
         couB                say that               Urtal>le.• t1aso�abIY <:Jnclude.fuat. �e.defe�dant • • · ·              t(l
   engagedIin sexualintercourse
                            :· .'. :with                        .. Sl ····· ··· • •··•M/
                                                                                      ··· •• ;and        >•.   thus the evidence m.ust                   .                  . >•••.
                                                                                                                                                                       be.de¢m.ed
                                                                                               .••••••••••••.•••••••••••.•. •·••·•••••• ••••••••••·•••·•• •••.••••.•.••••.•••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••.
 .• suffic+and·d�fondant'sclim.of                                  ett0rmu,t·fffll
                                                                                                                           ·
                                                                                                                             .••
                                                                                                                                       •.•
   •J$s.ue.&,ofthe•l925(b)·Statement:.TheTrhdCourldid·notAbijse·itsDis¢retion.l>y•·•

                                                                                                                                                                         t • • • .• •. L. I >
   ..•••••••••• •• 1· .•.•.• ·.· ···•· •· •..••. ··• •...•.•..••••.•••.• ··•·•· •.•..•..•.•.•.••.•••• •·•••                                            •······· •••.•.•••....•..••.
 · ltnpc>sing. an Aggregate Sentence. of 60 to l20 Years Jncarcer�tion Because this · •• · · ·..••• • •
   S�ntonr Folfu\Vs tho �ict.tes o(41 Pa. C.S.A. § 9721(b).
          · · · . •. The J)e(endant argues that this •C.ourt.abused • its discretion. by •imposing· a sentence
                                  .   .. ,           ,   .. ,.    ,.,     .,              :. .      _·              ·:   .:·.: .. ·:: :   ·· .. ::   ·.. :::.:   ..   .. .   .   .     .     .   .

                     .•
   of 60.to l20 years fdrt�ee seJa�te.counts of Rap¢ .
                                                                                                             a·chitd becaµse.thesentence.
                                                                                                                                            of                                        is .:
                                                                                            ••this.Sentence;.aid.not.follo�rthe.dictates
   above.the .• guidelinbs•• ancl.the .•
   .: .... < ·:. :;:
                                                                        imposing         Court,.in •.
                              .::.:::: .::: .. :<: .. ::: :.:::. ·:: ::_::·· ::· .:<:.::·::      ::::::::::::: .. :::-:::: .. :::·:: "::·: ::: ..
                                                                                                                                                                                                   ••

  • of 42•        Pa. • c.s.A.• §·91f lo,f ·.This claiJ.is•rneritless.••
                                    .                                                           .. .:                                 .: ·                    . . .••.• .• • ••..•. > . .' . .•                                    . . •.                         .
                                    ·1tis•\Vell�established•that• ''fs]entencing                                                                                                 �atterV�sted
                             ··                                                                                                                                            isa                                 .i.lthe . so\llld discretion• •..

  of the. sentericingjudgt atld. a sente#�e .will. nQt be. cli$tutbed ! oh. appe�. absent an. abuse of
               cotnn1on�ealthv.• H�dy,                                .••               Itis.also••
  discretion.:                              •• 939A.2d974,.980.(Pa Super .• 2oo7).• •
  wen-estabHshed.that•
                        ... a. sentencing.court willnot.liaveabused Hs.diScretion unless.the•

  reoorddisoloses     that thejudgtrlenl exercised was maiilrest1y\lnfe�@I)able. or the result of
                prejudice,.bias.'.or·ill-Will.n.cotnmonWealth v.Dodge�••9s7
· ··partiality,                                                             A.2d.ll9.s ••• r200·· •· .
   :           ..              ..              ':    .       :.:                        :: .:.      :
                                         ':
                                     . . ..               .. . .
                                                                   .:       :::
                                                                            ...   .' .          .   .   .
  (Pa. Super. 2008).
       .                .    ....                                       .     ....
                                                                                                    · ..
            The Perinsyl�ania Crhnes Code; .18. §. 312 l(e)( l) st�tes ! that a pers<>n. C()Iivibted of .
                                                                      11
                                         detailed.                      shall!be.
    the offense.of Rape of .a.Child,•as.           in.subsection.(c),             sentenced.to.a teflll ..
 ··•ofimprisonment\Vhicfishall.befixed.by�e.courtat.not.�orelhan·40·years.u.§18.Pa
                                                                                                   .. .:

  :�::r: :::1uri�;�i::r:1:rt�:1�1ii'r::m:::·
 ··c.s.A.
                                            .             1

                                    §.972J(b).statesthat.''thecourt.shall.follo1the.genefa1.principfothat•the·sentence

   iinposed.1hou1d•call·for.confirtetnent.that is.consistentwith;theprotection.ofthe.public,·······

  the •sra1ity ofaie .offense. 8$. it • relates .fu. the                                                                                                         ,mpaci. On. the life. of the.viotim .ahd .ol)the• • •·
   cOlDillurtity
      .:   .
                      ... / 42 Pa. C.S;A.. § 972l(b). ..••··••••
                             :· ::.:.:·:·: ... ·::::                .:: . ::.: .. :·:: -:                   ·:: :··::::·:::·.:::::·:: :::. :::::::· ..   ::

