Court Opinion

ID: 9396136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 16:14:48.950243+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:14.305172
License: Public Domain

J-A08025-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    HOSEA HOLCOMB, IV                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 621 WDA 2022

          Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 8, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-63-CR-0000241-2021

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:                               FILED: May 19, 2023

        Hosea Holcomb, IV (“Holcomb”) appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed following his conviction for accidents involving death or personal

injury.1 We affirm.

        The trial court provided the following factual and procedural history of

this case:

               On January 11, 2021, James Hamilton [(“Mr. Hamilton”)]
        was driving on eastbound on 1-70 when he noticed a tractor-
        trailer swerving in between lanes on the highway, and crossing
        over the fog lines on . . . both sides of the highway. [Mr.] Hamilton
        is a trained EMS worker with Washington County and was off duty
        at the time, but he called 911 and reported what he saw to a
        dispatcher. He related that the driver of the tractor-trailer “could
        not maintain the lane” while he was driving. [Mr. Hamilton] began
____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3742(b)(3). Following a non-jury trial, the trial court
convicted Holcomb of several related offenses not at issue in this appeal,
including homicide by vehicle. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3732.
J-A08025-23

     to relay the license plate number of the tractor-trailer to the
     dispatcher[,] and read it as follows: 3724722. He then read the
     trailer’s identifying number, located on the rear door in the top
     right corner, as follows: W07683. After hanging up with 911[,]
     Mr. Hamilton continued to follow the tractor-trailer for several
     minutes.

            Mr. Hamilton stated that he had noticed a person wearing a
     reflective vest on the side of the road, standing on the driver side
     of a tractor-trailer, which was on the right shoulder of I-70. This
     was later determined to be the victim, [John Isenberg (“Mr.
     Isenberg”)], and the [tractor-]trailer was Mr. Isenberg’s . . .. Mr.
     Hamilton testified that on the night in question, the hazard lights
     on Mr. Isenberg’s [tractor-]trailer were operational and blinking.
     Mr. Hamilton then witnessed [Holcomb’s] tractor-trailer strike
     both Mr. Isenberg and his [tractor-]trailer at a speed of around 65
     [miles per hour]. Mr. Hamilton stated that he saw Mr. Isenberg
     fly into the air and fall on the pavement in front of his parked
     [tractor-]trailer. Mr. Hamilton testified that he then proceeded to
     park his car around 50 feet in front of Mr. Isenberg’s [tractor-
     ]trailer. Mr. Hamilton then went to Mr. Isenberg’s body to attempt
     to provide life-saving measures . . .. However, Mr. Hamilton
     stated that there was no saving Mr. Isenberg[,] and he witnessed
     Mr. Isenberg take his last breath.

           Mr. Hamilton reported that he stayed at the scene for quite
     some time after the accident occurred and did not manipulate Mr.
     Isenberg’s body in any way during this time. Mr. Hamilton stated
     that [Holcomb] never returned to the scene of the accident.

            Trooper [Jason A.] Altman testified that he is a member of
     the Pennsylvania State Police [(“PSP”)] Forensic Services Unit.
     Trooper Altman took photos of[, inter alia,] the damage to [Mr.
     Isenberg’s tractor-]trailer, Mr. Isenberg’s body, and the area
     surrounding the crime scene. Trooper Altman testified that he did
     not alter Mr. Isenberg’s body in any way while he was taking his
     photographs. Trooper Altman first took photos of Mr. Isenberg’s
     boot, which was located in the grass area next to the highway.
     Trooper Altman testified that the hood of Mr. Isenberg’s [tractor-
     ]trailer was open when he arrived on the scene.

