Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Olson](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10806232/com-v-harris-w/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 9, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Com. v. Harris, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 3338 EDA 2024
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Olson

• Opinion

• Authorities (10)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (336)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by [Judith Ference Olson](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8241/judith-ference-olson/)

J-S47017-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
WILLIE L. HARRIS :
:
Appellant : No. 3338 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 9, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0005859-2022

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MARCH 9, 2026

Appellant, Willie L. Harris, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered on August 9, 2024, as made final by the denial of Appellant’s

post-sentence motion by operation of law on December 9, 2024. We affirm.

The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this case:

The Commonwealth charged [Appellant] with rape by forcible
compulsion, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse by
forcible compulsion, indecent assault with forcible
compulsion, strangulation, burglary, criminal trespass,
robbery threatening immediate serious bodily injury, robbery
threatening immediate bodily injury, and robbery by
committing or threatening to commit involuntary deviate
sexual intercourse.[1] Trial commenced on September 6,
2023.

---

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3121(a)(1), 3123(a)(1), 3126(a)(2), 2718(a)(1),
3502(a)(3), 3503(a)(1)(i), 3701(a)(1)(i), 3701(a)(1)(ii), 3701(a)(1)(iii),
respectively.
J-S47017-25

...

The Commonwealth called the victim as its first witness. The
victim explained her roles and responsibilities as the legal
secretary for the Tinari Law Firm located at 1313 Race Street,
in Center City, Philadelphia, adjacent to the Juanita Kidd
Stout Center for Criminal Justice. On July 5, 2022, the day
before the victim's 23rd birthday, she was working alone in
an interior office in the early afternoon when she noticed “out
of the corner of [her] eye, [an unfamiliar man] leaning over
the receptionist counter.” The victim greeted him in the
reception area, assuming he was a client or needed help
finding where to go. [Appellant] said he was “looking for
someone named Samantha.” When the victim explained no
one worked there by that name, he “pushed [past her] and
started walking into Mr. Tinari’s office.” [Appellant] was
“very agitated” and looked for money in the office. The victim
went into survival mode and offered [Appellant] her earrings,
AirPods, a coworker's purse, and her backpack. [Appellant]
refused and instead made the victim put her phone down and
locked the front door of the office.

[Appellant] then hit the victim across her face with both an
open hand and closed fist. She pleaded with him to stop and
told him people would return at any minute. When she
screamed for help, [Appellant] told he would kill her if she
called out again. [Appellant] then strangled her several times
to the point where her vision blurred.

[Appellant] threatened to kill her and forced her to perform
oral sex on him, holding her wrists down while he pulled his
pants down. He then forced his penis into her mouth.
[Appellant] then changed course because “he didn't like it.”
He took off the victim’s pants. The victim felt “humiliated”
and continued to beg him to stop. [Appellant] threw her to
the floor and forced his penis into her vagina. The victim’s
co-worker returned to the office from her lunch break at that
point, which spooked [Appellant] and prompted him to leave.

The victim, still on the floor and trying to get her pants back
on, begged her coworker to call 911 because she “just got
raped.” After the police arrived, the victim was taken to
Thomas Jefferson Hospital, where she was given penicillin
and evaluated for about six hours. She spoke with two

-2-
J-S47017-25

detectives and signed a statement. The victim never
consented to oral or vaginal sex. She tried to return to work
but never again felt comfortable going to that law firm.

Kaisa Codner, an intern at the Tinari firm, testified she left
the office on July 5, 2022, for about 20 minutes to get lunch
in the early afternoon. When she returned, the door was
unexpectedly locked. She unlocked the door and took her
lunch to the conference room and at that point heard the door
from Mr. Tinari’s office open. She saw a man leave the office
and recognized him. She had seen him lingering outside the
building when she left for lunch. She then found the victim
on the floor crying hysterically. The victim’s clothes were
mostly off, her hair was messy, and she looked scared. The
victim told her that she had been raped and begged Ms.
Codner to lock the door and call 911.

The Commonwealth played the 911 call for the jury. The
defense did not object.

James Owen, a registered sexual assault nurse examiner,
testified he examined the victim on July 5, 2022, at 9:31 p.m.
at the Sexual Assault Response Center, and took rape kit
specimens.

Jean Hess, a Forensic Scientist 3 with the Philadelphia Police
Department Office of Forensic Sciences, analyzed the DNA
samples collected from the investigation, including: the
interior and exterior crotch area of [Appellant’s] pants, the
interior and exterior crotch area of the victim’s underwear,
the TD Bank bag recovered from the Tinari Office, and the
desk from the Tinari Office. Hess also examined DNA
samples from the victim's rape kit. Hess was able to conclude
to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the DNA
found on the interior and exterior crotch area of [Appellant’s]
pants matched the victim's DNA. It was “119.8 quadrillion
times more likely” that the DNA on [Appellant’s] clothes came
from the victim as opposed to another random unrelated
individual in the Caucasian population.

Detective Enz offered into evidence photos he had taken of
the victim’s neck that showed red scratch marks.

-3-
J-S47017-25

Detective Modres testified he sent a patrol alert to law
enforcement in Philadelphia and New Jersey. Police in
Woodbury, New Jersey, responded with a photograph of a
man they believed matched the description. [Appellant] was
arrested by the Washington Township Police Department on
July 7, 2022, in New Jersey.

Detective Poulous introduced surveillance video that showed
[Appellant] entering the Tinari Law Firm’s office building on
July 5, 2022. [Appellant] did not testify.

The jury returned guilty verdicts on September 12, 2023, on
all counts except for count one – rape with forcible
compulsion.

On August 9, 2024, the Commonwealth and [Appellant’s]
counsel presented experts on whether the sentencing court
should designate [Appellant] a Sexually Violent Predator
(“SVP”).

The Commonwealth called Dr. John Siegler. Dr. Siegler was
appointed to the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board
(“SOAB”) by the Governor in 2018. He testified he receives
information enumerated by the sex offender registration
statute to help him assess defendants. SOAB examiners
assess from this information whether a person who has been
convicted of a sexually violent offense is likely to engage in
future predatory sexually violent offenses due to a mental
abnormality or personality disorder.

Dr. Siegler considered 14 statutory factors:

The number of victims, whether the subject exceeded the
means necessary to achieve the offense, the nature of the
contact with the victim, relationship of the individual to
the victim, whether they were acquainted or not, the age
of the victim, whether there was unusual cruelty during
the commission of the offense, the mental capacity of the
victim, the prior offense history, whether the individual
completed any prior sentences, whether the individual
participated in available programs for sexual offenders,
the age of the individual, mental illness or disability, and
the behavioral characteristics that contribute to the
individual's conduct.

-4-
J-S47017-25

Dr. Siegler determined [Appellant] met both prongs of the
SVP designation (mental abnormality and propensity). Dr.
Siegler considered [Appellant’s] prior offense history.
[Appellant] was 19 years old when his criminal record began
and accrued more than 30 convictions over the ensuing 30
years. This criminal activity “constituted antisocial behavior
over that period of time” and is “indicative of deeply ingrained
and rigid dysfunctional thought process, a mental
abnormality, that is the impetus for his [current] offending
behavior.” Dr. Siegler believed [Appellant] “demonstrate[d]
a limited capacity for relationships,” and a “lack of concern
for others based on his repeated offending behavior,
impulsivity, and poor problem solving.” Dr. Siegler then
considered the relationship between [Appellant] and the
victim. He concluded [Appellant] initiated contact with the
victim “in order to exploit her for his sexual gratification.” Dr.
Siegler concluded his SVP determination of [Appellant] was
made to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty.

