Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Olson](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10805802/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• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential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 (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37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

Date: 3/9/2026

-7-