           After photographing the scene of the accident, Trooper
     Altman proceeded to the location where [Holcomb] was being
     held. Trooper Altman noticed a large scuff on the passenger side
     of Holcomb’s [tractor-]trailer. The scuff was located right behind

                                    -2-
J-A08025-23

     the passenger door, and was very noticeable to Trooper Altman
     because it was bright white[,] and the rest of the [tractor-]trailer
     was covered in ash from the highway. The next thing that Trooper
     Altman noticed was a large crack in one wheel on the passenger
     side of the [tractor-]trailer. Upon further inspection, Trooper
     Altman observed two blue fibers stuck in the wheel cover. Next,
     Trooper Altman took photographs of a tissue-like substance that
     was stuck in the landing gear on the passenger side of the
     [tractor-]trailer. Lastly, he noticed that there was a blood stain
     on the ICC bar located at the rear of the [tractor-]trailer.

           Trooper [Todd Stephenson] is a member of the [PSP] Aerial
     Unit and arrived [at] the scene of the accident shortly after the
     other Troopers. He took aerial photos of the accident scene. Upon
     review of these photos, Trooper [Stephenson] noticed that there
     was a visible line from the front of [Mr. Isenberg’s] trailer and
     extending a few feet in front of the trailer in the direction of where
     Mr. Isenberg’s body was found. Trooper [Stephenson] testified
     that highway pavement is porous and clothing fibers can be
     ground into this porous material when enough force is applied. He
     then testified that Mr. Isenberg’s boot color was very similar to
     the color of the line that was seen in the pavement.

            After taking photos of the accident scenes, Trooper
     [Stephenson] then proceeded [to] where [Holcomb] was
     apprehended. He inspected the scene and took additional photos
     of the fibers that were lodged in the wheel[s] of [Holcomb’s
     tractor-] trailer. Trooper [Stephenson] testified that the material
     was not sent to a lab for analysis. However, he did testify that his
     training and experience [led] him to believe that the fibers found
     in the wheel[s] were consistent with jean fibers. [Mr. Isenberg
     was wearing blue jeans.]

           Upon review of the [Holcomb’s] tractor-trailer dashboard
     video, [Holcomb] is seen falling asleep behind the wheel. The
     footage captured on the trailer’s exterior camera shows that
     [Holcomb] was in fact swerving his trailer from side to side on the
     highway. . . . [T]he video definitively shows that Mr. Isenberg’s
     hazard lights were blinking at the time that [Holcomb] approached
     the parked vehicle. Lastly, [one] can hear [Holcomb] saying[,]
     “[O]h shit[,]” after a crunching sound is heard as he is passing Mr.
     Isenberg’s truck. [Stephenson] also testified that [Holcomb]
     never returned to the scene of the accident.

                                     -3-
J-A08025-23

           The last person to testify on the second day of the trial was
     Trooper [Zachary] Casini. Trooper Casini arrived on the scene
     after being dispatched to the scene with a report of a motor
     vehicle crash involving a pedestrian. Trooper Casini testified that
     he saw Mr. Isenberg’s body as soon as he arrived on scene.
     Trooper Casini had the interstate shut down and then called the
     coroner’s office to the scene. Trooper Casini testified that Mr.
     Hamilton’s vehicle was the only vehicle at the scene of the
     accident when he arrived. Trooper Casini confirmed that the
     victim at the scene was Mr. Isenberg by checking his
     [identification] card in his wallet.

           After interviewing Mr. Hamilton, Trooper Casini then
     proceeded to a second scene where Trooper [Jacob] Roberts
     reported that [Holcomb] had been detained. When Trooper Casini
     arrived [at] the second scene he found a tractor[-]trailer with a
     license plate number that matched the one provided to 911 from
     Mr. Hamilton. Trooper Roberts and Trooper Casini took [Holcomb]
     to their barracks to be interviewed. Trooper Casini testified that
     he read [Holcomb] his Miranda [v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
     r]ights and [Holcomb] indicated to both Trooper[s] Roberts and
     Casini that he understood these rights. [Holcomb] was then given
     a Custodial Written Statement document. [Holcomb] read this
     document in front of Troopers Casini and Roberts and then filled
     out the document. At the bottom of the first page of the Custodial
     Written Statement . . ., [Holcomb] wrote:

              I was driving on [I-]70E and I had knodding [sic] off
        then swirled [sic] to miss a parked semi-truck on the right
        shoulder.   As I swirled [sic] I hit the driver without
        knowing[.] I didn’t stop to check to make sure I didn’t hit
        anyone or anything. Because I thought I had cleared the
        truck. Now my mistake costed [sic] someone [sic] life.

