J-S07001-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
DAVID BROOKS
Appellant No. 972 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 22, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0003977-2014
BEFORE: BOWES, LAZARUS, AND MUSMANNO JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED APRIL 10, 2017
David Brooks appeals from the March 22, 2016 judgment of sentence
of life imprisonment, a consecutive term of twenty-five to fifty years
imprisonment, and a concurrent term of imprisonment of ten to twenty
years.1 The sentence was imposed following his conviction of rape by
forcible compulsion, corruption of minors, and unlawful contact or
communication with a minor. His sole challenge is that the jury verdict is
against the weight of the evidence. We affirm.
____________________________________________
1
Appellant’s life sentence is based on the mandatory sentence for a second
crime of sexual violence pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718; the term of twenty-
five to fifty years imprisonment was a mandatory imposed pursuant to 42
Pa.C.S. § 9714, for conviction of a third crime of violence.
J-S07001-17
We set forth our prior recitation of the facts underlying Appellant’s
convictions.2
Appellant was charged with rape, attempted rape, sexual
assault, attempted sexual assault, corruption of minors and
unlawful contact or communication with a minor based on events
that occurred the morning of June 5, 2014. The following facts
were adduced at the jury trial. The complainant, a sixteen-year-
old female, lived with her mother and stepfather, Appellant
herein. That morning, her mother had already left for work as
was customary and the complainant was getting ready to go to
school. She put on her bra and underwear and a pink robe and
went downstairs to the basement to get clothes out of the dryer
that she intended to wear that day. While she was in the
basement, Appellant grabbed her from behind, restrained her
arms, tackled her to the ground and got on top of her. She
started screaming and told him to get off her, but he covered
her mouth and ripped off her panties. She struggled, but she
was no match for the 210-pound Appellant. The complainant
begged him not to take her virginity, and threatened to commit
suicide if he did this to her. She reached over and grabbed a
speaker cable and tried to wrap it around Appellant’s neck, but
her efforts failed. According to the complainant, he tried to
penetrate her two times but “was only able to get the head of his
penis into the entrance of her vagina[,]” not full penetration.
N.T., 1/12-13/16, at 90. When she was on her back, Appellant
said, “I’ve been looking at you for a long time.” Id. at 93.
Appellant dragged her to another area of the basement
where he picked up Vaseline, and then, while attempting to
return to the area of the pool table, complainant lost her footing
and they fell to their knees. Appellant lost his grip, she elbowed
him in the chest, and she ran for the stairway. Appellant
grabbed her by the waist and tried to pull her back. She
reached for a steam cleaner, grabbed the handle and tried to hit
____________________________________________
2
We previously remanded this case to the trial court for the preparation of a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, but retained jurisdiction of the appeal. The trial
court complied with our order and the matter is ripe for our review.
-2-
J-S07001-17
him with it. Appellant released his grip and she ran up the stairs
and out of the house.
A neighbor, Michelle Green, heard pleas for help and
looked outside. She saw the complainant standing in the street
calling for help, wearing only a bra and a headscarf, with blood
running down her legs. Ms. Green assisted the young girl into
her house. The complainant told her that her stepfather tried to
rape her. Ms. Green’s spouse called 911, her adult daughter
provided sweat pants and a shirt for the complainant to wear,
and Ms. Green provided a phone so the complainant could call
her mother. Before police and her mother arrived, the
complainant told Ms. Green what had happened. She was
hysterical.
Investigation at the scene by Penbrook Police officers
revealed blood on the floor of the kitchen, a pink robe on the
steps, a steamer mop in two pieces, and a shirt, sanitary napkin
and panties on the floor near the pool table in the basement.
The victim was taken to the hospital and a rape kit was utilized
to obtain evidence of the sexual assault.
At 11:05 p.m. that night, Officer Jesse Foltz responded to
a 911 call regarding a disturbance at 3011 George Street. He
was aware that there was an arrest warrant for Appellant and
that Appellant was associated with that address. A man invited
the officer into the house and advised him that Appellant was in
the basement. The officer told Appellant to come upstairs, and,
as he did so, family members of the victim berated him for
assaulting and raping the victim. Appellant responded, “I know I
f__ed up, I’m sorry.” Id. at 131. As the officer was cuffing him,
Appellant asked that he not tighten the cuffs as he had tried to
cut his wrists.
