Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

[U] Commonwealth v. Frazier

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

February 5, 2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee
v.
THADDEUS FRAZIER, Appellant

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 24, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000837-2010

BEFORE: GANTMAN, J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J. [*]

MEMORANDUM

GANTMAN, J.

Appellant, Thaddeus Frazier, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial convictions for unlawful contact with a minor, corruption of a minor, and indecent assault by forcible compulsion.[1] We affirm.

The trial court opinion fully sets forth the relevant facts of this case as follows:

On November 15th, 2009, F.J., the victim herein, was spending the day with his two cousins, K.F., age 16, and J.F., age 14, under the supervision of his aunt, [E.F.]. That evening, [Appellant] called [E.F.] and requested that K.F., J.F. and the victim accompany [Appellant] to the store. After [E.F.] agreed with this request, [Appellant] picked the three children up in his vehicle. After running a few errands, [Appellant] took the children back to his residence where the four of them would spend the night. The victim fell asleep on a couch in [Appellant's] living room at around 11:00 p.m. At about 2:00 a.m. of the next morning, the victim awoke in [Appellant's] bedroom where [Appellant] was in the process of removing the victim's pants. [Appellant] forced himself on top of the victim and attempted to kiss the victim on his lips and neck. [Appellant] then put his penis on the victim's thigh and sustained an erection. The victim struggled with [Appellant] for several minutes before freeing himself. The victim fled to the living room and attempted to wake K.F. When K.F. did not wake up, the victim went to sleep again in the living room. [Appellant] entered the living room, reached into the victim's underwear and touched his penis. [Appellant] repeatedly asked the victim to rejoin him in the upstairs bedroom, but the victim declined. The next morning, the victim informed [K.F.] of [Appellant's] actions, and [K.F.] told him that he and the victim needed to go home immediately. After returning to the supervision of [E.F.], the victim informed her of [Appellant's] conduct, after which [E.F.] contacted the police.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed February 15, 2013, at 1-2). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on August 1, 2012. On January 17, 2013, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant timely complied.[2]

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

DID THE [TRIAL] COURT ERR WHEN IT FOUND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF INDECENT ASSAULT?
DID THE [TRIAL] COURT ERR WHEN IT FOUND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL CONTACT OR COMMUNICATION WITH MINOR?

(Appellant's Brief at 2).

When examining a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, our standard of review is as follows:

The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted…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 above] test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and 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 wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.