J-S70039-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
RONALD B. LEESE, JR. :
:
Appellant : No. 685 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 25, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0004076-2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and OTT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED APRIL 04, 2018
Ronald B. Leese, Jr., appeals, nunc pro tunc, from the judgment of
sentence imposed on June 25, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of York
County. A jury found Leese guilty of statutory sexual assault, involuntary
deviate sexual intercourse (“IDSI”), aggravated indecent assault, incest,
corruption of minors, indecent assault, and selling or furnishing liquor or malt
or brewed beverages to minors.1 The trial court sentenced Leese to an
aggregate term of 10½ to 21 years’ incarceration. In this appeal, Leese
challenges the weight of the evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his aggravated indecent assault conviction, and the sentence
imposed for his IDSI conviction. Upon review, we affirm.
The trial court set forth the factual history as follows:
____________________________________________
118 Pa.C.S. §§ 3122.1(b), 3123(a)(7), 3125(a)(8), 4302(b), 6301(a)(1)(ii),
3126(a)(8), and 6310.1(a), respectively.
J-S70039-17
This case arises out of a sexual assault that happened
between April 26, 2014 and April 27, 2014 at the modular
home of Ella Fake at 10304 Kohler Road, Felton, York
County, Pennsylvania. At the time of the incident, Ella Fake
shared the modular home with her brother, Alan Kilgore,
and [Leese]. On the evening of April 26, 2014, the fourteen-
year-old victim, M.H., had an argument with her mother and
texted her uncle, [Leese], telling him that she wanted to
leave the house and asked him to pick her up. [Leese] woke
up his stepfather, M.H.’s step-grandfather, Alan Kilgore, and
told him that M.H. wanted to stay at their place for the night.
Mr. Kilgore and [Leese] drove to M.H.’s home, picked her
up, and took her to their home at 10304 Kohler Road.
Shortly after arriving, Mr. Kilgore went back to bed and
[Leese] and M.H. remained in the living room area alone.
At the time, [Leese] had been living in the modular home
and was using the living room as his bedroom and was using
the couch as a bed. While they were in the living room,
M.H. asked [Leese] if he had any marijuana and [Leese] told
her he did not. [Leese] did inform M.H. that he had Vicodin
pills and took two pills out of a silver pill holder on his
keychain. M.H. took the pills and drank them down with tea
or water. Later that evening, [Leese] gave M.H. a fruity
drink, like Boone’s Farm, and M.H. tried the drink. M.H.
stated that she found the drink was strong, knew that the
drink had alcohol in it, and [Leese] told her that he had put
tequila in the drink. [Leese] later gave M.H. a little bottle
of wine and M.H. drank the bottle.
As the night progressed somewhere between 1:30 a.m.
and 2:00 a.m. on April 27, 2014, M.H. started to feel
different and knew the pills were affecting her. M.H. was
sitting on the couch, leaning against one of the arm rests,
and [Leese] came over to her and removed her blue
sweatpants and underwear she was wearing. After
removing her pants and underwear, [Leese] began touching
M.H.’s sides and back with his hands and proceeded to kiss
her neck and chest area. [Leese] then took his penis and
placed it into M.H.’s vagina and anus. [Leese] then told
M.H. that he wanted to engage in oral sex with her and put
his penis in M.H.’s mouth. Afterwards, [Leese] performed
oral sex on M.H. by putting his mouth and tongue inside and
-2-
J-S70039-17
outside of M.H.’s vagina.[2] [Leese] then took his hands and
touched the inside and outside of M.H.’s vagina. M.H.
estimates that all of this took place over the course of three
or four hours. M.H. testified that several times throughout
the assault, [Leese] ejaculated semen; once inside of her
anus and another time she observed that semen landed on
her blue sweatpants that were lying on the floor in between
the television and the couch. During the assault, [Leese]
whispered that M.H. was “tight” and that “this must stay our
little secret.” At the time this assault took place, M.H. was
fourteen years old; [Leese] was thirty-three years old; M.H.
was the whole blood niece of [Leese]; and [Leese] and M.H.
were never married. Mr. Kilgore took M.H. home around
7:00 or 8:00 p.m. on April 27, 2014.