During the trial, the jury heard from a DNA expert that the
vaginal sample from the victim contained sperm cells and that
Appellant could not be excluded as the major contributor to the
sample. Id. at 226. The odds of someone else in the general
population having that same profile was one in seven trillion,
more than the world’s population, and the highest and strongest
statistic that is reported from DNA testing. Id. at 232. In
addition, telephone calls from Appellant to the victim’s mother
were played for the jury. In one call, Appellant told her that he
-3-
J-S07001-17
would plead guilty to everything; in another, he said that the
drugs made him do it and that he was overcome by a demon.
Appellant waived his right to counsel and represented
himself at trial with the assistance of stand-by counsel. His own
testimony was the only evidence he offered on his own behalf.
He maintained that the complainant was lying, he did not rape
her, and she manufactured the story because she was biased
against him.
Commonwealth v. Brooks, 972 MDA 2016 (Pa.Super. February 10, 2017).
The jury found Appellant guilty of rape, corruption of minors, and
unlawful contact or communication with a minor. He was sentenced as
aforesaid on March 22, 2016. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion
on March 29, 2016 requesting that his sentence be vacated and a new trial
granted as the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The trial
court denied the motion on April 22, 2016, explaining that it could not
address the sufficiency and weight of the evidence arguments raised in the
statement as Appellant failed to order the trial transcripts.
Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on June 2, 2016.3 Counsel
filed an unopposed motion to file a notice of appeal out of time on
Appellant’s behalf on June 9, 2016, filed an appeal that same day, and the
court granted the motion on June 17, 2016. Appellant subsequently filed a
petition for transcripts on August 2, 2016, which was granted, the certified
____________________________________________
3
That appeal was dismissed as duplicative by this Court on August 3, 2016.
-4-
J-S07001-17
record was supplemented with those documents, and the trial court has
submitted its opinion on the issue.
Appellant’s sole issue on appeal is, “Did the trial court commit
reversible error when it allowed the verdict to stand as the finding of guilt
was against the greater weight of the evidence presented at trial?”
Appellant’s brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
In making a weight of the evidence determination, the trial court
exercises its discretion. As we acknowledged in Commonwealth v. Clay,
64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013), this discretion is not unfettered, but
requires the court to exercise “judgment, wisdom and skill” on the
“foundation of reason” to “reach a dispassionate conclusion within the
framework of the law.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d
745, 753 (Pa. 2000).
Our standard of review is distinct from that of the trial court. As our
High Court emphasized in Clay:
Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise
of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether
the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Because
the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see the
evidence presented, an appellate court will give the gravest
consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial
judge when reviewing a trial court's determination that the
verdict is against the weight of the evidence. One of the least
assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial is the
lower court's conviction that the verdict was or was not against
the weight of the evidence and that a new trial should be
granted in the interest of justice.
-5-
J-S07001-17
Clay, supra, at 1055 (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted)
(quoting Widmer, supra, at 753). “[O]nly in truly extraordinary
circumstances, i.e., when the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence as
to shock one’s sense of justice and the award of a new trial is imperative so
that right may be given another opportunity to prevail.” Clay, supra at
1148-1149 (quoting Armbruster v. Horowitz, 813 A.2d 698, 703 (Pa.
2002)).
The trial court reviewed the evidence. It determined, “[t]here was
strong evidence for the jury to conclude that the Appellant committed rape,
corruption of minors, and unlawful contact with a minor.” Trial Court
Opinion, 3/3/17 at 7. The court pointed to physical and DNA evidence that
corroborated the minor victim’s testimony that Appellant forcibly penetrated
her. The court characterized Appellant’s defense that the victim was lying
due to bias against him as weak and unsupported, especially in light of
Appellant’s statement, “I know I f__ed up, I am sorry.” N.T., 1/13/16, at
131. In short, after reviewing the record, the court concluded the verdict
did not shock its conscience.
The trial court applied the proper legal standard, provided reasons in
support of its view of the evidence, and reached the dispassionate conclusion
that the jury’s verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We find
no abuse of discretion.
-6-
J-S07001-17
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/10/2017
-7-