The court found that [Appellant] met the definition of a
Sexually Violent Predator by clear and convincing evidence.

[Appellant] then addressed the court. He apologized to the
victim’s family and expressed his years’ long battle with
drugs and addiction. He asked for mercy.

The court [sentenced Appellant to serve an aggregate term
of 15 to 30 years in prison, followed by five years of
probation, for his crimes].

Trial Court Opinion, 5/12/25, at 1-8 (citations and some capitalization

omitted).

Following the denial of Appellant’s post-sentence motion by operation of

law, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant raises ten issues on

appeal:

[1.] Prior to trial, did the court improperly deny [Appellant’s]
request for trial counsel to be removed due to irreconcilable
differences and new counsel be appointed, and [Appellant]

-5-
J-S47017-25

was forced to proceed to trial where he was found guilty of
IDSI, burglary, robbery and related charges?

[2.] Did the court improperly make a finding that [Appellant]
was a “sexually violent predator” where the record does not
reflect that the standard of clear and convincing evidence was
met where the court heard testimony of two experts with
differing opinions on whether [Appellant] met the criteria
required to be found a “sexually violent predator?”

[3.] Did the court err when it imposed an aggregate sentence
of 15-30 years incarceration because the sentence was
excessive, more than necessary to protect the public, punish
the defendant and rehabilitate [Appellant]?

[4.] Did the court impermissibly factor at [Appellant’s]
sentencing, the [Appellant’s] prior arrests that did not result
in convictions, as well as including his status as a “sexually
violent predator?”

[5.] Did the court err when it sentenced [Appellant] to
aggravated sentences that ran consecutively due to the
inflaming nature of the media coverage for this matter; the
improper “victim impact” testimony under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9738
submitted by the Commonwealth before defense counsel
could object; allowed testimony given by the victim’s
employer; and the Commonwealth’s testimony that
something may have happened during his juvenile years, but
was lacking a scintilla of evidence. In addition, [the trial]
court failed to fully weigh the considerable remorse
[Appellant] showed during his allocution; his decades long
battle with addiction; the system's inability to focus on his
rehabilitative needs during his previous contacts; his abuse
as a child; the mental health challenges he suffered through
his life; lastly, but vitally, his significant attempts to make
things right through the extraordinary mitigating factor?

[6.] Did the court err where the verdicts for all of the charges
at trial were against the weight of the evidence and the court
failed to award a new trial?

[7.] Did the court err when it improperly allowed the 911
audio tapes to be played in front of the jury and admitted as
evidence because they we inadmissible as hearsay?

-6-
J-S47017-25

[8.] Did the court err where it failed to set aside the verdict
where the verdicts for all of the charges were insufficient?

[9.] Did the court err where it failed to grant the motion for
mistrial either during trial or after trial?

[10.] Did the court err when it removed juror number seven
and seated juror thirteen in their place after deliberations had
begun?

Appellant’s Brief at 5-7.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified

record, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, the Honorable Christopher

R. Hall. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case, for

the reasons expressed in Judge Hall’s well-reasoned May 12, 2025 opinion.

Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Hall’s able opinion and adopt it as

our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling,

the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge Hall’s May 12, 2025 opinion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/9/2026

-7-
Circulated
Circulated02/26/2026
02/26/202601:37
:37PM
01.37 PM

Filed
Filed
FIRSTJUDICIAL
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DISTRICTOF
OF PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA MAY 11222025
MAY 2025
COURT OF COMMON
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLEAS
OfficeofofJudicial
Office Records
JudicialRecords
CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION AppealsUnit
Appeals Unit

COMMONWEAL TH OF
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA 3338 EDA
3338 EDA 2024
2024

V.
V. CP-51 -CR-0005859-2022
CP-51-CR-0005859-2022

WILLIE L.L. HARRIS
WILLIE HARRIS

1925(a) OPINION IN
1925(a)OPINION IN SUPPORT
SUPPORT OF
OF ORDER
ORDER
Christopher R.
Christopher Hall, J.J.
R. Hall, J.

I.I.I. Introduction
IIntroduction
Defendant Willie
Defendant Willie Harris
Harris (“Harris")
("Harris") complains on appeal
complains on appeal often
of ten errors
errors inin his
his

conviction for
conviction for deviate
deviate sexual
sexual intercourse
intercourse and
and related
related crimes
crimes of
of violence
violence committed
committed

against aa 22-year-old
against legal secretary
22-year-old legal secretary inin aa commercial
commercial office
office adjacent
adjacent to
to the
the courthouse
courthouse

inin Center
Center City,
City, Philadelphia, while the
Philadelphia, while the secretary worked alone
secretary worked alone during
during her
her lunch
lunch hour.
hour.

The appeal
The appeal isis without
without merit.
merit. Harris’
Harris' conviction
conviction and
and sentence
sentence should
should be
be affirmed.
affirmed.

II.
II. Procedural
II. Procedural History
Procedural History
History
The Commonwealth
The Commonwealth charged
charged Harris
Harris with
with rape
rape by forcible compulsion,
by forcible compulsion, involuntary
involuntary

deviate sexual
deviate intercourse by
sexual intercourse by forcible
forcible compulsion,
compulsion, indecent
indecent assault
assault with
with forcible
forcible

compulsion, strangulation,
compulsion, strangulation, burglary, criminal trespass,
burglary, criminal trespass, robbery
robbery immediate
threatening immediate
robbery threatening

serious bodily
serious bodily injury,
injury, robbery
robbery threatening
threatening immediate
immediate bodily
bodily injury, and robbery
injury, and robbery by
robbery by

committing or
committing or threatening
threatening to
to commit
commit involuntary deviate sexual
involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
intercourse. Trial
Trial

commenced on
commenced on September
September 6,
6, 2023.
2023. The
The jury
jury returned guilty verdicts on
guilty verdicts on September 12,
September 12,

2023, on
2023,
2023, all
all counts
on all except count
count one
except count
counts except one (rape by forcible
forcible compulsion). Tr. 9/12/2023
Tr.
compulsion). Tr. at
9/12/2023 at
at

20-22. The court
20-22. court sentenced Harris to 15
15 to 30 years followed by 5 years’
years' probation
probation

supervised by
supervised by the
the State
State Sex
Sex Offender
Offender Unit.
Unit.
1 1.Matters
III.Ill. MattersComplained
ComplainedofofOn
OnAppeal
Appeal
Harris
Harriscomplains
complainsoften
of tenerrors,
errors,suggesting
suggestingbybythe
thelong
longlist
listhat
thatnone
nonehave
havemerit.
merit.