     . . . Further, the coroner’s report indicated that Mr. Isenberg’s
     death was blunt force trauma of the head, trunk, and extremities.
     . . . [Holcomb] . . . submit[ted] to a blood screen[] on the night
     in question[,] and his blood test came back negative for alcohol
     and any other illicit substances/metabolites.

           On the third day of the trial[,] . . . Trooper Roberts testified
     that he was the [t]rooper who pulled [Holcomb over] on the day
     in question. Trooper Roberts is a certified Motor Carrier Inspector
     under the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program . . .. Once
     Trooper Roberts initiated the traffic stop, he identified [Holcomb]

                                     -4-
J-A08025-23

     and then read him his Miranda [w]arning. [Holcomb] stated to
     Trooper Roberts that he understood these rights. Trooper Roberts
     testified that [Holcomb] did not exhibit any signs of intoxication
     during their conversation. [Trooper] Roberts also stated that
     [Holcomb] was extremely cooperative with him while he was
     questioning him at the scene, and remained cooperative during
     his questioning back at the PSP barracks. Trooper Roberts
     testified that he noticed that there was damage to the passenger
     side wheel hub caps on the second and third axels. Trooper
     Roberts also observed what appeared to be clothing fibers of blue
     [] jeans stuck in the damaged wheels. A video recording that was
     taken from the dash cam of Trooper Robert’s vehicle was then
     played for the [c]ourt to observe.

           In the video[,] Trooper Roberts asked [Holcomb] if he
     remembered hitting someone[,] to which [Holcomb] replied, “I
     promise I never hit anybody.” Later in the video, [Holcomb]
     stated that he had not consumed any intoxicating substances
     recently. However, [Holcomb] did admit that he was driving at a
     speed of around 68 [miles per hour, though he would later testify
     he was going 65 miles per hour]. After this video was played, the
     recording taken at the PSP barracks was then played for the
     [c]ourt to review.

           In the barracks video, [Holcomb] admitted that he did not
     sleep well prior to the day of the accident and that he slept a total
     of 5 hours. He said that he fell asleep around 9:30 [p.m.] the
     night before, woke up at 2:30 [a.m.,] and was on the road by
     around 3:00 [a.m.] [Holcomb] admitted in the video that he
     might have been nodding off a little on the road and, because he
     noticed he was tired, [Holcomb] . . . stopped off in Washington
     County for a quick 45-minute power nap prior to the accident
     involving [Mr. Isenberg]. [Holcomb] also told Trooper Roberts
     that he did not eat anything the day of the accident.

                                   ****

           Lastly, [Holcomb] told Trooper Roberts in the video that he
     has never been cited by the Department of Transportation for any
     inspection violation of his work vehicle. Trooper Roberts then
     asked [Holcomb] how his wheels became damaged. [Holcomb]
     told Trooper Roberts that he was confused about that because he
     had completed a pre-trip inspection of his vehicle and the wheels
     were not damaged at the time of this inspection.

                                   ****

                                     -5-
J-A08025-23

            [Holcomb] took the witness stand [at trial] and testified
     that[,] on the day in question[,] he left from London, Ohio and
     was driving to a destination in Maryland. He said that while on
     route he . . . notice[d] [Mr. Isenberg’s] truck on the side of the
     road, and noted that the hazard lights were flashing. [Holcomb]
     testified that he believed he was veering towards [Mr. Isenberg’s]
     truck. [Holcomb] then testified that as he approached the
     vehicle[,] he attempted to take a sharp left, and thought that he
     had cleared the vehicle without hitting it. However, the video from
     his tractor trailer shows that his eyes were closed right before he
     hit the vehicle and that he did not move the wheel until after
     passing [Mr. Isenberg’s] tractor trailer.

