Com. v. McNamee, A., 2374 EDA 2015

Victim and Albert McNamee had an on/off romantic relationship; after reconciling in Jan. 2011 McNamee stayed at her home while recovering from surgery.
McNamee accessed the victim’s phone and computer (Spyware/Web Watcher found), and the victim recovered her phone from McNamee’s home during a warrant search.
On March 5, 2011 McNamee confronted the victim at her home, kicked in her bedroom door, cut the landline wiring, assaulted her repeatedly (punching, choking, hair-pulling), and twice raped her; the victim’s son intervened and called police.
Medical records, photographs, and testimony from the victim’s sons corroborated the victim’s account; McNamee admitted using Spyware and claimed sex was consensual with an intoxicated victim.
A jury convicted McNamee of rape, aggravated assault, unlawful restraint, and theft; court sentenced him to an aggregate 13 to 26 years’ imprisonment.
McNamee appealed, raising sufficiency challenges to aggravated assault and rape convictions and contesting the discretionary aspects of his sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault	Commonwealth: victim’s testimony and corroborating evidence establish attempt/intent to cause serious bodily injury	McNamee: injuries did not amount to serious bodily injury or intent to cause same	Affirmed — victim’s testimony and corroboration supported finding of attempt/intent and aggravated assault conviction
Sufficiency of evidence for rape	Commonwealth: victim’s uncorroborated testimony was sufficient to prove forcible compulsion	McNamee: victim’s testimony insufficiently detailed to show forcible compulsion	Affirmed — victim’s testimony supported rape conviction; uncorroborated testimony can suffice
Discretionary aspects of sentence	Commonwealth: sentence within guidelines and appropriately considered PSR, mitigation, and victim impact	McNamee: sentence manifestly excessive given first offense and mitigation evidence	Affirmed — claim did not raise substantial question; court considered relevant factors and sentence was within ranges

Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 820 A.2d 795 (Pa. Super.) (standard for sufficiency review)
Commonwealth v. Martuscelli, 54 A.3d 940 (Pa. Super.) (intent to cause serious bodily injury may be shown by surrounding circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Caterino, 678 A.2d 389 (Pa. Super.) (intent shown by circumstances for aggravated assault)
Commonwealth v. Castlehun, 889 A.2d 1228 (Pa. Super.) (uncorroborated testimony of complaining witness can support sexual offense conviction)
Commonwealth v. Davis, 650 A.2d 452 (Pa. Super.) (same principle for sexual assault convictions)
Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900 (Pa. Super.) (inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not generally present a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki, 522 A.2d 17 (Pa. 1987) (notice of appeal plus Rule 2119(f) statement functions as petition for discretionary review of sentence)
Commonwealth v. Gambal, 561 A.2d 710 (Pa. 1989) (procedural guidance on discretionary sentencing appeals)