On Wednesday, April 30, 2014, M.H. went to a
prescheduled counseling session with her counselor, and
informed her during this session that [Leese] had sexually
assaulted her. After receiving this information, the
counselor informed M.H.’s mother, Rhonda Brecht, and the
three went to the hospital so M.H. could receive a safety
exam. SAFE Nurse Amy Alquist performed the exam on
M.H. and observed redness and bleeding inside M.H.’s
vagina near the cervical opening and observed venous
pooling and two lacerations to M.H.’s anus and rectum.
Nurse Alquist determined that the injuries were consistent
with M.H.’s story.
Sometime between 9:30-9:45 p.m. on April 30, 2014,
Trooper Jonathan Colarusso received a call from the hospital
to meet with M.H. and Ms. Brecht about the sexual assault.
Trooper Colarusso interviewed M.H. and Ms. Brecht and
later obtained consent from Ms. Brecht to search her home
for evidence. During the search, Trooper Colarusso
discovered the blue sweatpants that M.H. stated she wore
on the night of the assault. Trooper Colarusso observed a
white dried substance inside the waistband area and also
____________________________________________
2 The court’s statement that Leese put his tongue and mouth “inside” M.H.’s
vagina somewhat mischaracterizes part of M.H.’s testimony. M.H. did testify
Leese performed oral sex on her. However, she specifically stated, “His mouth
and tongue [were] touching my vagina. Well, the outside of it.” N.T., 3/9/15,
at 103.
-3-
J-S70039-17
inside the crotch area of the sweatpants. Trooper Colarusso
logged the sweatpants into evidence and the sweatpants
were sent to the National Medical Services Laboratories for
DNA analysis. Forensic Biologist Jennifer K. Sears
performed tests on the sweatpants and determined that
seminal fluids and sperm cells were present on the
sweatpants and when comparing the results with [Leese’s]
DNA, it was at least 7 trillion times more likely to have
originated from [Leese] than any other random individual.
Trooper Colarusso also obtained M.H.’s iPod from her
stepmother ... after M.H. informed him that she had had
conversations in the past with [Leese], before the sexual
assault, and many of them were “sexually suggestive in
nature.” One such text messaging conversation on March
5, 2014, involved M.H. asking [Leese], known as “Uncle
Bug” in the messages, for some blue raspberry wave and
[Leese] responding: “I can try babe but I don’t drink that
shit so know [now] I have to stop twice ... you will owe me
that sweet little ass.” On that same day, in another text
message, [Leese] told M.H. “you are sexy little bitch!
Lmao.” M.H. testified in court that after the assault, [Leese]
called her the day after and the next few days where he told
her that he felt guilty about what happened. Based on all
the information he received, Trooper Colarusso obtained an
arrest warrant and [Leese] was arrested on May 15, 2014
at his workplace.
Trial Court Opinion, 7/12/2017, at 3-8 (internal citations omitted).
The court recited the procedural history of this case as follows:
On March 12, 2015, [Leese] was convicted of Statutory
Sexual Assault, [IDSI], Aggravated Indecent Assault,
Incest, Corruption of Minors, Indecent Assault, and
Furnishing Alcohol to Minors, and acquitted on the charge of
Unlawful Contact or Communication with a Minor, after a
jury trial at which [Leese] was represented by Farley G.
Holt, Esq. On June 25, 2015, [Leese] was sentenced to
serve 5-10 years’ incarceration on the statutory sexual
assault count, 10-20 years’ incarceration on the [IDSI]
count, 5-10 years’ incarceration on the aggravated indecent
assault count, 4-8 years’ incarceration on the incest count,
2-4 years’ incarceration on the corruption of minors count,
-4-
J-S70039-17
1-2 years’ incarceration on the indecent assault count, and
6-12 months[’] incarceration on the furnishing alcohol to
minors count. All counts were set to run concurrently to one
another, except for the furnishing alcohol to minors count
which was set to run consecutively, giving [Leese] a total
aggregate sentence of 10½ to 21 years’ incarceration.
On July 6, 2015, [Leese], through his attorney, Farley G.
Holt, Esq., filed three post-sentence motions: a motion for
judgment of acquittal, a motion for a new trial, and a motion
for reconsideration of sentence. On August 20, 2015, [the
trial court] issued an order denying all three post-sentence
motions.