            [Holcomb] was then questioned about the video footage
     taken from the cameras on his tractor trailer. [Holcomb] testified
     that the reason he had said[,] “Oh shit[,]” after he passed [Mr.
     Isenberg’s] tractor trailer was because it was a close call. He also
     testified that the reason he made a sign of the cross a minute after
     he said[,] “Oh shit[,]” was because he was making a prayer
     thanking God that he had not gotten in an accident with the
     parked trailer.

           On cross-examination, [Holcomb] stated that he did not
     know he was yawning while driving his tractor-trailer. The
     Commonwealth then played the interior video of [Holcomb’s]
     truck showing that [Holcomb] yawned a total of four separate
     times prior to striking Mr. Isenberg. It was also quite apparent to
     th[e c]ourt that [Holcomb] was veering in between both lanes of
     the highway and onto the shoulder of the highway. At one point
     during the trial, the video was paused at a time where it reflected
     that [Holcomb’s] tractor[-]trailer was in the center of both lanes
     of the highway. [Holcomb] then admitted that had another
     vehicle been driving past him at this time that he could have hit
     said vehicle.

           [Holcomb] testified on cross-examination that he did not see
     [Mr. Isenberg’s] tractor[-]trailer until the last second.      The
     Commonwealth paused the video multiple times trying to gauge
     when [Holcomb] saw [Mr. Isenberg’s] parked [tractor-]trailer.
     [Holcomb] had the Commonwealth pause the video from his
     [tractor-]trailer’s external facing camera when [Holcomb’s] truck
     appeared to be incredibly close to [Mr. Isenberg’s] truck.
     [Holcomb] also reiterated that he did not see [Mr. Isenberg] on
     the day in question. The [c]ourt must note that on the video
     playback, especially at the paused moment when [Holcomb]

                                    -6-
J-A08025-23

       testified that he saw [Mr. Isenberg’s] [tractor-]trailer and that he
       was driving toward it, [Mr. Isenberg’s] body is in fact visible in the
       video, and he was wearing a reflective vest at the time. Lastly,
       [Holcomb] did admit that he was driving at a rate of 6[5] MPH as
       he approached [Mr. Isenberg’s] trailer, and admitted that the
       designated speed limit on this highway was 55 MPH.

             [Following the trial, at the conclusion of which the trial court
       convicted Holcomb of, inter alia, the supra offenses, the court
       sentenced Holcomb to, among other things, an aggregate
       sentence of incarceration for three-and-a-half to seven years.
       Holcomb] filed [a] post-sentenc[e] motion[] on April 18, 2022.

Trial Court Opinion, 4/26/22, at 3-10 (footnotes and citations to the record

omitted; some paragraphs re-ordered for clarity).         The trial court denied

Holcomb’s post-sentence motion, and Holcomb timely appealed.              The trial

court did not order Holcomb to file a concise statement of errors complained

of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); however, the trial court, per Rule

1925(a), nevertheless directed this Court to its April 24, 2022 opinion

disposing of Holcomb’s post-sentence motion.2

       Holcomb raises the following issue for our review:

             Is the evidence of record insufficient as a matter of law to
       support [] Holcomb’s conviction for accident[s] involving death or
       personal injury (death results)[,] where the Commonwealth failed
       to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [] Holcomb knew[,] or
       reasonably should have known[,] that he had struck a pedestrian
       with the passenger side of his tractor-trailer combination, where
       the evidence presented at trial unequivocally demonstrates that
       he neither knew such accident had occurred nor that he should
       have known such accident had occurred?

____________________________________________

2 The trial court, in lieu of a Rule 1925(a) opinion, opted to specify the location
in the record where its reasoning appears. The court, however, mislabeled its
Rule 1925(a) specification as a “1925(b) order.” See Order, 5/25/22.

