Com. v. Laureano, M. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S28024-16 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MIGUEL LAUREANO Appellant No. 1961 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 17, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0010147-2011 BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.* MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MAY 04, 2016 Miguel Laureano appeals from his judgment of sentence, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, following a non-jury trial in which he was convicted of rape of a child,1 involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child,2 aggravated indecent assault of a child,3 unlawful contact with a minor,4 and related offenses. After review, we affirm on the ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(c). 2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3123(b). 3 18 Pa.C.S. § 3125(b). 4 18 Pa.C.S. § 6318(a)(1). J-S28024-16 basis of the opinion of the Honorable Gwendolyn Bright, dated October 9, 2015. Complainant, Y.R., resided with Laureano and his wife, Luz Moralez, from the time she was approximately six to eleven years of age. During this time, Y.R.’s mother was incarcerated. babysitter. Moralez previously had been Y.R.’s Y.R. testified that while living with Laureano and Moralez, Laureano sexually assaulted and raped her on a regular basis. At trial, Y.R. testified to numerous incidents in which Laureano penetrated her vagina with his penis or fingers or otherwise inappropriately touched her. Laureano was convicted of the aforementioned crimes and was sentenced on June 17, 2015, to 25 to 50 years’ incarceration, to be followed by seven years of probation. Laureano filed a timely notice of appeal and court-ordered concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On appeal, Laureano challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, specifically arguing that the vagueness of the dates of the alleged misconduct precludes his convictions. Our standard of review in assessing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is well-settled. “The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all of the evidence admitted at trial 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.” Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa. -2- J-S28024-16 Super. 2013). “Any doubts concerning an appellant’s guilt [are] to be resolved by the trier of fact unless the evidence was so weak and inconclusive that no probability of fact could be drawn therefrom.” Commonwealth v. West, 937 A.2d 516, 523 (Pa. Super. 2007). Further, “the Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.” Commonwealth v. Perez, 931 A.2d 703, 707 (Pa. Super. 2007). Here, Laureano’s sufficiency argument that the Commonwealth failed to provide the precise date and time of each criminal act is without merit because the record indicates that Laureano repeatedly sexually assaulted the victim over a period of time. See Commonwealth v. G.D.M., Sr., 926 A.2d 984, 990 (Pa. Super. 2007) (”Commonwealth must be afforded broad latitude when attempting to fix the date of offenses which involve a continuous course of criminal conduct[,]” such as sexual abuse of a child (emphasis added)). Thus, Laureano’s argument is unavailing. We find that Judge Bright’s opinion, dated October 9, 2015, effectively addresses Laureano’s claims based upon the sufficiency of the evidence, and we affirm on that basis. We direct the parties to attach a copy of the trial court’s opinion in the event of further proceedings. Judgment of sentence affirmed. -3- J-S28024-16 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 5/4/2016 -4- Circulated 04/07/2016 09:42 AM

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.