J-A17039-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
WILLIAM WESLEY SWEENEY
Appellant No. 2558 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 9, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0007866-2013
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 07, 2016
Appellant, William Wesley Sweeney, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, following
his bench trial convictions for five counts of criminal attempt (related sexual
offenses), five counts of criminal solicitation (related sexual offenses), and
one count each of unlawful contact with minor, and criminal use of
communication facility.1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case; so, we will not restate them.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a), 902(a), 6318(a)(1), and 7512(a), respectively.
_____________________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A17039-16
WAS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE
TIME OF TRIAL TO CONVICT [APPELLANT] OF CRIMINAL
ATTEMPT PHOTOGRAPHS/FILMS/DEPICTION ON
COMPUTER SEX ACT—CHILD, CRIMINAL SOLICITATION
IDSI PERSON LESS THAN SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE,
CRIMINAL SOLICITATION STATUTORY SEXUAL ASSAULT,
CRIMINAL SOLICITATION CORRUPTION OF MINORS,
CRIMINAL SOLICITATION INDECENT ASSAULT ON PERSON
LESS THAN SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE, CRIMINAL
SOLICITATION PHOTOGRAPHS/FILMS/DEPICTION ON
COMPUTER SEX ACT—CHILD, UNLAWFUL CONTACT WITH
MINOR, AND CRIMINAL USE OF COMMUNICATION
FACILITY?
WAS THE GUILTY VERDICT AS TO THE CHARGES OF
CRIMINAL ATTEMPT PHOTOGRAPHS/FILMS/DEPICTION ON
COMPUTER SEX ACT—CHILD, CRIMINAL SOLICITATION
[IDSI] PERSON LESS THAN SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE,
CRIMINAL SOLICITATION STATUTORY SEXUAL ASSAULT,
CRIMINAL SOLICITATION CORRUPTION OF MINORS,
CRIMINAL SOLICITATION INDECENT ASSAULT ON PERSON
LESS THAN SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE, CRIMINAL
SOLICITATION PHOTOGRAPHS/FILMS/DEPICTION ON
COMPUTER SEX ACT—CHILD, UNLAWFUL CONTACT WITH
MINOR, AND CRIMINAL USE OF COMMUNICATION
FACILITY AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?
WAS THE TRIAL COURT IN ERROR FOR DENYING
[APPELLANT’S] MOTION IN LIMINE AS TO THE REQUESTED
EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE OF A CRAIGSLIST
ADVERTISEMENT?
WAS THE TRIAL COURT IN ERROR IN ALLOWING
EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING PURSUANT
TO THE COMMONWEALTH’S 404(B) MOTION AS TO
PURPORTED STATEMENTS MADE WHEN THOSE
INDIVIDUALS SUPPOSEDLY MAKING SAID STATEMENTS
WERE NOT PRESENT IN COURT?
WAS THE TRIAL [COURT] IN ERROR IN GRANTING THE
COMMONWEALTH’S 404(B) MOTION?
(Appellant’s Brief at 5).
-2-
J-A17039-16
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable James P.
Bradley, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions
presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed September 30, 2015, at 2-14)
(finding: (1 and 2) Sgt. Smith conducts undercover investigations and
pursues Craigslist postings and responds to postings, which appear to be
seeking sex with underage children; Sgt. Smith posed as “Sammy,” 15-year-
old boy, in response to ad entitled “Sunday Funday in Delco─33
(Aston/Lima)”; ad stated: “Looking for some fun (mutual oral) at my place
today. I am looking for someone under 25, white, thin/athletic, D/D Free,
and likes to get sucked and suck too…”; Sgt. Smith took “screen shot” of ad
and initiated contact with Appellant on 10/20/13 through e-mail; Appellant
asked “Sammy” for pictures, but “Sammy” replied he was 15 and “new at
this” and did not want his mom to see communications; when Appellant
asked if “Sammy” was affiliated with law enforcement, “Sammy” replied he
had to finish homework and ended conversation that day; on 10/22/13, Sgt.