He
Heasserts
assertsthe
thetrial
trialcourt ( 1)improperly
court(1)
(1) deniedhis
improperlydenied hisrequest
requestduring
duringvoir
voirdire
direfor
fornew
newtrial
trial

counsel;
counsel;(2)
(2)improperly
improperlyfound
foundHarris
Harriswas
wasa a"sexually
"sexuallyviolent
violentpredator”
predator"atatsentencing;
sentencing;(3)
(3)

erroneously
erroneouslyimposed
imposeda asentence
sentenceofof15-30
15-30years
yearsimprisonment;
imprisonment;(4)
(4)impermissibly
impermissibly

factored
factoredHarris’
Harris'prior
priorarrests
arrestswhen
whenimposing
imposingsentence;
sentence;(5)
(5)impermissibly
impermissiblyconsidered
considered

mediareports
media andvictim
reportsand victimimpact
impactestimony andfailed
testimonyand failedtotoconsider
considerHarris’
Harris'history with
historywith

addiction
addictionwhen
whenimposing
imposingthe
thesentence;
sentence;(6)
(6)erroneously
erroneouslydenied
deniedaamotion
motionfor
fornew
newtrial
trial

basedon
based onthe
theweight
weightofofthe
theevidence;
evidence;(7)
(7)improperly permittedthe
improperlypermitted theintroduction
introductioninto
into

evidenceofofaa91911
evidence call;(8)
1 call; (8)erroneously deniedaamotion
erroneouslydenied motionfor
fornew
newtrial
trialbased
basedon
on

insufficiencyofofevidence;
insufficiency evidence;(9)
(9)erroneously deniedaamotion
erroneouslydenied motionfor
formistrial,
mistrial;and
and(10)
(10)

erroneously replacedaajuror
erroneouslyreplaced withan
jurorwith analternate
alternateafter
afterdeliberations
deliberationsbegan.
began.

IV.
IV. Harris’
Harris' Request
Requestfor
for New
New Counsel
Counsel During
During Jury
Jury Selection
Selection
On
OnSeptember
September5,5, 2023,
2023, Harris
Harris moved
movedfor
forappointment
appointmentof
ofnew
newcounsel
counsel before
beforejury
jury

selection
selection began.
began. Tr.
Tr. 9/05/2023
9/05/2023 atat3-5.
3-5. Harris
Harris sought
soughttoto remove
remove his
his counsel,
counsel, Mr.
Mr. Julian
Julian

Settles,
Settles, because
because Mr.
Mr. Settles
Settles had
had told
told him
him the
thejury
jurywould
would likely
likely convict
convict based
based on
on the
the

overwhelming evidence
overwhelming evidence (a
(a DNA
DNA match
match and
and video
video surveillance). Id. at
surveillance). Id. at 6-7.
6-7. Harris
Harris

expressed
expressed to
to the
the court
court that
that he
he distrusted
distrusted Mr.
Mr. Settles
Settles because
because of
ofthis
this candid
candid advice.
advice. Id.
Id.

at
at 5-6.
5-6. Mr.
Mr. Settles
Settles responded
responded that,
that, “whether
"whether aa defendant
defendant or
or client
client isis guilty,
guilty, or
or innocent
innocent

does
does not
not change
change [his]
[his] professionalism
professionalism or
or approach
approach to
to the
the case”
case" and
and reiterated
reiterated his
his ability
ability

to
to provide
provide competent
competent representation
representation at
at trial.
trial. Id.
Id. at
at 6.
6. Harris
Harris protested
protested that
that Mr.
Mr. Settles
Settles

did not
did not care
care about
about him. Id. at
him. Id.
Id. at 7.
7. Mr.
Mr. Settles
Settles stated,
stated, “I"I do.” Id.
do." Id.
Id.

After
After aa brief
brief recess,
recess, the
the Court
Court reviewed
reviewed the
the standard
standard for
for appointing
appointing new
new counsel
counsel

and denied
and denied the
the motion.
motion. The
The court
court explained that --- while
explained that while the
the conversation
conversation between
between Mr.
Mr.

222
Settles
Settlesand
andHarris
Harrismay
mayhave
havebeen
been"difficult”
"difficult"---Mr.
Mr.Settles
Settleshad
haddemonstrated
demonstrated

competence.
competence. Id.
Id.atat11.
11. The
Thecourt
courthad
hadno
nodoubt
doubtMr.
Mr.Settles
Settleswould
wouldhonor
honorHarris’
Harris'desire
desire

totogo
gotototrial
trialand
andrepresent
representhim
himzealously. Id.
zealously. Id.
Id.

V.
V. Evidence
Evidence at
atTrial
Trial
Trial
Trialcommenced
commencedon
onSeptember
September6,6,2023.
2023. The
TheCommonwealth
Commonwealthcalled
calledthe
thevictim
victim

as
asits
itsfirst
firstwitness.
witness. Tr.
Tr.9/6/2023
9/6/2023atat33.
33. The
Thevictim
victimexplained
explained her
herroles
rolesand
and

responsibilities
responsibilitiesas
asthe
thelegal secretaryfor
legalsecretary theTinari
forthe Tinari Law
Law Firm
Firm located
located atat 1313
1313 Race
Race

Street,
Street, inin Center
CenterCity,
City, Philadelphia, adjacenttotothe
Philadelphia, adjacent theJuanita
Juanita Kidd
Kidd Stout
Stout Center
Centerfor
for

Criminal
Criminal Justice. Id.
Justice. Id.
ld. atat35-36. July5,5, 2022,
On July
35-36. On July heday
tthe
2022, the day before
beforethe victim's 23
the victim’s
victim's 23°
rd

birthday,
birthday, she
shewas
wasworking
working alone
alone inin an
an interior
interior office
office inin the
the early
early afternoon
afternoon when
when she
she

noticed
noticed “out
"out of
ofthe
the corner
cornerof [her] eye,
of[her] eye, [an
[an unfamiliar man] leaning
unfamiliar man]
man) leaning over
overthe
the receptionist
receptionist

counter.” Id. at
counter." Id.
Id. at44. The victim
44. The victim greeted him inin the
greeted him the reception
reception area, assuming he
area, assuming he was
was aa

client or needed
client or help finding
needed help finding where
where to go. Id.
to go. at 48.
Id. at
Id. Harris said
48. Harris he was
said he was “looking
"looking for
for

someone
someone named
named Samantha.”
Samantha." Id.
Id. at
at 49.
49. When
When the
the victim
victim explained no one
explained no worked there
one worked there

by
by that name, he
that name, he “pushed
"pushed passed [her] and
passed [her] and started walking into
started walking into Mr.
Mr. Tinari’s
Tinari's office.”
office." Id.
Id.

Harris was “very
Harris was "very agitated”
agitated" and
and looked
looked for
for money
money inin the
the office.
office. Id.
Id. The
The victim went into
victim went into

survival
survival mode
mode and
and offered
offered Harris
Harris her
her earrings,
earrings, AirPods,
AirPods, aa coworker’s
coworker's purse,
purse, and
and her
her

backpack. Id. at
backpack. Id. at 50,
50, 52.
52. Harris
Harris refused
refused and
and instead
instead made
made the
the victim
victim put
put her
her phone
phone

down
down and
and locked
locked the
the front
front door
door of
of the
the office.
office. Id.
Id.

Harris then
Harris then hit
hit the
the victim
victim across
across her face with
her face with both
both an
an open
open hand
hand and
and closed
closed fist.
fist.

Id.
Id. at
at 52.
52. She
She pleaded
pleaded with
with him stop and
to stop
him to and told
told him
him people
people would
would return
return at
at any minute.
minute.

Id. at
Id. 53. When
at 53. she screamed
When she for help,
screamed for help, Harris
Harris told he would
told he kill her
would kill her ifif she called out
she called out

again. Harris
again. Harris then
then strangled her several
strangled her several times
times to
to the
the point
point where her vision
where her blurred. Id.
vision blurred. Id.

at 53,
at 53, 54.
54.