On September 12, 2016, [Leese] filed a pro se petition
pursuant to the PCRA. .... On April 4, 2017, [the PCRA
court] issued an order granting reinstatement of [Leese’s]
Appeal Rights nunc pro tunc and ordered that an appeal be
filed within fifteen days. On April 18, 2017, [Leese’s]
counsel filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court. On
May 25, 2017, [Leese’s] counsel filed a motion for extension
of time to file the [Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)] statement of errors
[complained of on appeal]. On May 30, 2017, [the trial
court] granted [Leese’s] motion for extension of time. On
June 15, 2017, [Leese’s] counsel filed a statement of
[errors] complained of on appeal.
Id. at 1-3 (footnotes omitted).
Based on our disposition, we will address Leese’s first two issues
together. In his first issue, Leese argues the trial court erred when it denied
his claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. See Leese’s
Brief at 29. Leese attacks the credibility of M.H.’s testimony based on her (1)
delay in reporting the incident; (2) history of suicide attempts and schemes
to “get [Leese] in trouble”; (4) statements that she was not sure if the assault
was real and her “inappropriate, laughing manner” with the SAFE nurse; (3)
failure to describe Leese’s penis piercing; (5) normal behavior and friendly
-5-
J-S70039-17
text message exchanges with Leese in the days after the incident; (6) threat
of retaliation against Leese after learning Leese had told M.H.’s mother about
M.H.’s theft of Xanax; and (7) absence of toxicology evidence to support
M.H.’s testimony that Leese drugged her prior to the assault. See id. at 30-
32.
In his second issue, Leese argues the evidence was insufficient to
support his conviction of aggravated indecent assault. See id. at 32. Leese
contends the Commonwealth failed to adduce evidence that Leese used his
finger to penetrate M.H.’s vagina or anus. Leese asserts M.H. testified that
Leese touched her with his hands, but she did not clearly describe digital
penetration. See id. at 34.
Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the relevant law,3
we conclude the trial court thoroughly addressed and properly disposed of
Leese’s first two claims on appeal in its opinion. See Trial Court Opinion,
7/12/2017, at 9-18 (finding (1) the jury’s verdict was not against the weight
of the evidence because (a) M.H. recalled sufficient details of the sexual
assault, which were corroborated by the medical testimony of SAFE Nurse
____________________________________________
3 See Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 753 (Pa. 2000) (setting
forth our standard of review regarding a weight claim); Commonwealth v.
Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053, 1067 (Pa. 2013) (same), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 1792
(U.S. 2014); see also Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 39-40 (Pa.
Super. 2014) (setting forth our standard of review regarding a sufficiency
argument), appeal denied, 112 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2015).
-6-
J-S70039-17
Amy Alquist; (b) M.H. identified the specific pair of sweatpants she was
wearing, and Trooper Colarusso recovered those sweatpants, which had
semen stains on them;4 (c) none of Ella Fake’s or Alan Kilgore’s testimony
helped weigh the evidence in favor of Leese; (d) the jury was free to decide
whether all, part, or none of Leese’s testimony was credible, and it is clear the
jury did not find Leese credible in light of the testimony given by M.H.; and
(e) M.H.’s testimony was not so incredible or contrary to the evidence that
Leese’s guilty verdict shocked the conscience of the court; and (2) the
evidence was sufficient to support Leese’s conviction of aggravated indecent
assault5 because (a) M.H. testified that Leese used several parts of his body
____________________________________________
4 As the trial court recounted in its factual history of the case, forensic tests
revealed the semen on the sweatpants was 7 trillion times more likely to have
originated from Leese than any other random individual. See id. at 7.
5 In its brief, the Commonwealth argues Leese waived his sufficiency claim by
failing to specify in his Rule 1925(b) concise statement which element(s) of
the offense he was challenging. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 15-18;
Commonwealth v.Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281 (Pa. Super. 2009), appeal
denied, 3 A.3d 670 (Pa. 2010) (stating that when challenging the sufficiency
of the evidence, an appellant’s concise statement must specify the element or
elements upon which the evidence was insufficient in order to preserve the
issue for appeal). In his concise statement, Leese stated: “[Leese] specifically
alleges that the elements of Aggravated Indecent Assault were not proven
beyond a reasonable doubt[.]” Leese’s Statement of Matters Complained of
on Appeal Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), 6/15/17, at 2 (unpaginated).