                                           -7-
J-A08025-23

Holcomb’s Brief at 8 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

      Holcomb [thus] challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his

accidents involving death or personal injury conviction.       Our standard of

review for sufficiency claims is as follows:

             The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of
      evidence is whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in
      the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient
      evidence to enable the factfinder to find every element of the
      crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying [the above] test,
      we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for
      that of the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and
      circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not
      preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a
      defendant’s guilt may be resolved by a fact-finder unless the
      evidence is so weak and inconclusive that[,] as a matter of law[,]
      no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined
      circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of
      proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by
      means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying
      the above test, the entire record must be evaluated[,] and all
      evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the trier
      of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the
      weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none
      of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Lowry, 55 A.3d 743, 751 (Pa. Super. 2012) (internal

citation omitted).

      Section 3742 of the Motor Vehicle Code (“MVC”) provides, in relevant

part, as follows:

              (a) General rule.--The driver of any vehicle involved in an
      accident resulting in injury or death of any person shall
      immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident or as
      close thereto as possible but shall then forthwith return to and in
      every event shall remain at the scene of the accident until he has
      fulfilled the requirements of section 3744 (relating to duty to give

                                      -8-
J-A08025-23

      information and render aid). Every stop shall be made without
      obstructing traffic more than is necessary.

            (b) Penalties.—

                                    ****

             (3)(i) If the victim dies, any person violating subsection (a)
      commits a felony of the second degree, and the sentencing court
      shall order the person to serve a minimum term of imprisonment
      of not less than three years and a mandatory minimum fine of
      $2,500, notwithstanding any other provision of law.

                                    ****

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3742. “Previous decisions from our Court interpreting [s]ection

3742 clearly establish that a conviction under that section requires the

Commonwealth to establish that the ‘driver knew or should have known’ that

he was involved in an accident involving personal injury or death.” Lowry,

55 A.3d at 751 (internal citations omitted).

      In his sole appellate issue, Holcomb challenges the sufficiency of the

evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that he knew or should have

known he was involved in an accident, because, he asserts, “[t]he evidence

at trial is absent any articulable fact that [he] knew or reasonably should have

known that he had been involved in an accident . . ..” Holcomb’s Brief at 18.

Holcomb asserts that the video from the interior-facing dashboard camera

inside of his vehicle does not show that his eyes were closed before the

accident and then opened only after he heard the sound of his tractor-trailer

striking Mr. Isenberg. See id. at 25. Holcomb further argues he testified

credibly that he did not know he had been involved in an accident, but instead

                                      -9-
J-A08025-23

believed he had “almost” been in an accident.       See id. at 26. He further

argues that his post-accident conduct suggests he did not know he had been

in an accident: he took no evasive action thereafter; he was cooperative with

police; he voluntarily gave statements; and in those statements, he said he

had not known he hit Mr. Isenberg.       See id. at 27.   Holcomb additionally

argues that the video does not establish he could hear the sound of his vehicle

striking Mr. Isenberg. See id. at 29.

      The trial court considered Holcomb’s challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence in this respect and concluded it merited no relief:

             [Holcomb] testified that on the morning in question, he
      swerved left in an attempt to avoid hitting the vehicle, did not feel
      anything, and did not hear anything as he passed [Mr. Isenberg’s]
      trailer. This [c]ourt finds this to be unconvincing. The video from
      [Holcomb’s] trailer shows that [Holcomb’s] eyes closed as he
      approached [Mr. Isenberg’s] trailer. [Holcomb] must have felt or
      heard something because his eyes did not open until the banging
      sound was heard as he was passing [Mr. Isenberg’s] trailer. There
      was also an audible sound on the video playback from [Holcomb’s]
      trailer. Additionally, [Holcomb] said[,] “Oh shit[,]” immediately
      after this incident, and looking in both side-view mirrors. This is
      indicative that [Holcomb] acknowledged that something had just
      occurred. Further, [Holcomb] said[,] [“O]h shit[,]” a second
      time[,] and made a sign of the cross on his body after the
      accident. Even after Trooper Roberts stopped him, [Holcomb]
      proffered to the [t]rooper that something must have occurred to
      cause his wheels to become damaged since they were unscathed
      in his pre-trip inspection of his trailer. These actions, when viewed
      in an aggregate[,] lead this [c]ourt to find that [Holcomb] either
      knew or should have known that an accident occurred with [Mr.
      Isenberg] and his trailer.

