Commonwealth v. Junious

Full title: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT JUNIOUS Appellant

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Jul 3, 2018

No. 2423 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jul. 3, 2018)

Opinion

J-S07017-18 No. 2423 EDA 2016

07-03-2018

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT JUNIOUS Appellant

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 24, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000504-2012, CP-51-CR-0000533-2012 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J.

Appellant, Robert Junious,¹ appeals from the judgment of sentence entered after his convictions for numerous offenses arising from the sexual assault of two women. Appellant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions. We affirm.

1 Appellant is also identified in the record as "Hassan Junious."

The trial court accurately summarized the history of his case. See Trial Court Opinion, filed 4/13/17, at 1-5. Therefore, a detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history is unnecessary.

Our standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is to determine whether, when viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict winner, the evidence at trial and all reasonable inferences therefrom are sufficient for the trier of fact to find each element of the crimes charged is established beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Dale , 836 A.2d 150, 152 (Pa. Super. 2003).

On appeal, Appellant contends that the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Specifically, Appellant alleges the Commonwealth failed to prove either victim did not consent to Appellant's sexual advances. The trial court, in its April 13, 2017 opinion, has methodically reviewed this claim and disposed of Appellant's sufficient arguments on the merits. We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the relevant law, the certified record, and the well-written opinion of the Honorable Diana L. Anhalt. Judge Anhalt's opinion comprehensively disposes of Appellant's challenges with appropriate references to the record and without legal error. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment of sentence on the basis of Judge Anhalt's opinion filed April 13, 2017.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 7/3/18

Image materials not available for display.