Smith e-mailed Appellant image of fellow officer from when officer was 15
years old; Appellant continued to communicate with “Sammy” in following
days via e-mail and text, sent pictures of himself, and suggested they meet;
Appellant told “Sammy” he likes to give oral and asked “Sammy” to send a
“cock pic”; Appellant provided “Sammy” with directions to meeting location;
-3-
J-A17039-16
when Appellant arrived at meeting location, Sgt. Smith immediately
recognized Appellant from his pictures; officers detained Appellant;
Appellant admitted he posted ad on Craigslist but claimed he was only
seeking “workout partner”; Appellant denied exchanging any e-mails
referencing sexual activity or posting the language accompanying ad seeking
“mutual oral”; search warrant on Appellant’s home revealed computer from
which Appellant communicated with “Sammy”; expert testified Craigslist
identification number assigned to ad was same number attached to e-mail
exchange; Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence Appellant
attempted to commit IDSI with 15-year-old boy; Appellant’s continued
communication with “Sammy” after posting ad shows Appellant took
“substantial step” toward completing IDSI by appearing at designated
location to meet “Sammy”; verdict was not against weight of evidence;2 (3)
____________________________________________
2
In its opinion at page 4, footnote 1, the trial court notes Appellant’s Rule
1925(b) statement sets forth a general claim of insufficiency for all charges,
but Appellant failed to identify which elements of which offenses had not
been satisfied. The trial court could have waived the issue for vagueness.
See Commonwealth v. Reeves, 907 A.2d 1 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal
denied, 591 Pa. 712, 919 A.2d 956 (2007) (stating Rule 1925(b) statement
that is not specific enough for trial court to identify and address issues
Appellant wishes to raise on appeal may result in waiver); Commonwealth
v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252, 1257-58 (Pa.Super. 2008) (stating to preserve
claim that evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction, appellant must
specify allegedly unproven element or elements in his Rule 1925(b)
statement, or face waiver of claim). Instead of waiving Appellant’s claim
entirely, the court concluded Appellant’s issue related to an alleged
insufficiency of the evidence to prove intent and a substantial step toward
the commission of IDSI. The court drew Appellant’s specific sufficiency claim
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-4-
J-A17039-16
Craigslist ad was properly authenticated through Sgt. Smith’s testimony that
ad produced at trial was same ad Sgt. Smith documented on 10/20/13; Sgt.
Smith had personal knowledge to testify ad is what Commonwealth claimed
it was; ad was also not admitted to prove truth of matter asserted but to
show Sgt. Smith’s subsequent course of conduct in initiating contact with
Appellant; (4 and 5) prior to trial, Commonwealth gave notice of its intent
to introduce evidence from two witnesses regarding events, which transpired
in separate instances between Appellant and each witness; following pretrial
hearing, pretrial court ruled testimony from designated witnesses was
admissible for limited purpose of proving Appellant’s intent in communicating
with “Sammy” was to engage in sex with underage boy; notwithstanding
pretrial evidentiary ruling, at trial, court heard witnesses’ testimony but
decided it was irrelevant and unreliable and disregarded it in toto; to extent
admission of evidence was improper, it constituted harmless error3). The
record supports the court’s decision, and we affirm on the basis of the trial
court opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
from his motion for judgment of acquittal. See Commonwealth v. Laboy,
594 Pa. 411, 936 A.2d 1058 (2007) (stating court can review issue despite
vague Rule 1925(b) statement, where court readily apprehends appellant’s
claim and thoroughly addresses it in opinion).
3
See Commonwealth v. Smith, 97 A.3d 782 (Pa.Super. 2014) (stating:
“[A] trial court, acting as the finder of fact, is presumed to know the law,
ignore prejudicial statements, and disregard inadmissible evidence”).
-5-
J-A17039-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/7/2016
-6-
Circulated 09/30/2016 03:39 PM
·~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASOF DELAWARECOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CP-23-CR- 7866-2013
vs.