33
Harris
Harristhreatened
threatenedtotokill
killher
herand
andforced
forcedher
hertotoperform
performoral
oralsex
sexon
onhim,
him,holding
holding

her
herwrists
wristsdown
downwhile
whilehe
hepulled
pulledhis pantsdown.
hispants down. Id,
Id.atat55.
55. He
Hethen
thenforced
forcedhis penisinto
hispenis into

her
hermouth. Id.atat56.
mouth. Id.
Id. 56. Harris
Harristhen
thenchanged
changedcourse
coursebecause "hedidn’t
because“he didn'tlike
likeit.”
it." He
Hetook
took

off
offthe victim'spants.
thevictim’s Id.atat57-58.
pants. Id.
Id. Thevictim
57-58. The victimfelt
felt“humiliated”
"humiliated"and
andcontinued
continuedtotobeg
beghim
him

stop.
totostop. Id.atat59.
stop. Id. 59. Harris
Harristhrew hertotothe
threwher thefloor andforced
floorand forcedhis penis into
hispenis intoher
hervagina. Id.
vagina. Id.
Id.

The
Thevictim’s co-workerreturned
victim'sco-worker returnedtotothe officefrom
theoffice fromher lunch break
herlunch breakatatthat
thatpoint,
point,which
which

spooked Harrisand
spooked Harris and prompted himtotoleave.
prompted him leave. Id.
Id. atat60-62.
60-62.

The
Thevictim,
victim, still
still on
onthe
thefloor
floorand
andtrying
trying totoget
gether
herpants
pants back
backon,
on, begged
begged her
her

coworker
coworkerto
to call
call 91
911 because
becauseshe "justgot
she“just
"just raped." Id.
got raped.” Id. at
at63.
63. After
Afterthe
the police
police arrived,
arrived,

the
thevictim
victimwas
was taken
taken to
toThomas
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson Hospital,
Hospital, where
where she
she was
was given
given penicillin
penicillin and
and

evaluated
evaluated for
for about
about six
six hours.
hours. Id.
Id. at
at 67.
67. She
She spoke
spoke with
with two
two detectives
detectives and
and signed
signed aa

statement. Id.
statement. Id. at
at 68.
68. The
The victim
victim never consented to
never consented to oral
oral or
or vaginal
vaginal sex.
sex. She
She tried
tried to
to

return to
return to work
work but
but never
never again
again felt
felt comfortable going to
comfortable going to that
that law
law firm.
firm. Id.
Id. at
at 71
71, 72.
72.

Kaisa Codner,
Kaisa an intern
Codner, an at the
intern at Tinari firm,
the Tinari she left
testified she
firm, testified on July
office on
the office
left the July 5,5,
July

2022, for
2022, about 20
for about minutes to
20 minutes to get
get lunch
lunch inin the afternoon. Id.
early afternoon.
the early at 95-96,
Id. at 95-96, 101.
101. When
When

she returned, the
she returned, the door
door was locked. Id.
unexpectedly locked.
was unexpectedly at 102.
Id. at 102. She
She unlocked
unlocked the
the door
door

and
and took
took her lunch to
her lunch to the
the conference room and
conference room and at
at that
that point heard the
point heard the door
door from
from Mr.
Mr.

Tinari’s
Tinari's office
office open.
open. Id.
Id. at
at 103.
103. She
She saw
saw aa man
man leave
leave the
the office
office and
and recognized
recognized him.
him.

She
She had
had seen
seen him
him lingering
lingering outside
outside the building when
the building
building when she
she left
left for
for lunch.
lunch. Id.
Id. at
at 103,
103, 104.
104.

She
She then
then found
found the
the victim
victim on
on the
the floor
floor crying
crying hysterically. Id. at
hysterically. Id. at 103.
103. The
The victim’s
victim's

clothes
clothes were
were mostly
mostly off,
off, her
her hair was messy,
hair was messy, and
and she looked scared.
she looked scared. Id.
Id. at
at 104.
104. The
The

victim told
victim told her
her that
that she
she had
had been
been raped and begged
raped and begged Ms.
Ms. Codner
Codner to
to lock
lock the
the door
door and
and

call 911.
call Id. At
911. Id. At 105.
105.

4
4
The
TheCommonwealth playedthe
Commonwealthplayed the91
911 call
callfor
forthe jury. Id.
thejury. Id. atat 108. The
108. Thedefense
defensedid
did

notobject.
not object.

James Owen,
James Owen, aa registered sexualassault
registered sexual assaultnurse
nurseexaminer,
examiner, testified
testified he
heexamined
examined

thevictim
the victim on
on July
July5,5, 2022,
July 2022, atat 9:31
9:31 PM
PM atatthe
the Sexual
SexualAssault
Assault Response
Response Center,
Center, and
andtook
took

rape kitspecimens.
rape kit at 147-149,
Id. at
specimens. Id. 147-149, 155-56.
155-56.

Jean Hess,
Jean Hess, aa Forensic
Forensic Scientist
Scientist 33 with
with the
the Philadelphia
Philadelphia Police
Police Department
Department Office
Office

of Forensic
of Forensic Sciences,
Sciences, analyzed the DNA
analyzed the DNAsamples collected from
samples collected from the
the investigation,
investigation,

including: the interior
including: the interior and
and exterior
exterior crotch
crotch area
area of
of Harris’
Harris' pants,
pants, the
the interior
interior and
and exterior
exterior

crotch area
crotch area of
ofthe
the victim’s
victim's underwear,
underwear, the
the TD
TD Bank
Bank bag recovered from
bag recovered from the
the Tinari
Tinari

Office, and the
Office, and the desk
desk from
from the
the Tinari
Tinari Office.
Office. Tr.
Tr. 9/7/2023
9/7/2023 at
at 55,
55, 59,
59, 60,
60, 67,
67, 68.
68. Hess
Hess

also examined DNA
also examined DNA samples from the
samples from the victim’s
victim's rape
rape kit.
kit. Id.
Id. at 61-62.
Id. at to
able to
was able
Hess was
61-62. Hess

conclude to
conclude to aa reasonable
reasonable degree of medical
degree of medical certainty
certainty that
that the
the DNA
DNA found
found on
on the
the interior
interior

and exterior
and exterior crotch
crotch area
area of
of Harris’
Harris' pants
pants matched
matched the
the victim’s
victim's DNA.
DNA. ItIt was
was “1"119.8

quadrillion times more
quadrillion times more likely” that the
likely" that the DNA
DNA on
on Harris’
Harris' clothes
clothes came
came from
from the
the victim
victim as
as

opposed to another
opposed to another random
random unrelated
unrelated individual
individual inin the
the Caucasian
Caucasian population. at 68.
Id. at
population. Id. 68.

Detective Enz
Detective Enz offered
offered into
into evidence
evidence photos
photos he
he had
had taken
taken of
of the
the victim’s
victim's neck
neck that
that

showed red
showed red scratch
scratch marks.
marks. Id. at 121.
Id. at 121.

Detective Modres
Detective Modres testified
testified he
he sent
sent aa patrol
patrol alert
alert to
to law
law enforcement
enforcement in
in

Philadelphia and
Philadelphia and New
New Jersey. at 208-209,
Id. at
Jersey. Id. 208-209, 211.
211. Police
Police in
in Woodbury, New Jersey,
Woodbury, New Jersey,

responded with
responded with aa photograph of aa man
photograph of man they believed matched
they believed matched the
the description. at
Id. at
description. Id.

1. Harris was
2. was arrested by the Washington Police Department Washington Township Police Department on July 7, 7,

2022, in
2022, in New
New Jersey. at 213-214.
Id. at
Jersey. Id. 213-214.