Nevertheless, only one of the elements of the aggravated indecent assault
charge was in dispute at trial, i.e., “penetration, however slight, of the genitals
or anus of a complainant.” See 18 Pa.C.S. § 3125(a)(8). That is the only
element Leese challenges in his brief, and the trial court addressed it in its
opinion. We conclude Leese’s identification of the offense of aggravated
-7-
J-S70039-17
to penetrate her vagina and anus; (b) there is no evidence that Leese’s
conduct was for good faith medical, hygienic or law enforcement reasons; (c)
Leese was at least four years older than M.H. at the time of the incident; (d)
Leese and M.H. were never married to each other; (e) M.H.’s testimony
presented an account of what Leese did to her, how long the incident lasted,
and where it occurred; and (f) SAFE Nurse Alquist’s medical testimony
regarding M.H.’s injuries corroborated M.H.’s account of the assault).
Accordingly, we rest upon the court’s well-reasoned basis with respect to those
issues.
In his third issue, Leese argues the trial court failed to provide adequate
reasons on the record for his IDSI sentence of 10 to 20 years’ incarceration,
which exceeded the top of the aggravated range of the Sentencing Guidelines.
See Leese’s Brief at 35-36. Leese describes the sentence as “illegal” but
concedes it does not exceed the lawful statutory maximum sentence. See id.
Leese’s claim does not implicate the legality of his sentence, but rather the
discretionary aspects of the court’s sentencing decision. See
Commonwealth v. Sheller, 961 A.2d 187, 189 (Pa. Super. 2008), appeal
denied, 980 A.2d 607 (Pa. 2009) (stating claim that trial court imposed
sentence beyond the aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines without
____________________________________________
indecent assault in his concise statement was sufficiently specific to permit
our review of this issue.
-8-
J-S70039-17
stating adequate reasons on the record represented a challenge to the
discretionary aspects of sentencing).
A challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence is not absolute,
but rather, “must be considered a petition for permission to appeal.”
Commonwealth v. Best, 120 A.3d 329, 348 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation and
internal citation omitted). To reach the merits of such a claim, this Court must
determine:
(1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether [the
defendant] preserved [the] issue; (3) whether [the
defendant’s] brief includes a concise statement of the
reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to
the discretionary aspects of sentence; and (4) whether the
concise statement raises a substantial question that the
sentence is appropriate under the sentencing code.
Commonwealth v. Edwards, 71 A.3d 323, 329-30 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(citation omitted), appeal denied, 81 A.3d 75 (Pa. 2013). “[C]laims relating
to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are waived if an appellant does not
include a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement in his brief and the opposing party
objects to the statement’s absence.” Commonwealth v. Brougher, 978
A.2d 373, 375 (Pa. Super. 2009).
Here, Leese failed to comply with the applicable procedural
requirements for his discretionary sentencing challenge. Leese’s brief does
not contain a Rule 2119(f) statement, and the Commonwealth has objected
this omission. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 23-24. Moreover, Leese failed
to raise any sentencing issues in his court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement.
-9-
J-S70039-17
See Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998) (stating: “[I]n
order to preserve their claims for appellate review, [a]ppellants must comply
whenever the trial court orders them to file a Statement of [Errors]
Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Rule 1925. Any issues not raised in a
1925(b) statement will be deemed waived”). Therefore, Leese waived his
claim regarding the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.6
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/4/2018
____________________________________________
6The parties shall attach a redacted copy of the trial court opinion in the
event of further proceedings in this matter.
- 10 -
Circulated 03/16/2018 10:42 AM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS YORK COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : Docket No. CP-67-CR-4076-2014
v. : 685 MDA 2017
RONALD B. LEESE, JR
Defendant
OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925(a) OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE
This matter is again before the Court as a result of a PCRA proceeding, which
resulted in an order reinstating Defendant's direct appeal rights, nunc pro tune.