WILLIAM W. SWEENEY
Ryan Grace, Esquire, on behalf of the Commonwealth
Scott D. Galloway, Esquire, on behalf of the Defendant
OPINION
Bradley, l. FILED:
After a bench trial the Defendant, William Sweeney was found guilty of criminal
attempt and solicitation of various sex offenses including, inter alia, involuntary deviate
sexual intercourse of a person less than sixteen years of age, statutory sexual assault and
indecent assault of a person less than sixteen years of age. On July qJ 2015 an aggregate
sentence of three to six years of incarceration to be followed by three years of probation was
imposed. Post-sentence motions were filed on July 20, 2015 and on July 28, 2015 the
motions were denied. On August 24, 2015 a timely Notice of Appeal was filed, necessitating
this Opinion.
In his "Rule 1925(b) Statement Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on
Appeal," Defendant challenges the weight and the sufficiency of the evidence. Additionally,
the Defendant claims that the trial Court erred by denying Defendant's pre-trial motion in
·······.
1
®
limine which sought to exclude from evidence the Craigslist ad that was the genesis of the
investigation that culminated in Defendant's conviction. Finally, it is alleged that the Court
erred when, during a hearing on the Commonwealth's Rule 404(b) motion, "evidence" of
"purported statements was allowed when the proponents were not present in Court," and
when it granted the 404(b) motion.
Sufficiency and Weight of the Evidence
In Commonwealth v. Smith, 853 A.2d 1020, 1028 (Pa. Super. 2004) the Court
considered the distinctions between claims that challenge the sufficiency and the weight of
the evidence:
A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law.
Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes
each material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by the
accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. 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. When reviewing a sufficiency claim the court is required to view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution
the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.
A motion for 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. Thus, the trial court is under no obligation to view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the verdict winner. An allegation that the verdict is
against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial
court. A new trial should not be granted because of a mere conflict in the
testimony or because the judge on the same facts would have arrived at a
different conclusion. A trial judge must do more than reassess the credibility of
the witnesses and allege that he would not have assented to the verdict if he
were a juror. Trial judges, in reviewing a claim that the verdict is against the
weight of the evidence do not sit as the thirteenth juror. Rather, the role of the
trial judge is to determine 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.
2
Id. citingCommonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751-52 (Pa. 2000).
In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, the test applied is "whether the evidence,
and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth as verdict-winner, are sufficient to establish all the elements of the offense
beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Davalos, 779 A.2d 1190, 1193 (Pa. Super.
2001) quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 720 A.2d 679, 682-683 (Pa. 1998). The
Commonwealth may rely on wholly circumstantial evidence to sustain its burden of proving
each element of a crime charged. Direct and circumstantial evidence are considered equally
when assessing the sufficiency of the evidence. Id. Where guilt is predicated upon
circumstantial evidence, "[t]he inferred fact must flow, beyond a reasonable doubt, from the
proven fact where the inferred fact is relied upon to establish the guilt of the accused or the
existence of one of [the] elements of the offense." Commonwealth v. Paschall, 482 A.2d
589, 591-92 (Pa. Super. 1984) quoting Commonwealth v. Meredith, 416 A.2d t#JI, 485 (Pa.
1980). See also Commonwealth v. Hargrave, 745 A2d 20, 22-23 (Pa. Super. 2000). When
assessing the sufficiency of the evidence the Court must evaluate the entire record and all of
the evidence must be considered in the aggregate. See Commonwealth v. Bricker, 882 A.2d
1008 (Pa. Super. 2005) citing Commonwealth v. Pappas, 845 A.2d 82'1 (Pa. Super. 2004);
Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910, 913-14 (Pa. Super. 2000). In this case it is within
the province of the Court, sitting as the trier of fact to determine the credibility of witnesses
and the weight of the evidence. See ~· Commonwealth v. Davidson, 860 A.2d 575, 580
(Pa. Super. 2004). "If the factfinder reasonably could have determined from the evidence
adduced that all of the necessary elements of the crime were established, then that evidence
3
Hopkino
]>>,
.,,~
..., c;,, .......
'.~!'
·~
~ .... tic G)r
fi'.'t