Court Opinion

ID: 9959781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 16:10:34.896598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:53.254130
License: Public Domain

J-A05038-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  MICHAEL CLARK                                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 187 EDA 2023

    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 30, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-51-CR-0005713-2021

BEFORE:       DUBOW, J., KING, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LANE, J.:                                  FILED APRIL 12, 2024

       Michael Clark (“Clark”) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed

following his convictions for rape of a child1 and related offenses. We affirm.

       A detailed recitation of the underlying facts is not necessary for our

disposition. Clark was charged with committing sexual offenses against his

girlfriend’s eleven-year-old younger sister (“the victim.”) At the non-jury trial,

the victim testified about specific instances of Clark’s conduct. Clark did not

present any evidence. The trial court found Clark guilty of rape of a child,

statutory sexual assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child,

sexual assault, indecent assault of a person less than thirteen years of age,

____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3121(c).
J-A05038-24

indecent exposure, and corruption of minors.2        The trial court imposed an

aggregate sentence of fourteen to thirty-two years’ imprisonment, to be

followed by three years of probation.

       Clark filed a post-sentence motion, which was denied. Clark then filed

a timely notice of appeal, and in response to the trial court’s subsequent order,

he timely filed a Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal. The trial court then filed its

opinion.

       Clark raises the following issues for our review on appeal:

       I. Was the evidence sufficient to convict . . . Clark, where the
       [victim’s] testimony contravened human experience and the laws
       of nature?

       II. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion by denying . . .
       Clark’s post-sentence motion challenging the weight of the
       evidence, where the [victim’s] equivocal and contradictory
       testimony rendered the evidence so unreliable that the verdict was
       based on pure conjecture?

Clark’s Brief at 7.

       For ease of discussion, we review Clark’s arguments for both of his

claims together. First, Clark avers that the evidence was insufficient to sustain

his convictions. In support, he challenges the victim’s testimony — that while

her older sister (Clark’s girlfriend) went upstairs in their home, Clark exposed

his penis to her, and later, when her sister briefly left the house, Clark forced

____________________________________________

2 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3122.1(b), 3123(b), 3124.1, 3126(a)(7), 3127(a),
6301(a)(1)(ii).

                                           -2-
J-A05038-24

his penis into the victim’s mouth and touched her breasts and buttocks. Clark

contends that because the victim’s sister was upstairs “merely for moments,”

it “defies reality” that he had the time and opportunity to plan and commit a

sexual assault. Clark’s Brief at 14. In addition, Clark avers that the victim

did not tell investigators “anything about [him] putting his penis in her mouth,

but then revised that story after” talking with her mother, who has “admitted

to harboring animosity toward” him. Id. at 15. Clark concludes the victim’s

testimony “contradicted human experience and the laws of nature[, a]nd was

inconsistent on the most critical facts.” Id. Clark thus claims the trial court

should not have credited it.

         In his second issue, Clark avers that the trial court erred in “denying

[his] post-sentence motion challenging the weight of the evidence because

the [victim’s] equivocal and contradictory testimony rendered the evidence so

unreliable that the verdict was based on pure conjecture.” Id. In support,

Clark contends that the direct and circumstantial evidence proved only that

he was introduced to and exchanged texts with the victim and did not establish

any “untoward relationship.” Id. He refers to his first issue and avers again

that the victim’s testimony contravened human experience, was contradictory,

and was “so unreliable that the verdict was based on ‘pure conjecture.’” Id.

at 16.

         This Court has addressed the distinction between claims challenging the

weight of the evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence:

                                       -3-
J-A05038-24

     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 but claims that “notwithstanding
     all the facts, 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.”

     A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, however,
     asserts that there is insufficient evidence to support at least one
     material element of the crime for which [the defendant] has been
     convicted.

Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 258 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citations

omitted and paragraph break added). Further, this Court has “explained that

a sufficiency of the evidence review does not include an assessment of

credibility of testimony offered by the Commonwealth,” and instead, such an

argument goes to the weight of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Juray,

275 A.3d 1037, 1043 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation omitted). When an appellant

phrases an issue as a sufficiency claim, but his argument instead goes to the

weight of the evidence, the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence must

fail. Commonwealth v. Small, 741 A.2d 666, 672 (Pa. 1999).

     All of Clark’s arguments, that the victim’s testimony “contravened

human experience and the laws of nature,” was inconsistent, and was

influenced by her mother, go to the victim’s credibility. See Juray, 275 A.3d

at 1043. Thus, we conclude that Clark’s purported sufficiency claim in fact

                                     -4-
J-A05038-24

goes to the weight of the evidence, and we review both his first and second

claims as challenges to the weight of the evidence.3

       However, before we address the merits of Clark’s weight of the evidence

claims, we must determine whether he preserved them for our review.

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 607(A) provides:

       A claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence
       shall be raised with the trial judge in a motion for a new trial:

              (1) orally, on the record, at any time before sentencing;
____________________________________________

3 Moreover, even if Clark had presented a proper sufficiency claim, we would

conclude he has waived it for a deficient Rule 1925(b) statement. “If [an]
appellant wants to preserve a claim that the evidence was insufficient, then
the 1925(b) statement needs to specify the element or elements upon which
the evidence was insufficient.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252,
1957 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).

       Clark raised a sufficiency claim in his Rule 1925(b) statement as follows:

       . . . The evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to prove each
       charge beyond a reasonable doubt because the [victim’s]
       testimony contravened human experience and the laws of nature.
       See Commonwealth v. Santana, 333 A.2d 876 (Pa. 1975)
       (“Where the evidence offered to support the verdict is in
       contradiction to the physical facts, in contravention to human
       experience and the laws of nature, then the evidence is insufficient
       as a matter of law.”).

Clark’s Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, 2/23/23, at 1-2.

       Clark’s Rule 1925(b) statement states in boilerplate fashion that
evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Clark was convicted of
seven offenses: rape of a child, statutory sexual assault, involuntary deviate
sexual intercourse with a child, sexual assault, indecent assault of a person
less than thirteen years of age, indecent exposure, and corruption of minors.
However, his Rule 1925(b) statement failed to specify which offense, let alone
which element of which offense, he wishes to challenge. See Williams, 959
A.2d at 1957.

                                           -5-
J-A05038-24

            (2) by written motion at any time before sentencing; or

            (3) in a post sentence motion.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A)(1)-(3). “The purpose of this rule is to make it clear that

a challenge to the weight of the evidence must be raised with the trial judge

or it will be waived.”    Pa.R.Crim.P.607, Comment.       “Failure to properly

preserve the claim will result in waiver, even if the trial court addresses the

issue in its opinion.” Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478, 490 (Pa.

Super. 2014) (citations omitted).

      Clark did not preserve a weight of the evidence claim orally before or at

his sentencing hearing. His post sentence motion challenged only the length

of his sentence. Therefore, Clark did not preserve a weight of the evidence

claim, and we conclude it is waived. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A)(1)-(3); see

also Thompson, 93 A.3d at 490.

      Based on the foregoing, we conclude Clark is not entitled to relief and

we affirm the judgment of sentence.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                     -6-
J-A05038-24

Date:   4/12/2024

                    -7-