Com. v. Gonzales, H.
3690 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- On July 1, 2013, Hector Gonzales accosted two women in a Philadelphia park, forcibly assaulted one (M.R.) by pulling down her clothes, tearing her underwear, attempting oral and vaginal penetration, and exposing himself; the other (C.Q.) witnessed and intervened. Gonzales fled naked and was later detained after a SWAT standoff.
- A jury convicted Gonzales (March 2015) of attempted rape by forcible compulsion, attempted IDSI by forcible compulsion, unlawful restraint (serious bodily injury), indecent exposure, and indecent assault.
- After presentence and mental-health/Megan’s Law evaluations, the court imposed an aggregate 21–42 year sentence (consecutive mandatory-minimum terms as a second-strike offender) and designated Gonzales an SVP under SORNA.
- Post-sentence motions were denied; Gonzales appealed raising discretionary-sentencing, sufficiency, and weight-of-the-evidence claims.
- The Superior Court affirmed the convictions and most of the sentence but sua sponte vacated the SVP designation as illegal under governing constitutional rules and remanded for SORNA-tier determination and notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Gonzales) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discretionary aspects of sentence (manifestly excessive/consecutive terms) | Sentence appropriate given offenses, guidelines, mandatory minimums, and PSR; trial court considered required factors | Sentence excessive, disproportionate; court failed to consider defendant's learning disability, low IQ, rehabilitative needs, and failed to individualize sentence | Held: No abuse of discretion; sentencing court adequately considered §9721 factors and guidelines; sentence affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence—attempted rape by forcible compulsion | Eyewitness (C.Q.) and victim (M.R.) testimony, torn/disheveled clothing, officers’ observations support attempt to penetrate—satisfies substantial-step + intent | Argues no testimony that penis was near victim’s vagina; thus insufficient to prove attempt to penetrate | Held: Sufficiency established—C.Q.’s eyewitness account that Gonzales was on top with pants/underwear down and appeared to try to insert his penis permitted conviction; claim rejected |
| Weight of the evidence | Evidence credible and corroborated; jury verdict should stand | Verdict against weight—testimony conflicted or uncertain | Held: No new trial; trial court did not abuse discretion—evidence not so tenuous as to shock the conscience |
| Legality of SVP designation under SORNA (burden/standard for SVP finding) | Court followed §9799.24(e)(3) (trial court factfinder; clear and convincing) | Designation improper post-Muniz because SORNA registration is punitive; SVP factual finding raising registration consequences must meet Apprendi/Alleyne due-process jury/beyond-a-reasonable-doubt requirements | Held: SVP portion of sentence vacated sua sponte as illegal in light of Muniz and subsequent Superior Court authority; remanded for tier determination and proper notice (but remainder of sentence affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Sierra v. Commonwealth, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standard for raising substantial question on discretionary-sentencing appeal)
- Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (framework for appellate review of discretionary sentencing and substantial-question requirement)
- Muniz v. Commonwealth, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (holding SORNA registration is punitive)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing criminal punishment must be submitted to jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (extending Apprendi to mandatory minimum increases in punishment)