Procedural History:
On March 12, 2015, the Defendant, Ronald B. Leese, Jr., was convicted of
Statutory Sexual Assault', Indecent Sexual Intercourse.' Aggravated Indecent
Assault', Incest", Corruption of Minors 5, Indecent Assault", and Furnishing
('")_
118 Pa.C.S.A. § 3122.l{b) r·-
r:,,� b
2
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3123(a)(7) ::::.; c)
3 ;..-i::.z
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3125(a)(8)
4
18 Pa.CS.A. § 4302(b)(2)
·¢.} ( •')
... ,-� .
'(/)
.
5
18
.
Pa.C.S.A. § 6301 <·-·· r;
c.Si r�
-..
6
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(8)
Jfi'f=
•'4
�.,;
o·
.{J.1
Alcohol to Minors 7, and acquitted on the charge of Unlawful Contact or
Communication with a Minor, after a jury trial at which the Defendant was
represented by Farley G. Holt, Esq. On June 25, 2015, Defendant was sentenced
to serve 5-10 years' incarceration on the statutory sexual assault count, 10-20
years' incarceration on the indecent sexual intercourse count, 5-10 years'
incarceration on the aggravated indecent assault count, 4-8 years' incarceration on
the incest count; 2-4 years' incarceration on the corruption of minors count, 1-2
years' incarceration on the indecent assault count, and 6-12 months incarceration
on the furnishing alcohol to minors count. All counts were set to run concurrently
to one another, except for the furnishing alcohol to minors count which was set to
run consecutively, giving Defendant a total aggregate sentence of 10 Yi to 21
years' incarceration.
On July 6, 2015J the. Defendant, through his attorney, Farley G. Holt, Esq.,
filed three post-sentence motions: a motion for judgment of acquittal, a motion for
a new trial, and a motion for reconsideration of sentence. On August 20, 2015, we
issued an order denying all three post-sentence motions.
On September 12, 2016, Defendant filed a pro se petition pursuant to the
PCRA. On October 20, 2016, the Honorable Richard K. Renn issued an order
7
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6310.l(a)
2
appointing Jonelle Eshbach, Esq. as counsel for the Defendant and scheduled a
hearing date on April 3, 2017. On April 4, 2017, we issued an order granting
reinstatement of Defendant's Appeal Rights nunc pro tune and ordered that an
appeal be filed within fifteen days. On April 18, 2017, Defendant' s counsel filed a
Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court. On May 25, 2017, Defendant' s counsel
filed a motion for extension of time to file the statement of errors. On May 30,
2q11, we granted Defendant's motion for extension of time. On June 15, 2017,
Defendant's counsel filed a statement of matters complained of on appeal. The
following is our opinion addressing the merits of the Defendant's arguments on
appeal.
Factual Background:
This case arises out of a sexual assault that happened between April 26, 2014
and April 27, 2014 at the modular home of Ella Fake at 10304 Kohler Road,
Felton, York County, Pennsylvania. (Notes ofTestimony 03/10/2015, p. 341 ). At
the time of the incident, Ella Fake shared the modular home with her brother, Alan
Kilgore, and the Defendant. (N.T. 03/09/2015 p. 94). On the evening of April 26,
2014, the fourteen-year-old victim, M.H., had an argument with her mother and
texted her uncle) the Defendant, telling him that she wanted to leave the house and
3
asked him to pick her up. (Id. at 93.) Defendant woke up his stepfather, M.H. 's
step-grandfather, Alan Kilgore, and told him that M.H. wanted to stay at their
place for the night. (Id.; N.T. 03/11/2015 pp. 416-421). Mr. Kilgore and the
Defendant drove to M.H. 's home, picked her up, and took her to their home at
10304 Kohler Road. (N.T. 03/11/2015 pp. 421-22).
· Shortly after arriving, Mr. Kilgore went back to bed and Defendant and M.H.
remained in the living room area alone. (N.T. 03/09/2015 p. 94). At the time,
Defendant had been living in the modular home and was using the living room as
his bedroom and was using the couch as a bed. (N.T. 03/11/2015 pp. 411-12.)