Trial Court Opinion, 4/26/22, at 12-13 (footnotes omitted).

                                     - 10 -
J-A08025-23

      Following our review, and viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict-winner, we conclude the

evidence was sufficient for the trial court to find beyond a reasonable doubt

that Holcomb knew or should have known he had struck Mr. Isenberg with his

tractor-trailer, thereby causing personal injury or death. Holcomb conceded

at trial that the sound of a “thump” was audible in the interior cab video. N.T.,

1/14/22, at 87. Additionally, Holcomb admitted that, after the “thump,” he

began to turn his head, and “[t]hat’s when I was looking in the mirror.” Id.

at 87. Holcomb admitted that he “knew something happened,” id. at 93, but

that “[he] didn’t know for sure whether [he] hit something or whether [he]

didn’t hit something.” Id. at 89. Shortly after the collision, he audibly uttered

“shit.” Id. at 91. Holcomb additionally uttered a second “shit” after driving a

“little bit f[a]rther down the road,” and then he made the sign of the cross.

Id. at 92. Holcomb conceded that, following the accident, he “remarked on it

either verbally or non-verbally three separate times . . ..” Id. Holcomb further

testified as follows:

      Q:    But here . . . you have three different times that you’ve
            remarked on it, and at no time did you stop your vehicle,
            right?

      A:    Correct.

                                    ****

      Q:    Even though you know that something happened. That’s
            why your attention is drawn to it, right? That’s why you
            look over, right?

      A:    Correct.

                                     - 11 -
J-A08025-23

Id. at 93. Moreover, the video reveals that Holcomb was traveling sixty-five

miles per hour prior to the time of impact; and, around the time of impact, his

speed was sixty-three miles per hour, and he then slowed down to sixty miles

per hour.    See N.T., 1/14/22, at 83-84 (Holcomb conceding he had been

traveling sixty-five miles per hour); see also N.T., 12/7/21, at 75-76

(testimony by Trooper Stephenson that Holcomb slowed down to sixty-three

and then sixty miles per hour around the time of the accident). In sum: after

Holcomb audibly struck Mr. Isenberg, he (Holcomb) slowed down, looked in

his mirror, uttered “shit,” once near contemporaneously, the other after

traveling some distance, and, further, then made the sign of the cross.3

       This evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth

as verdict-winner, circumstantially establishes that Holcomb knew or should

have known that he was involved in an accident involving personal injury or

death, but, nevertheless, continued driving.       See Lowry, 55 A.3d at 751

(stating that “[t]he Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every

element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly

circumstantial evidence”); see also id. 751-52, 752 n.6 (holding that, “While

Appellant’s theory that he knew nothing about the accident was one presented

____________________________________________

3  Trooper Roberts additionally testified that there were what appeared to be
“fresh scrapes” to the covers on the second and third wheels on the passenger
side of Holcomb’s cab with what appeared to be “small fibers of what looked
like blue jeans or clothing in the wheels themselves, in the rim.” N.T.,
1/14/22, at 15. Holcomb later volunteered that this damage was, to his
knowledge, new. See id. at 33.

                                          - 12 -
J-A08025-23

to the [fact-finder], and one that the [fact-finder] was entitled to accept, the

[fact-finder] rejected that theory and instead adopted the Commonwealth’s

version of the events that day,” and that credibility determinations are “not

subject to our appellate review”).

        Judgement of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date:    5/19/2023

                                     - 13 -