      . · ..•..•.. The Defendant,. Sylvester. Lewis, was convicted .of three separate.coUilts. orRape
   of a Child' .where each count
                                 carries \Vith. �a}(imum:sentence
                                                                  .of4U years .•                                                                              it a                                                                      The Court •••••.
                      its.                                concurrent
   ts soundly Wi�in discretion to. �mpose consecutive or             .sentences .•                                                                                                                                                       42 .�a,• •.. •· • .•..
  • •c.s .A.•§ •972l{b) .• 'fhis Cburt dJnsidered. the Co�111or1\\lealth's request for cotisec\ltiVe • • • • · · · • • · • • •
     ••   t        /                <<.................................            <···••••<
  . sentences.for the three convictions,alongwith grc1vityof the: Defendant's offensesas.they ••
   .. .                 ..               .               .. . . .. . .                  .           .                                 ::: ·:.:::   :: .. ::·. · __   '_   ·:..     ,.,   :···:.   ,.   .   .   ,.   .    ..   .   . .    .       .       "   .

                                                                                                                                                         M ". [N.'f. 6/23/f7 P,17]. Taking aRofthis
       .                ..                    .. .                      .           .                                                  .

   pertain. 16 the }ife. of the .:victim;· s�
                    ,               ,.                                                      "
             . which •is sqµare)y Within the •dictates                        of b()tll 42 •Pa.• s.c .A .• §972 J(b) anci 18. §3121 (e)(l ).
             . .         :·· .:: .: .. :.::·:: ;:: '.· _-:: :: : ....... :·;: _{· :::·::>-:·:::::::::<::'.>ii:; .. :;:::::-: :·: ::<) << :: ... .\ :\): '.: .::::.:·.::::;:�::-:.:
             ·There· is nothing• 1nfuiifestly .urrreasonable" • aboll1: l111posing a. sentence explicitlY within•
                             ..      ..
                                                         11
                                                                . ..        .                                                                     ,          .                                .   ..   .   .      .         .                              .

             the range• of the· sentericing. guidelines. detail�d by the •statute of
                  .         :·;· .
                                                                                                                                                                                                       whfohlhe .Defendant was••
                                               ;: ; .. : :: :: ·: .. :·::: : :::< ): . ::·: :: :; . ::: ::·::: :::_:::::::·:::::::::::::::::::: :: :: :::;··:: : - ::·::-:. :: .. :::· .: : :::-::: ::::::
             charged.andfoun�·guHty .•• CollUllonwb�Ithv.•• I)()4ge,!• 77.i\.3d.1263, •• 1278.(Pa.Super.
                       ·.                 .:· ::: ;;- ;: .. '') :: ::.·:·.::: :::::·:. ·:· :.:. :: .: :::--:: ::: :: ::: ::.:::::::::.:::::::::· :>::::::·::·:: ;: :; ;: ;;::: ::::: .. :::.·:·· .                                          ::: .. ::::.
               2013).• Therefore,this Court properly imposed·�·seJtenceof 60itQ•l20years on three         .
                               ofa:Child,.and.accordingly.Def          cQmplaint.of
             . counts Rape   Jf                              endant's:              error on.appeal•·· ·•
                                                                                                : :: :::
                                                                                               . :.             � ; :
                                                                                                          . . .: .:         : . . . : . . . : '. : . : .. : .:
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          an
                                                                                               ::·.· .. · ..    .. ..                       . ..... ·······::
                                                                                                  . . ... .   .. ...                                     ..
                                                                                               :·":·:::::::. ;>.·.              :                :.:::::;:::..
                                                                                                                .                                         . ...
                                                                                                           ..
                                                                                                                :· :..·.:-:..         .
                                                                                                                                                 : ..   :: . ::::
                                                                                                     . CONCLUSION

                                                                                                                                                             .          .    ..                                       .                 .

                                                                                                                                                             • >
                                                                                                                                                             :...........
                                                                                                                                                                     : .·. ·.
                                                                                                                                                                  .. .. ..
                                                                                                                                                                         .......
                                                                                                                                                                            . .
                                                                                                                                                                                          <•••
                                                                                                                                                                                          .
                                                                                                                                                                                      : :::
                                                                                                                                                                                            .. .
                                                                                                                                                                                            ... .....
                                                                                                                                                                                             ..
                                                                                                                                                                                                      ..
                                                                                                                                                                                                      ::.
                                                                                                                                                                                                               rr····· ·· ·
                                                                                                                                                                                                              .. . .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     .

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ....
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ..·;:.

                                                                                                                                                              .. ... ..                      .. .... ....                   .      . ..
                                                                                                                                                                       ·:·: .:·:··
                                                                                                                                                                  .........               ·::·:···:               . . .. :.:
                                                                                                                                                                                                 .. .. .. ... ·:. .::           .. ...
                                                                                                                                                                   . .. . .
                                                                                                                                                                    .. · ..·TH.E··c                           ···.·.
                                                                                                                                                                                                  ·::_:.·R·:·:T
                                                                                                                                                                         :-:.:.: :.:.:: ··:.::.:.
                                                                                                                                                                    B··_:y
                                                                                                                                                                    .                .·
                                                                                                                                                                                             ··'
                                                                                                                                                                                               a·u            .:;:::

..
 . . .   .