55
Detective
DetectivePoulous
Poulousintroduced
introducedsurveillance
surveillancevideo
videothat
thatshowed
showedHarris
Harrisentering
enteringthe
the

Tinari
TinariLaw
LawFirm’s
Firm'soffice
officebuilding
buildingon
onJuly
July5,5,2022.
2022. Tr.
Tr.9/7/2023
9/7/2023atat51-52.
51-52.

Harris
Harrisdid
didnot
nottestify. Id.atat88-98.
testify. Id.
Id. 88-98.

Thejury
The juryreturned
returnedguilty verdictson
guiltyverdicts onSeptember 12,2023,
September12, 2023, on
onall
allcounts
countsexcept for
exceptfor

count
countone—rape
one-rapewith forciblecompulsion.
withforcible compulsion.
compulsion. Tr. 9/12/2023atat20-22.
Tr. 9/12/2023 20-22.

VI. Sentencing
VI. Sentencing
On
OnAugust
August9,9, 2024,
2024,the
theCommonwealth
Commonwealth and
and Defense
Defense Counsel
Counsel presented
presented experts
experts

onwhether
on
on whether thesentencing
whetherthe
the sentencing court should designate
courtshould
court should SexuallyViolent
Harris aaa Sexually
designate Harris
Harris Sexually Violent Predator
Violent Predator
Predator

(“SVP”).
("SVP"). Sentencing
Sentencing Transcript at5.5.
Transcriptatat 5.

The
The Commonwealth
Commonwealth called
called Dr.
Dr. John
John Siegler.
Siegler. Dr.
Dr. Siegler
Sieglerwas
was appointed tothe
appointed to the

Sexual
Sexual Offenders
Offenders Assessment
Assessment Board ("SOAB") by
Board (“SOAB”)
(SOAB") the Governor
bythe 2018. Id.
Governor inin 2018. Id. at
Id. at23.
23. He
He

testified
testified he receives
testified he
he receives information enumerated
information enumerated
receives information by the
enumerated by
by the sex
the sex offender
sex offender to
statute to
registration statute
offender registration
registration statute to

help him
help assess defendants.
him assess defendants. Id.
Id. at
at 23.
23. SAOB examiners assess
SAOB examiners assess from
from this information
this information

whether aaa person
whether
whether who has
person who
who has been convicted of
been convicted
has been convicted of aaa sexually
of violent offense
sexually violent
violent is likely
offense isis
offense to
likely to
to

engage inin future
engage predatory sexually
future predatory
predatory sexually violent
violent offenses
offenses due
due to
to aa mental
mental abnormality
abnormality or
or

personality
personality disorder. Id. at
disorder. Id.
Id. at 27.
27.

Dr.
Dr. Siegler
Siegler considered
considered 14
14 statutory
statutory factors:
factors:

The
The number
number of of victims,
victims, whether
whether the
the subject
subject exceeded
exceeded the the means
means
necessary achieve nature
necessary to achieve the offense, the nature of the contact with
to the offense, the of the contact with the
the victim,
victim,
relationship
relationship ofof the
the individual
individual toto the
the victim,
victim, whether
whether they they were
were acquainted
acquainted
or whether
or not, the age of the victim, whether there was unusual cruelty during
not, the age of the victim, there was unusual cruelty during the
during the
commission the
commission of the offense, the mental capacity
of the offense, mental victim, the
capacity of the victim, the prior
of the prior
offense history, whether the individual completed any prior sentences,
offense history, whether the individual completed any prior sentences,
whether the individual
whether the participated in
individual participated in available programs for
available programs for sexual
sexual
offenders,
offenders, the
the age
age of of the
the individual,
individual, mental
mental illness
illness or or disability,
disability, and
and the
the
behavioral characteristics contribute individual's
behavioral characteristics that contribute to the individual’s conduct.
that to the conduct.
Id. at
Id. at 28.
28.

6
6
Dr.
Dr.Siegler
Sieglerdetermined
determinedHarris
Harrismet
metboth prongsofofthe
bothprongs theSVP
SVPdesignation (mental
designation(mental

abnormality
abnormalityand
andpropensity).
propensity). Dr.
Dr.Siegler
Sieglerconsidered
consideredHarris’
Harris'prior
prioroffense
offensehistory. Id.atat
history. Id.Id.

31.
31. Harris was1919years
Harriswas yearsold
oldwhen
whenhis
hiscriminal
criminalrecord
recordbegan
beganand
andaccrued
accruedmore than3030
morethan

convictions
convictionsover
overthe
theensuing
ensuing30 years. Id.Id.atat31-32.
30years. 31-32. This
Thiscriminal
criminalactivity
activity“constituted
"constituted

antisocialbehavior
antisocial behaviorover thatperiod
overthat time"and
periodofoftime” andisis“indicative
"indicativeofofdeeply ingrainedand
deeplyingrained and

rigiddysfunctional
rigid dysfunctionalthought process,aamental
thoughtprocess, mentalabnormality, thatisisthe
abnormality,that impetusfor
theimpetus his
forhis

[current] behavior." Id.
offendingbehavior.”
[current]offending Id.atat33.
Id. 33. Dr.
Dr.Siegler believedHarris
Sieglerbelieved Harris“demonstrate[d]
"demonstrate[d]aa

limited
limitedcapacity forrelationships,”
capacityfor relationships," and "lackofofconcern
andaa“lack concernfor
forothers
othersbased
basedon
onhis
his

repeated
repeatedoffending
offendingbehavior,
behavior, impulsivity,
impulsivity,and poorproblem
andpoor problemsolving.”
solving." Id.
Id.atat35.
35. Dr.
Dr.

Siegler thenconsidered
Sieglerthen consideredthe
therelationship
relationshipbetween
between Harris
Harrisand thevictim.
andthe victim. Id.
Id.
Id. atat38.
38. He
He

concluded
concluded Harris initiatedcontact
Harrisinitiated contactwith thevictim
withthe victim“in
"inorder
ordertotoexploit
exploither forhis
herfor hissexual
sexual

gratification.”
gratification." Id.
Id. Dr.
Dr. Siegler
Sieglerconcluded
concluded his
hisSVP
SVPdetermination
determination of
ofHarris was made
Harriswas madetoto aa

reasonable
reasonabledegree
degreeof
ofpsychological
psychological certainty.
certainty. Id.
Id. atat41;
41; Commonwealth
Commonwealth Exh.
Exh. C-1,
C-1,

"SexualViolent
“Sexual Violent Predator
PredatorAssessment-Revised" at 13.
Assessment-Revised" at 13.

The court
The
The court found that
courtfound
found that Harris
that Harris met
Harris met
metthe
the definition
the definition ofaaa Sexually
of
definition of Violent Predator
Sexually Violent
Violent Predator by
Predator by

clear and
clear evidence. Id.
convincing evidence.
and convincing Id. at
at 102.
102.

Harris then addressed
Harris then addressed the court. Id.
the court. Id. at 131. He
at 131. He apologized
apologized to
to the victim's family
the victim’s family

and
and expressed
expressed his
his years’
years' long
long battle
battle with
with drugs
drugs and
and addiction. Id.
addiction. Id.
Id. at 131-132. He
at 131-132. He

asked for mercy.
asked for Id. at
mercy. Id.
Id. 133.
at 133.