While they were in the living room, M.H. asked Defendant if he had any
marijuana and Defendant told her he did not. (Id. at 95). Defendant did inform
M.H. that he had Vicoclin pills and took two pills out of a silver pill holder on his
keychain. (Id. at 94, 144-45.) M.H. took the pills and drank them down with tea or
water. (Id. at 95). Later that evening, Defendant gave M.H. a fruity drink, like
Boone's Farm, and M.H. tried the drink. (Id. at 97). M.H. stated that she found the
drink was strong; knew that the drink had alcohol in it, and Defendant told her that
he had put tequila in the drink. (Id. at 97, 141 ). Defendant later gave M.H. a little
bottle of wine and M.H. drank the bottle. (Id. at 97).
4
As the night progressed, somewhere between 1 :30 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. on
April 27, 2014, M.H. started to feel different and knew the pills were affecting her.
(Id. at 101, 104-105). M.H. was sitting on the couch, leaning against one of the
arm· rests, and Defendant came over to her and removed her blue sweatpants and
underwear she was wearing. (Id. at 101, 154). After removing her pants and
underwear, Defendant began touching M.H. 's sides and back with his hands and
proceeded to kiss her neck and chest area. (Id. at 102). Defendant then took his
penis and placed it into M.H.'s vagina and anus. (Id. at 102-103). Defendant then
told M.H. that he wanted to engage in oral sex with her and put his penis in M.H. 's
mouth. (Id. at 103, 166). Afterwards, Defendant performed oral sex on M.H. by
putting his mouth and tongue inside and outsideof M.H.'s vagina. (Id. at 103).
Defendant then took his hands and touched the inside and outside of M.H. 's
vagina. (Id.). M.H. estimates that all of this took place over the course of three or
four hours. (Id. at 104). M.H. testified that several times throughout the assault,
Defendant ejaculated semen; once inside of her anus and another time she
observed that semen landed on her blue sweatpants that were lying on the floor in
between-the television and the couch. (Id. at 104, 163). During the assault,
Defendant whispered that M.H. was "tight" and that "this must stay our little·
secret", (Id. at 105). At the time this assault took place, M.H.' was fourteen years
5
old; Defendant was thirty-three years old; M.H. was the whole blood niece of the
Defendant; and Defendant and M.H. were never married. (Id. at I 06- l 07). Mr.
Kilgore took M.H. home around 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. on April 27, 2014. (N.T.
03/10/2015 p. 391).
On Wednesday, April 30, 2014, M.H. went to a prescheduled counseling
session with her counselor, and informed her during this session that Defendant
had sexually assaulted her. (N.T. 03/09/2015 p. 117). After receiving this
information, the counselor informed M.H. 'smother, Rhonda Brecht, and the three
went to the hospital so M.H. could receive a safety exam. (Id.) SAFE Nurse Amy
Alquist performed the exam on M.H. and observed redness and bleeding inside
M.H.'s vagina near the cervical opening and observed venous pooling and two
lacerations to M.H. 's anus and rectum. (N.T. 03/10/201 S pp. 258-261). Nurse
Alquist determined that the injuries were consistent with M.H.'s story. (Id.)
Sometime between 9:30-9:45 p.m. on April 30, 2014, Trooper Jonathan
Colarusso received a call from the hospital to meet with M.H. and Ms. Brecht ·
about the sexual assault. (Id. at 304 ). Trooper Colarusso interviewed M.H. and Ms.
Brecht and later obtained consent from Ms. Brecht to search her home for
. evidence. (Id. at 304M305). During the search, Trooper Colarusso discovered the
blue sweatpants that M.H. stated she wore on the night of the assault. (Id. at 305-
6
306). Trooper Colarusso observed a white dried substance inside the waistband
area and also inside the crotch area of the sweatpants. (Id.) Trooper Colarusso
logged the sweatpants into evidence and the sweatpants were sent to the National
Medical Services Laboratories for DNA analysis. (Id. at 310). Forensic Biologist
Jennifer K. Sears performed tests on the sweatpants and determined that seminal
fluids and sperm cells were present on the sweatpants and when comparing the
results with Defendant's DNA, it was at least 7 trillion times more likely to rave
originated from Defendant than any other random individual. (Id. at 364-65).
