J-S91017-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
EDWARD ARTHUR GEIER, JR.
Appellant No. 881 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 2, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-14-CR-0000412-2015
CP-14-CR-0000885-2015
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., RANSOM, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 23, 2017
Edward Arthur Geier, Jr. (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of
sentence of an aggregate term of 75 to 150 years of imprisonment, following
a jury trial on charges of a myriad of sex crimes against two victims. We
affirm.
In August of 2014, state troopers found K.K.M., then thirteen years-
old, walking along State Route 45 of Centre County, Pennsylvania. 1 Notes of
Testimony, (N.T.) at 70-71. K.K.M. had walked 4.7 miles from Spring Mills,
where she resided, with two suitcases and a large handbag before she
____________________________________________
1
K.K.M. was born in April 2001. N.T. at 88.
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S91017-16
encountered the troopers. Id. at 70-75. K.K.M. told the troopers that she
was being sexually assaulted by her stepfather, Appellant. Id. at 84.
K.K.M. testified at a jury trial in January 2016, that Appellant began
touching her when she was approximately seven or eight years old. Id. at
98-99-115.2 Appellant would touch K.K.M.’s chest, vagina and would
forcibly try to kiss her. Id. at 94-96. She testified that Appellant would
engage in these activities when her mother would go to bed, go downstairs
to get a drink, or go to the bathroom. Id. at 96. Appellant would at times
take K.K.M.’s clothes off and touch her chest, touch her vagina, or insert his
fingers into her vagina. Id. at 98. The assaults progressed when K.K.M.
grew older. Id at 121.
On the first occasion Appellant had intercourse with K.K.M., he
accosted her in the shower and told her that if she did not let him have sex
with her, he would kill her. Id. at 102. Appellant would put her hand on his
penis and instruct the child, “not to hold it too tight, but kind of loose, and to
move it up and down slowly.” Id. at 105. At other times Appellant would
cover her face, forcing her to open her mouth and then inserting his penis
into her mouth. Id. at 103-105. Appellant would tell K.K.M. not to tell
anyone because “[she] and [her] sisters would be taken away and [her]
____________________________________________
2
K.K.M. also estimated that the touching was ongoing for approximately five
to six years at the time she ran away. Id. at 121.
-2-
J-S91017-16
mom would be heartbroken and left with nothing and [they] would lose
everything.” Id. at 106.
Sexual incidents would occur in her bedroom, the bathroom, the
garage, cars, his room, and the couch. Id. at 108. When Appellant and
K.K.M. were riding in a car, Appellant would pull the car over, pull K.K.M.
into the backseat and remove her clothing. Id. at 108. Appellant would
predicate K.K.M.’s participation in various activities by requiring she perform
sex acts with him. Id. at 112-3. K.K.M. testified that she tried repeatedly
to deter Appellants advances by trying to fight him off or calling her mother,
and she even told Appellant “no;” however, Appellant would continue to
abuse her. Id. at 98-100.
K.K.M. testified that the touching occurred two to three times per
week. Id. at 121-2, 127. K.K.M was made to perform oral sex on Appellant
approximately two times per week, and Appellant performed oral sex on the
child approximately thirty times. Id. at 114, 126. She also testified that
Appellant forced her to engage in intercourse approximately once or twice a
week for three to four years, with the last incident occurring in her bedroom
days before she ran away. Id. at 121. Forensic analysis corroborated
K.K.M.’s account of the final incident, positively identifying Appellant’s
semen in the specific areas outlined by her.
After attending Appellant’s preliminary hearing on CP-14-CR-0000412-
2015 in March 2015, Appellant’s half-sister, A.H., disclosed to Pennsylvania
-3-
J-S91017-16
State Police that Appellant had also abused her.3 Id. at 437. A.H. testified
that in 2003, when she was fourteen, she awoke to find Appellant’s penis
inside of her. Id. 417-18, 422-24. The incident ended once Appellant fell
asleep. Id. When A.H. was nineteen, a separate incident occurred where
Appellant put his hands underneath her shirt and bra and grabbed her
breasts. Id. at 439. These incidents both occurred in Centre County,
Pennsylvania. The criminal informations for K.K.M. and A.H. were combined,
and Appellant was tried accordingly.
Appellant was found guilty of 1,073 sex crimes, and the Sexual
Offenders Assessment Board classified Appellant as a sexually violent
predator in April of 2016.4
____________________________________________
3
A.H. was born in September 1988. Id. at 409.