The
The court
court imposed
imposed the
the following
following sentence:
sentence: Involuntary
Involuntary Deviate
Deviate Sexual
Sexual

Intercourse—10 to 20
lntercourse-10 to years imprisonment;
20 years imprisonment; Robbery
Robbery counts,
counts, all—
all-110Oto
to 20 years,
20 years,

concurrent;
concurrent; Strangulation—5 to 10
Strangulation-5 to years, consecutive;
10 years, consecutive; Criminal
Criminal Trespass—3 and-a-half
Trespass-3 and-a-half

to
to 77 years, concurrent with
years, concurrent with the
the strangulation
strangulation sentence;
sentence; followed by aa consecutive
followed by consecutive term
term

77
ofof55years onthe
probationon
years probation theconviction
convictionfor
forIndecent
IndecentAssault by
Assaultby Id. atat 135-136.
Force .. Id.
byForce.. 135-136.

This resulted
This resulted inin an
an aggregate sentenceof
aggregatesentence of15-30
15-30years
years imprisonment
imprisonmentfollowed
followed by
by55

years probation. Id.
years probation. at 136.
Id. at 136.

V. Discussion
V. Discussion
A. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its
NotAbuse
Did Not
Court Did
Trial Court
The Trial
A. The
A. Abuse Its Discretion
Its Discretion Denied
When ItItIt Denied
When
Discretion When Harris'
Denied Harris’ Request
Harris' Request
Request
for New Counsel
for New Counsel on on the
the Day
Day of
ofTrial
Trial
Appellate courts
Appellate courts apply an abuse
applyan abuse of
apply ofdiscretion
discretion standard
standard when
when reviewing
reviewing aatrial
trial

court's refusal
court’s refusal to
to appoint
appoint new
new counsel. Commonwealth v.v. Wright,
counsel. Commonwealth Wright, 961
961 A.2d
A.2d 119,
119, 134
134

(Pa.
(Pa. 2008); Commonwealth v.v. Spotz,
2008); Commonwealth 756 A.2d
Spatz, 756 A.2d 1139,
1139, 1150
1150 (Pa.
(Pa. 2000); Commonwealth
2000); Commonwealth

v.v. Tyler, 360 A.2d
Tyler, 360 A.2d 617,
617, 619
619 (Pa.
(Pa. 1976). “Where,
(Pa. 1976). here, there
as here,
"Where, as there isis no
no dispute
dispute that
thattrial
trial

counsel isis fully
counsel to proceed
prepared to
fully prepared proceed with trial
proceed with trial and
and isis competent,
competent, appointment
appointment of
of new
new

counsel isis required
counsel required only where irreconcilable
only where irreconcilable differences
differences between
between the
the defendant
defendant and
and

counsel are
counsel are shown.” Commonwealth v.v. Floyd,
shown." Commonwealth 937 A.2d
Floyd, 937 A.2d 494,
494, 497
497 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. 2007);
2007); Pa.
Pa.

R.
R. Crim.
Crim. P. 122(C). Indigent
P. 122(C). Indigent defendants
defendants are
are entitled
entitled to
to free
free counsel
counsel but
but not
not to
to free
free

counsel of
counsel of their
their own
own choosing. Commonwealth v.v. Cook,
choosing. Commonwealth Cook, 952
952 A.2d
A.2d 594,
594, 610
610 (Pa. 2008);
(Pa. 2008);

citing Commonwealth v.v. Chumley,
citing Commonwealth Chumley, 394
394 A.2d
A.2d 497,
497, 507
507 n.3
n.3 (Pa.
(Pa. 1978).
1978).

The question
The question whether
whether irreconcilable
irreconcilable differences
differences exist
exist depends
depends on
on three
three factors:
factors:

"(1) the
“(1) extent of
the extent of the
the conflict;
conflict; (2) the adequacy
(2) the of the
adequacy of court's inquiry
the court’s conflict; and
the conflict;
into the
inquiry into and

(3) the
(3) the timeliness
timeliness of
of the
the defendant’s
defendant's motion
motion for
for new
new counsel.” Commonwealth v.v. Cook,
counsel." Commonwealth Cook,

952 A.2d
952 A.2d 594,
594, 613
613 (Pa.
(Pa. 2008).
2008). Notably, "general misgivings”
Notably, “general about the
misgivings" about the extent
extent of
of aa

lawyer's preparation
lawyer’s preparation does
does not
not qualify as
as an
an irreconcilable
irreconcilable difference.
difference. Id.
Id.

Here, the record does
Here, does not
not support
support
support a finding
finding that
that the trial
trial court
court abused
abused its

discretion when
when it refused to appoint
appoint new counsel
counsel on the day of
of trial.
trial. Harris had

previously objected to his first-appointed counsel
counsel because she was
was a woman.
woman. Tr.
Tr.

9/05/2023 at
at 8-9.
8-9. After
After the Defenders replaced his first attorney with Mr.
Mr. Settles,
Settles, Harris
8
waited until
waited untilthe
theday
dayofoftrial
trialtotoobject. Id. atat4-5.
object. Id. 4-5. Harris
Harrisdid
did not
notobject
objectbecause
becauseMr.
Mr.

Settleswas
Settles was unprepared. He objected
unprepared. He because Mr.
objected because Mr. Settles
Settles had
had given
given him
him an
an honest
honest

opinion based
opinion based on
on years
based on of
years of professionalexperience
ofprofessional experience of
experienceof how
ofhow the
howthe would
jurywould
thejury the
weighthe
wouldweigh the

evidence. Id.
evidence. at 11.
Id. at 11. There
Therewas
was no
no indication
indication Mr.
Mr. Settles
Settles---having
having given
given his
his professional
professional

opinion and having
opinion and received Harris
having received Harris directive
directiveto
to proceed totrial
proceed to trial---would
would not
notzealously
zealously

represent his
represent his client. court
trial court
Thetrial
client. The
his client. The trial did
courtdid not
did not abuse
not abuse its
abuse its discretion
its discretion denied
when itititdenied
when
discretion when Harris'
denied Harris’
Harris'

request for new
requestfor new counsel
counsel on
on the
the day
day of
oftrial.
trial.

B. The
B. The Sentencing Court Properly
Sentencing Court Properly Designated Harris aa Sexually
Designated Harris Violent Predator
Sexually Violent Predator
Appellate courts apply
Appellate courts apply aa “clear
"clear and
and convincing
convincing evidence”
evidence" standard
standard when
when

reviewing aa sentencing
reviewing court's designation
sentencing court’s ofaa defendant
designation of defendant as
as aa Sexually
Sexually Violent
Violent

Predator Commonwealth v.v. Flacks,
("SVP"). Commonwealth
Predator (“SVP”). 331 A.3d
Flacks, 331 A.3d 687,
687, 692
692 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.2025).
Super.2025).

Sentencing Courts are
Sentencing Courts are charged
charged with
with designating
designating aa defendant
defendant as
as an
an “SVP”
"SVP" ififthe
the

sentencing court finds
sentencing court finds by clear and
by clear and convincing evidence that
convincing evidence that the
the defendant
defendant (a)
(a) suffers
suffers

from aa mental
from mental abnormality or personality
abnormality or disorder that
personality disorder that (b)
(b) makes
makes them
them likely
likely to engage
likely to engage

inin predatory
predatory sexually violent offenses.
sexually violent offenses. Id.
Id.

Here, the
Here, the sentencing court properly
sentencing court properly designated Harris an
designated Harris an SVP.
SVP. SAOB
SAOB Expert
Expert Dr.
Dr.

