242 A.3d 452
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- Victim A.B. (married to appellant’s brother) and appellant attended a nightclub together; both consumed large amounts of alcohol and were highly intoxicated.
- Both parties testified they had no memory of events between falling asleep and waking the next morning; A.B. awoke to find appellant naked from the waist down and her pajama pants off; she experienced genital discomfort and later had a rape kit performed.
- Forensic testing matched appellant’s DNA to stains on A.B.’s underwear. Appellant was acquitted of rape of an unconscious person but convicted of sexual assault under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3124.1.
- Trial court sentenced appellant to 4–8 years’ imprisonment; appellant filed post-sentence motion and timely appeal raising sufficiency (consent), RRRI eligibility finding, and discretionary-sentencing claims.
- Appellant attempted to raise additional claims (cultural/gender bias, due process issues related to his intoxication) on appeal but the court deemed those waived for failure to preserve below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Esquivel Hernandez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence as to lack of consent for sexual assault | A.B. was so intoxicated she could not consent; circumstantial evidence (A.B.’s reaction, her testimony she would not consent to sex with brother‑in‑law, DNA on underwear, prior similar incident) supported lack of consent | Memory loss by both parties means Commonwealth did not prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed: evidence sufficient—jury could infer A.B. was incapacitated/unable to consent and conviction stands |
| RRRI eligibility finding at sentencing | Commonwealth noted appellant not RRRI‑eligible; written sentence states RRRI ineligible due to sex‑offender registration requirements | Trial court failed on the record at sentencing to make the RRRI eligibility determination | No merit: written sentence and statute show ineligibility; sentence legal |
| Discretionary aspects: excessive/non‑individualized sentence | Court considered PSI, victim impact, mitigation letters, and statutory factors; sentence within standard guideline range | Trial court abused discretion by ignoring mitigating factors (lack of prior record, employment, victimization); PSI interview lacked translator | No abuse of discretion: standard‑range 4–8 year sentence affirmed; court considered statutory factors and mitigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Green, 203 A.3d 250 (Pa. Super. 2019) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Buffington, 828 A.2d 1024 (Pa. 2003) (intoxication/memory loss can establish unconsciousness or inability to consent)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (similar holding on intoxication and consent)
- Commonwealth v. Diaz, 152 A.3d 1040 (Pa. Super. 2016) (victim intoxication supports conviction for sexual assault)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 7 A.3d 868 (Pa. Super. 2010) (RRRI eligibility must be determined; failure can render sentence illegal)
- Commonwealth v. Willis, 68 A.3d 997 (Pa. Super. 2013) (written sentencing order controls over oral pronouncement when there is a conflict)
- Commonwealth v. Brooker, 103 A.3d 325 (Pa. Super. 2014) (same principle regarding written versus oral sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standards for discretionary‑aspects sentencing review; PSI presumed considered)
- Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2006) (failure to consider statutory sentencing factors can present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (sentencing court is afforded broad discretion and deference)