4
Appellant was convicted of 1,068 of the following crimes against victim
K.K.M., docketed at CP-14-CR-0000412-2015:
Thirty-two counts of 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3121(c) (rape of a child, victim
less than thirteen years of age),
Forty-eight counts of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3122.1(b) (statutory sexual
assault),
510 counts of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6318(A)(1) (unlawful contact with a
minor),
Twenty-seven counts of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3123(A)(7) (involuntary deviate
sexual intercourse (IDSI), complainant less than sixteen years of
age),
Two counts of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3123(a)(1) (IDSI, forcible compulsion),
Fifty-two counts of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3124.1 (sexual assault),
One count of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1)(ii) (corruption of minors),
360 counts of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(7) (indecent assault, victim less
than thirteen years of age),
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-4-
J-S91017-16
In May 2016, Appellant was sentenced. For crimes against K.K.M.,
Appellant received twenty-five to fifty years of imprisonment on count one,
rape of a child less than thirteen years of age; plus twenty-five to fifty years
of imprisonment on a second count of rape of a child less than thirteen to be
served consecutively; and an additional twenty-five to fifty years
imprisonment for the remaining 1,066 counts of sexual crimes to be served
concurrently. For crimes against A.H., Appellant received twenty-five to fifty
years of imprisonment on count one, rape of an unconscious person, plus
twenty-five to fifty years of imprisonment for the remaining five counts of
sexual crimes to be served concurrently. Appellant’s convictions against
A.H. were to be served consecutively to his convictions against K.K.M, for an
aggregate term of 75 to 150 years of incarceration.5
Appellant timely appealed and filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement. The trial court submitted an opinion.
Appellant presents the following question for our review:
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
Forty counts of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(8) (indecent assault, victim less
than 16 years of age).
Appellant was also convicted of one count each of the following crimes
against A.H., docketed at CP-14-CR-0000885-2015:
18 Pa.C.S. § 3123(a)(3) (rape of an unconscious person),
18 Pa.C.S. § 6318(a)(1) (unlawful contact with a minor),
18 Pa.C.S. § 3122.1(b) (statutory sexual assault),
18 Pa.C.S. § 4302(b)(2) (incest),
18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(1) (indecent assault without consent).
5
Appellant was given credit for time served.
-5-
J-S91017-16
1. Was there sufficient evidence to find Appellant [g]uilty
beyond a reasonable doubt on the charges he was convicted of in
both cases?
Appellant’s Brief at 18.
Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to find him
“guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the charges he was convicted of in
both cases.” Appellant’s Brief at 18, 25-26. Appellant has waived his sole
issue.
As this Court observed in Commonwealth v. Freeman, 128 A.3d
1231, 1247 (Pa. Super. 2015):
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained that Rule 1925 is
a crucial component of the appellate process, which “is intended
to aid trial judges in identifying and focusing upon those issues
which the parties plan to raise on appeal.” Commonwealth v.
Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306, 308 (1998). “When an
appellant fails adequately to identify in a concise manner the
issues sought to be pursued on appeal, the trial court is impeded
in its preparation of a legal analysis which is pertinent to those
issues.” In re Estate of Daubert, 757 A.2d 962, 963 (Pa.
Super. 2000). “In other words, a Concise Statement which is too
vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is
the functional equivalent of no Concise Statement at all.”
Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683, 686 (Pa. Super.
2001).
“In order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence on appeal, an appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement must
state with specificity the element or elements upon which the
appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient.”
Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa. Super.
2013) (citing Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281 (Pa.
Super. 2009)). “Such specificity is of particular importance in
cases where, as here, the appellant was convicted of multiple
crimes each of which contains numerous elements that the
Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” Gibbs,
981 A.2d at 281.
-6-
J-S91017-16
Freeman, at 1247.
Appellant’s statement does not specify which element or elements of
his 1,073 crimes, or even which crimes the Commonwealth failed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt.6 This assertion is far too vague to warrant
meaningful review. See Freeman, supra. Thus, Appellant has waived his
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, and no relief is due.
Judgement of sentence affirmed.
____________________________________________
6
Without citation to case law, Appellant’s one-and-one-quarter-pages of
argument likewise offer no analysis of any particular elements that comprise
the charges against him related to K.K.M., yet baldly asserts the
Commonwealth did not meet its burden to sustain Appellant’s convictions
based on the sheer number of counts against him. Appellant’s Brief at 25-
26. In Appellant’s single paragraph of argument regarding A.H., Appellant
attempts to shift the onus of the incident, where he initiated intercourse with
his sleeping, fourteen-year-old sister, to her as she did not “fight back, yell
out, shout ‘STOP’ or do anything to indicate that this was unwanted
contact.” Id. Perhaps if Appellant had taken the opportunity to include the
elements of 18 Pa.C.S. 3121(a)(3) in his statement or Brief, he would have
realized that the crime had already been committed by the time A.H. awoke.
See 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(a)(3) (A person commits a felony of the first degree
when the person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant . . . who
is unconscious or where the person knows that the complainant is unaware
that the sexual intercourse is occurring.).
-7-
J-S91017-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/23/2017
-8-