Siegler testified
Siegler testified that
that Harris’
Harris' criminal
criminal history,
history, “deeply
"deeply ingrained and rigid
ingrained and dysfunctional
rigid dysfunctional

thought process,”
thought process," limited
limited capacity
capacity for
for relationships,
relationships, lack
lack of
of concern
concern for
for others
others based
based on
on

repeated offending
repeated behavior, impulsivity,
offending behavior, and non-existent
impulsivity, and non-existent prior
prior relationship
relationship to
to the
the victim
victim

supported his
supported his SVP
SVP designation.
designation. Id. at 31-33,
Id. at
Id. 31-33, 35.
35. Dr.
Dr. Siegler underscored that
Siegler underscored that Harris
Harris

had sexually assaulted a stranger
had impulsively as he roamed
stranger impulsively roamed through
through aa commercial
commercial

office building
office building initially
initially intending on
on only theft. Id.
only theft. at 37-38.
Id. at 37-38.

9
C.
C. Sentencing
Sentencing
Harris cobbles
Harris cobbles together
together aa hodgepodge
hodgepodge of
of complaints
complaints about
about the
the sentence
sentence

imposed,
imposed, suggesting
suggesting none
none have
have merit. He claims
merit. He claims the
the trial
trial court
court erroneously
erroneously imposed
imposed a
a

sentence of
sentence of 15-30
15-30 years
years imprisonment,
imprisonment, impermissibly
impermissibly considered
considered Harris’ prior arrests,
Harris' prior arrests,

impermissibly
impermissibly considered
considered media
media reports and victim
reports and victim impact testimony, and
impact testimony, and failed
failed to
to

consider Harris’ history
consider Harris' history with
with addiction
addiction as
as aa mitigating
mitigating factor.
factor. These
These arguments
arguments fail.
fail.

"It is
"It is well
well established
established that
that the
the Sentencing
Sentencing Guidelines
Guidelines are
are purely
purely advisory"
advisory" and
and are
are

"only one
“only one factor
factor the
the court
court may
may consider
consider in
in imposing
imposing a
a sentence.”
sentence." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
v.

Yhasz, 923
Yhasz, 923 A.2d 1111, 1118
A.2d 1111, 1118 (Pa.
(Pa. 2007).
2007). "Bald
"Bald allegations
allegations of
of excessiveness,
excessiveness,

unaccompanied
unaccompanied by
by a
a plausible
plausible argument
argument that the sentence
that the sentence imposed
imposed violated
violated a
a provision
provision

of
of the
the Sentencing
Sentencing Code
Code or
or is
is contrary
contrary to
to the
the fundamental
fundamental norms
norms underlying
underlying the
the

sentencing
sentencing scheme,
scheme, are
are insufficient
insufficient to
to raise
raise a
a substantial
substantial question."
question." Commonwealth v.
Commonwealth v.
v.

Lee,
Lee, 876 A.2d 408,
876 A.2d 408, 412
412 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. 2005).
2005). A
A victim
victim impact
impact statement,
statement, moreover,
moreover, may
may

be presented before
be presented before sentencing
sentencing to
to detail
detail "the
"the physical,
physical, psychological,
psychological, and
and economic
economic

effects of
effects of the
the crime
crime on
on the
the victim and the
victim and the victim's
victim's family."
family." Commonwealth v. Eldred,
Commonwealth v.
v. Eldred, 207
207

A.3d 404,
A.3d 404, 408
408 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.2019),
Super.2019), quoting
quotig v. King,
Commonwealth v.
n Commonwealth v. King, 182
182 A.3d
A.3d 449,
449, 455
455

(Pa. Super.
(Pa. 2018).
Super. 2018).

The court
The court considered
considered both
both aggravating
aggravating and
and mitigating
mitigating factors
factors when
when sentencing
sentencing

Harris. Sentencing
Harris. Sentencing at
at 133-134.
133-134. The
The court
court also
also considered
considered the
the SVP
SVP designation, the
designation, the

time of day,
time of day, and
and the
the impact
impact on
on the
the victim. Id. The
victim. Id. The victim
victim slept
slept with
with aa weapon
weapon after she
after she

was assaulted.
was assaulted. Id.
Id. at
at 115-116.
115-116. Her
Her anxiety
anxiety frayed her relationships
frayed her with her
relationships with her family. Id.
family. Id.

at 116-117. She
at 116-117. She can
can no
no longer
longer work
work in
in the city. Id.
the city. Id. at
at 1 17. Harris
117. Harris destroyed
destroyed the
the

victim's life.
victim’s life. Id.
Id. The
The court
court did
did not
not abuse its discretion
abuse its discretion in
in sentencing
sentencing Harris
Harris to
to 15
15 to
to 30
30

years imprisonment
years imprisonment followed
followed by
by 55 years
years of
of probation.
probation. Id.
Id. at 136.
at 136.

10
10
10
D. Complaints about
D. Complaints about the
the Evidence
Evidence
The
The court
court is
is reminded
reminded of
of Judge Aldisert’s pithy
Judge Aldisert's pithy observation
observation about
about appeals
appeals that
that

raise as many
raise as many as
as six,
six, seven,
seven, eight, nine, and
eight, nine, and ten
ten issues:
issues: “it
"it is
is rare
rare that
that aa brief
brief

successfully
successfully demonstrates
demonstrates that
that the
the trial
trial court
court committed
committed more
more than
than one
one or
or two
two reversible
reversible

errors...
errors ... [WJhen
[W]hen II read
read an
an appellant’s
appellant's brief that contains
brief that contains ten
ten or
or twelve
twelve points,
points, aa

presumption
presumption arises
arises that
that there
there is
is no
no merit to any
merit to any of
of them.” Commonwealth v.
them." Commonwealth v. Showers,
Showers,

782 A.2d
782 A.2d 1010,
1010, 1016
1016 (Pa.Super.
(Pa.Super. 2001) (quoting United
2001) (quoting United States
States v.
v. Hart,
Hart, 693
693 F.2d
F.2d 286,
286,

287 n.
287 n. 11(3d
(3d Cir.1982)).
Cir.1982)).

Harris
Harris complains
complains about
about the
the weight,
weight, nature,
nature, and
and sufficiency
sufficiency of
of the
the evidence.
evidence.

These
These arguments
arguments are
are without
without merit.
merit. The
The verdict
verdict was
was not
not against
against the
the weight
weight of the
of the

evidence. A
evidence. A verdict
verdict is
is against
against the weight of
the weight the evidence
of the evidence only
only where
where itit is
is so
so contrary
contrary to
to

the evidence
the evidence that
that itit “shocks
"shocks the
the trial
trial court’s
court's sense
sense of
of justice."
justice." Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
v.

Clemons, 200 A.3d
Clemons, 200 A.3d 441
441,,
463 (Pa.
463 (Pa. 2019).
2019). "Because
"Because the
the trial
trial judge
judge has
has the
the opportunity
opportunity to
to

hear
hear and
and see
see evidence
evidence presented,
presented, an
an appellate
appellate court will give
court will give the
the gravest
gravest consideration
consideration

to the
to the findings
findings and
and reasons
reasons advanced
advanced by
by the
the trial
trial judge”
judge" in
in analyzing
analyzing whether
whether the
the verdict
verdict

went against
went against the
the weight
weight of
of the
the evidence.
evidence. Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
v. Clay,
Clay, 64
64 A.3d
A.3d 1049, 1055
1049, 1055

(Pa. 2013);
(Pa. 2013); quoting
quoting Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
v. Widmer,
Widmer, 744
744 A.2d
A.2d 745, 753 (Pa.
745, 753 (Pa. 2000).
2000).