Trooper Colarusso also· obtained M.H. 's iPod from her stepmother, -
_._.after M.H. infon�ed him that she had had conversations in the past with
Defendant, before the sexual assault, and many of them were "sexually suggestive
in nature." (id. at 311 ). One such text messaging conversation on March 5, 2014,
involved M.H. asking Defendant, known as "Uncle Bug" in the messages, for
some blue raspberry wave and Defendant responding: "I can try babe but I don't
drink that shit so know [now] I have to stop twice ... you will owe me that sweet
little ass". (Evidence Exhibits p. i 7). On that same day, in another text message,
Defendant told M.H. "you are sexy little bitch! Lmao". (Evidence Exhibits p, 19).
M.H. testified in court that after the assault, Defendant called her the day after and
the next few days where he told her that he felt guilty about what happened. (N.T.
7
03/09/2015 p. 105). Based on all the information he received, Trooper Colarusso
obtained an arrest warrant and Defendant was arrested on May 15, 2014 at his
workplace. (N.T. 03/ 10/2015 p. 318).
On March 12, 2015, the Defendant, Ronald B. Leese, Jr., was convicted of
Statutory Sexual Assault, Indecent Sexual Intercourse, Aggravated Indecent
Assault, Incest, Corruption of Minors, Indecent Assault, and Furnishing Alcohol to
Minors. On June 25, 2015, he was sentenced to serve an aggregate sentence of 10
Yi to 21 years of incarceration. On April 18, 2017, Defendant, through counsel,
filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court. On June 15, 2017,
Defendant's counsel filed a Concise Statement of Matters on Appeal.
Issues:
Defendant has essentially raised two issues on appeal:
I. Whether the trial court should grant a motion in arrestof judgment
based upon insufficient evidence on Count 3, Aggravated Indecent
Assault, in that the Commonwealth did not prove all the elements of
the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
II. Whether the findings of guilt on all offenses were against the weight
of the evidence presented at trial.
8
Discussion:
Sufficiency of the Evidence:
Defendant first argues that he is entitled to relief because ·the evidence was
insufficient to establish a conviction for Aggravated Indecent Assault. Defendant
also states in his 1925(b) Statement that the Defendant is entitled to a full review
of the entire record to determine whether the guilty verdicts were properly based
upon the evidence presented and that Defendant is not required to identify the
elements of the offense that were not proven. Defendant's second assertion is
incorrect. The law requires that defendants identify the .elements of the offense not
proven as well as which offenses they are contesting in their appeal.
"When challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the Appellant's
1925 statement must 'specify the element or elements upon which the evidence
was insufficient' in order to preserve the issue for appeal." Commonwealth v.
Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281 (Pa. Super. 2009) quoting Commonwealth v. Williams,
959 A.2d 1252, 1258 (Pa. Super. 2008). "Such specificity is of particular
importance in cases where ... Appellant was convicted of multiple crimes each of
which contains numerous elements that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt." Id.
9
Because Defendant has only made a specific assertion as to Count 3
Aggravated Indecent Assault, and did not specifically contest the other offenses or
elements of these offenses, the Court will only discuss the sufficiency of the
evidence for Count 3, Aggravated Indecent Assault, and considers challenges for
sufficiency of the evidence for all other offenses waived. In regards to the
sufficiency of the evidence challenge
. to Count 3, Aggravated Indecent Assault,
. the
Court finds that the Commonwealth did meet its burden by proving each element
beyond a reasonabledoubt and Defendant is not entitled to relief.
The standard of review for.an appellate court reviewing a sufficiency of the
evidence claim is well settled: ·
'The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the 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 fact-finder to find every element
of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying [ the aboveJ test, we may not
weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition> we
note that the facts ·ai1d circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not
preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt
may be resolved by the 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 who Hy
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. Charlton, 902 A.2d 554, 563 (Pa. Super. 2006) (quoting
Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574, 582 (Pa. Super. 2001).
IO
In order to obtain a conviction under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3125, Aggravated
Indecent Assault, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:
( 1) A defendant engaged in penetration, however slight, of the genitals or
anus of a complainant with a part of the person's body for any purpose
other than good faith medical, hygienic, or law enforcement procedures
(2) The complainant is less than 16 years of age.
(3) The defendant is four or inore years older than the complainant.
(4) The complainant and the defendant are not married to each other.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §3125(a)(8).
..
"It is well-established that