Com. v. Martinez Morales, M.
1760 EDA 2024
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Matias J. Martinez Morales was convicted by a jury in Bucks County of multiple sexual offenses against his two great-nieces, including rape of a child and indecent assault.
- The abuse occurred when the victims were between four and seven years old, with delays of several years before the victims disclosed the abuse to authorities.
- Morales received an aggregate sentence of 18.5 to 47 years’ imprisonment, plus probation.
- On appeal, Morales argued the trial court erred by not issuing a prompt complaint jury instruction and by imposing excessive and guideline-deviant sentences without considering mitigating factors or stating reasons.
- The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding Morales waived most claims by failing to preserve them at trial or in post-sentence motions and for procedural errors in his brief.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Omission of prompt complaint jury instruction | Instruction was requested and warranted due to delay in complaint; error to omit | No clear request/objection in record; victims’ youth and threats explained delay | Waived; no record preservation, instruction not warranted |
| Excessive/disproportionate sentence for rape of a child | Sentence harsh/excessive, mitigating evidence not properly considered | No post-sentence motion or objection filed | Waived; not preserved in trial court |
| Sentence above guidelines for indecent assault of minor | Disproportionate, court only considered seriousness, ignored mitigating evidence | No objection or post-sentence challenge | Waived; not preserved in trial court |
| Failure to state sentencing guideline ranges/reasons on record | Court didn’t recite permissible ranges or reasons for exceeding guidelines | No Rule 2119(f) statement in brief; procedural default | Waived; procedural deficiencies |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 82 A.3d 943 (Pa. 2013) (specific objection needed to preserve jury charge issues for appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Pressley, 887 A.2d 220 (Pa. 2005) (specific exception required to preserve claims on jury instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 149 A.3d 349 (Pa. Super. 2016) (failure to include Rule 2119(f) statement waives discretionary sentencing challenge)
- Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d 788 (Pa. Super. 2015) (sentencing challenges must be raised at sentencing or in post-sentence motion)