Here, the DNA
Here, the DNA match,
match, the
the surveillance
surveillance video
video that
that depicted
depicted Harris,
Harris, and
and the
the

victim’s
victim's credible
credible testimony
testimony about
about how
how he
he forced
forced her
her to
to engage
engage in
in deviate
deviate sexual
sexual

intercourse support
intercourse support the
the verdict.
verdict. ItIt was
was just
just and
and did
did not
not shock
shock the
the trial
trial judge’s
judge's

conscience. Tr.
conscience. Tr. 9/6/2023
9/6/2023 at
at 49,
49, 50-52,
50-52, 55-62,
55-62, 147,
147, 155,
155, 156,
156, 160;
160; Tr.
Tr. 9/7/2023 at 59,
9/7/2023 at 59,

67-68; Tr.
67-68; Tr. 9/12/2023
9/12/2023 at
at 20-29.
20-29.

Harris next
Harris next complains
complains the
the court
court improperly
improperly allowed
allowed the
the District
District Attorney
Attorney to
to play
play

the 9111 call
the 91 call to
to the
the jury.
jury. Harris
Harris did not object
did not object at
at trial.
trial. The
The issue
issue is waived on
is waived on appeal.
appeal.

11
11
11
Commonwealth,
Commonwealth. v.
Commonwealth. v. Piper,
v. Piper, 328 A.2d 845,
328 A.2d 845, 847
845, 847 (Pa.
(Pa. 1974)
(Pa. 1974) (issues not
1974) (issues not raised at
not raised at trial
trial
trial cannot
cannot
cannot

be
be raised
raised for
for first time on
first time on appeal); Pa. R.A.P.
appeal); Pa. R.A.P. §302.
§302.

Harris
Harris also
also complains
also the
the court
complains the court erred
court erred where
where itit failed
failed to
failed to set
to set aside
set aside the
aside the verdicts for
the verdicts for

insufficient
insufficient evidence.
insufficient evidence. When
evidence. When considering
When considering aa sufficiency of evidence claim,
of evidence
sufficiency of claim, appellate
claim, appellate

courts
courts determine
determine whether
whether all
whether all the
all the evidence
evidence admitted
admitted at
at trial
at trial and
trial and all
all reasonable
all reasonable

inferences,
inferences, taken
inferences, taken in
in light
in light most
most favorable
most favorable to
to the
the Commonwealth,
Commonwealth, could
Commonwealth, could allow
allow the
allow the

factfinder to
factfinder to find
to each element
find each
find element of
element of the
of the offenses
offenses beyond reasonable doubt.
beyond aa reasonable doubt.
doubt.

Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
Commonwealth v. Hodge,
v. Hodge, 658
658 A.2d
A.2d 386,
386, 387
386, 387 (Pa. Super. 1995)
(Pa.Super.
(Pa.Super. 1995) (citing
1995) (citing Commonwealth
(citing Commonwealth
Commonwealth

v.
v. Jackson,
Jackson, 485
485 A.2d
A.2d 1102,
1102, 1103
1103 (Pa.
(Pa. 1984)).
1984)). For
For the
the reasons
reasons set
set forth
forth above
above in
in the
the

weight
weight of
of the
the evidence
evidence discussion,
discussion, Harris’
Harris' appeal
appeal for
for insufficiency
insufficiency is
is without
without merit.
merit.

E. Mistrial
E.
E. Mistrial
Harris’
Harris' alleges
alleges the
the Court
Court erred
erred by
by not
not granting
granting aa motion
motion for
for mistrial.
mistrial. Harris
Harris filed
filed aa

pro se motion
prose motion for
for mistrial
mistrial on
on February
February 27,
27, 2024
2024 -
-- five
five months
months after
after his
his trial
trial concluded.
concluded.

The
The motion
motion (a)
(a) rehashes
rehashes his
his complaints
complaints about
about the
the court’s
court's refusal
refusal to
to appoint
appoint new
new counsel
counsel

on
on the
the eve
eve of
of trial
trial and
and (b)
(b) asserts
asserts trial
trial counsel
counsel was
was ineffective
ineffective during
during the
the trial.
trial. The
The court
court

addresses
addresses above
above Harris’
Harris' complaint
complaint about
about the
the court’s
court's refusal
refusal to
to appoint
appoint new
new counsel
counsel on
on

the
the eve
eve of
of trial.
trial. Harris’
Harris' complaint
complaint about
about the
the ineffectiveness
ineffectiveness of
of trial
trial counsel
counsel during
during the
the

trial
trial must
must wait
wait for
for PCRA
PCRA review.
review. See
See Commonwealth
Commonwealth v.
v. Watson,
Watson, 310
310 A.3d
A.3d 307,
307, 310-1
310-111

(Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. Ct.
Ct 2024)
2024) (trial
(trial and
and appellate
appellate courts
courts should
should generally
generally not
not entertain
entertain claims
claims of
of

ineffectiveness
ineffectiveness on
on direct
direct appeal).
appeal).

F.
F. The
The Seating
Seating of
of An
An Alternate
Alternate Juror
Juror
Lastly, Harris complains the trial
Lastly, Harris complains the trial court
court improperly
improperly sat
sat an
an alternate
alternate juror.
juror. Harris
Harris

failed
failed to
to object
object after
after the
the court
court interviewed
interviewed the
the original
original juror.
juror. The
The issue
issue is
is waived.
waived.

12
12
12
On
On Friday,
Friday, September
September 8,
8, 2023,
2023, after
after approximately
approximately¾% of
of aa day
day of
of deliberations,
deliberations,

the jury
the jury informed
informed the
the court
court itit wanted
wanted to return Monday
to return Monday but
but that
that one
one of
of the
the jurors
jurors -- juror
juror 77

-- had
had aa conflict.
conflict. The
The court
court informed
informed Harris
Harris outside
outside the
the presence
presence of
of the
the jury
jury that
that there
there

were two
were two options:
options: replace
replace juror
juror 77 with
with the alternate, juror
the alternate, juror 13,
13, or
or delay
delay the
the trial
trial until
until juror
juror

77 could
could return.
return. Harris
Harris initially
initially expressed
expressed aa preference
preference to
to postpone
postpone the
the trial
trial until
until juror
juror 77

could
could return.
return. Tr.
Tr. 9/8/23
9/8/23 at
at 22.
22. The
The court
court then
then interviewed
interviewed juror
juror 77 in
in Harris’
Harris' presence
presence

and
and discerned
discerned juror
juror 77 could
could not
not return
return until
until the
the following
following Thursday.
Thursday. Id.
Id. at
at 24.
24. The
The court
court

decided
decided under
under that
that circumstance
circumstance to
to excuse
excuse juror
juror 77 and
and seat
seat jury
jury 13. Harris
13. Harris did
did not
not

object.
object. Id.
Id. at
at 25.
25. Any
Any issue
issue pertaining to
to the
the seating of
of the
the alternate
alternate is
is waived
waived on
on

appeal.
appeal.

VI.
VI. Conclusion
Conclusion

For
For the
the reasons
reasons set
set forth
forth above,
above, the
the Court
Court should
should affirm
affirm the
the judgment
judgment of
of conviction
conviction and
and

sentence.
sentence.

BY
BY THE
THE COURT:
COURT:
COURT:

Christopher
Christopher R.
R. Hall,
R. Hall, J.
J.
J.

13
13
13