Full Opinion

J-S41023-26 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ADRIAN JUNIOR QUINTANA : : Appellant : No. 517 MDA 2026 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 27, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0000359-2022 BEFORE: STABILE, J., MURRAY, J., and KING, J. MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 02, 2026 Adrian Junior Quintana (Appellant) appeals, nunc pro tunc, from the judgment of sentence imposed following his jury convictions of statutory sexual assault – defendant 11 or more years older, corruption of minors – sexual acts, and indecent assault – complainant less than 16 years of age.1 Appellant raises a sole challenge to the weight of the evidence supporting his convictions. After careful review, we affirm. The trial court previously set forth the relevant factual history as follows: J.P.[, who was 15 years old at the time of trial,] testified that she had known [Appellant] since she was eight or nine years old, and that he had been her mother’s [(A.T.)] husband. Sometime after the family moved to Schuylkill County, the adults separated, with J.P. and her siblings … living with [A.T.] in Minersville, and [Appellant] residing in Cumbola. Both of the municipalities [are] within Schuylkill County. ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3122.1(b), 6301(a)(1)(ii), 3126(a)(8). J-S41023-26 J.P. testified that she was [13] years old when she visited [Appellant] at his home on June 6, 2021, because she wanted to see and spend time with him. [A.T.] drove J.P. to [Appellant’s] home around [5:00 p.m.] After having dinner with [Appellant], J.P. stated that she and [Appellant] smoked marijuana. [J.P.] then felt tired and drowsy, and sat down on [Appellant’s] bed, which was in the living room of the home, to look at her phone. Thereafter, according to J.P., [Appellant] pushed her shoulders down, held her hands by the wrists above her head with his one hand, pulled [down] her jogging shorts[ and] underwear, and his own shorts down with his other hand, and then penetrated her vagina with his penis. J.P. testified that she was, “like, in shock to, like, why he was doing this.” She also felt as if she “couldn’t do anything,” after having smoked the marijuana. Nevertheless, J.P. told [Appellant] to get off of her because she did not like how “it felt,” and he complied. Although J.P. retrieved her phone, she did not call for help because she was scared, and did not “know what would happen.” J.P. and [Appellant] did not converse about the incident, with the exception that [Appellant] told [J.P.] not to “say anything.” Subsequently, [Appellant] walked into another room, only to return later with marijuana[,] which they again both smoked. J.P. and [Appellant] spent the night in [Appellant’s] bed facing [] opposite directions. According to J.P., she was retrieved the next morning by [A.T. J.P.] did not tell her mother what had happened because she did not want to talk about it, and was afraid she would get in trouble. Thereafter, J.P. testified, she remained in contact with [Appellant] via video calls on June 12, 18, and 23, 2021. During each call, [Appellant] asked “to see it,” which J.P. understood to mean her vagina. J.P. complied by using her phone. However, during the June 23, 2021[,] call, [A.T.] walked into her room while J.P. was wearing no pants and had her phone positioned between her legs. [A.T.] became upset, grabbed the phone, immediately contacted [Appellant], “flip[ped] out” at him, and called the police. Trial Court Opinion, 2/22/24, at 2-3; see also id. at 4 (“A.T. took a [screenshot] of the incoming phone call information on the phone[,] which indicated a phone call from [Appellant] was received at 12:02 a.m. on June 23, 2021, and that it had lasted for [33] minutes.”). -2- J-S41023-26 Law enforcement responded to A.T.’s 911 call. After speaking with both A.T. and J.P., the responding officers advised A.T. to take J.P. to the hospital, and then to visit the police station to complete a written statement. See Police Criminal Complaint, 1/12/22, Affidavit of Probable Cause at 2. J.P. later completed an interview at UPMC Pinnacle Children’s Resource Center (CRC Interview). The trial court described what next transpired: J.P. testified that [A.T.] took her to the hospital that evening, and then to a gynecologist [the following] morning. Upon arriving at the parking lot of the doctor’s office, and after being told that the doctor would determine whether anything “was broken inside” of her, J.P. started to cry, and told [A.T.] that [Appellant] had raped her. Prior to doing so, J.P. had denied to the police, hospital personnel, and [A.T.] that anything had happened to her because, she stated, she was scared about what would happen. Trial Court Opinion, 2/22/24, at 3. J.P. subsequently completed a written statement, detailing the events of the night she spent at Appellant’s house on June 6, 2021, and her FaceTime calls with Appellant in the weeks that followed. On January 12, 2022, police filed a criminal complaint against Appellant, charging him with rape and related offenses. The case proceeded to a jury trial on September 14, 2023. J.P., A.T., and one of the responding law enforcement officers testified at trial. Additionally, the Commonwealth and Appellant each offered the testimony of experts in the field of child sexual abuse. -3- J-S41023-26 A jury convicted Appellant of the above-described offenses. The trial court directed the completion of a pre-sentence investigation report.2 On December 27, 2023, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate 6 to 12 years’ imprisonment, followed by 3 years’ probation. The court also ordered Appellant to pay the costs of prosecution; to complete sexual offender, drug and alcohol, and mental health evaluations; and to have no contact with J.P. Further, the trial court notified Appellant of his lifetime registration requirements as a Tier III sexual offender. Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion. Appellant filed a timely direct appeal, challenging the weight of the evidence supporting his convictions. This Court concluded that Appellant had failed to preserve his weight claim before the trial court, and affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Quintana, 331 A.3d 615, 45 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 2024) (unpublished judgment order) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A) (requiring a weight claim to be preserved orally on the record prior to sentencing, in a written pre-sentence motion, or in a post-sentence motion)). On August 15, 2025, Appellant, pro se, filed a timely petition for review under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. In ____________________________________________ 2 The trial court also ordered Appellant to undergo an evaluation by the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board. At the start of the sentencing hearing, the assistant district attorney stated, “The Commonwealth is not seeking that [Appellant] be found to be a sexually violent predator….” N.T. (sentencing), 12/27/23, at 8. -4- J-S41023-26 part, Appellant argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve his weight claim for appellate review. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed an amended PCRA petition on Appellant’s behalf. After a hearing, the PCRA court granted Appellant’s PCRA petition and reinstated Appellant’s right to file a post-sentence motion and direct appeal, nunc pro tunc. Appellant, through counsel, filed a nunc pro tunc post-sentence motion challenging the weight of the evidence supporting his convictions. The Commonwealth filed a response. On February 26, 2024, the trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion. This nunc pro tunc appeal followed. Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.3 Appellant now raises the following issue for review: Whether the trial court abused its discretion and erred in denying Appellant’s post-sentence motion[,] where it is clear from the record that the verdict issued was rendered unreliable, tainted, questionable, and contrary to the weight of the evidence by the trial testimony of Commonwealth witnesses, J.P. and [A.T.], as their testimony was replete with inconsistencies, lies, half-truths, and so contrary to their original statements and prior testimony, as to render the entirety of their testimony incredible, … including, but not necessarily limited to: whether or not J.P. wanted to go to Appellant’s home; whether J.P. smoked marijuana alone or with Appellant; and whether [A.T.] created sexual abuse testimony ____________________________________________ 3 The trial court issued a statement indicating its reliance on its February 26, 2026, opinion, which it filed in connection with its denial of Appellant’s nunc pro tunc post-sentence motion. See Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 5/1/26; Trial Court Opinion, 2/26/26. -5- J-S41023-26 that she failed to include in her request for a [P]rotection [F]rom [A]buse [(PFA)] order against Appellant?4 Appellant’s Brief at 4 (footnote added; original footnote omitted; some punctuation modified). Appellant argues the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. See id. at 18-24. Appellant claims that both J.P. and A.T. “had credibility issues,” and their testimony was tainted. Id. at 21. Appellant cites purported inconsistencies in J.P.’s testimony: • J.P. indicated during her CRC Interview that she saw Appellant’s penis, but she later stated that she did not see Appellant’s penis; and • Regarding the June 23, 2021, incident in which A.T. walked into J.P.’s bedroom, J.P. stated on direct examination that A.T. first checked J.P.’s call log via the Snapchat application, but she stated on cross-examination that Appellant was still visible on her phone screen when A.T. entered her bedroom. Id. at 21-22. Additionally, Appellant argues that A.T.’s testimony should not have been afforded any weight, as she has “clear animosity” toward Appellant. Id. at 22. Appellant points to A.T.’s description of her relationship with Appellant as “toxic.” Id. at 23; see also id. (indicating that A.T. and Appellant were ____________________________________________ 4 See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6101-6122. During trial, A.T. confirmed that she had obtained an emergency PFA order following a verbal altercation with Appellant on May 7, 2021. N.T. (Trial), 9/14/23, at 148-50. A.T. also testified that on June 25, 2021 (two days after she discovered J.P. on FaceTime with Appellant), she sought a temporary PFA order to protect her and her children from Appellant. Id. at 153. A.T. did not mention the incidents between Appellant and J.P. in the temporary PFA request. Id. -6- J-S41023-26 both criminally charged after a physical altercation).5 Appellant also emphasizes that A.T. did not mention the incidents between J.P. and Appellant in the application for a temporary PFA, which A.T. completed two days after finding J.P. partially naked while on FaceTime with Appellant. Id. at 23-24. Further, Appellant points to the lack of physical evidence. Id. at 24. Our standard of review is well settled: Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error in judgment, but is rather the overriding or misapplication of the law, or the exercise of judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of bias, prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as shown by the evidence of record. Commonwealth v. Douglas, 346 A.3d 825, 831 (Pa. Super. 2025) (citation, quotation marks, and paragraph break omitted); id. (“A trial court’s denial of a post-sentence motion based on a weight of the evidence claim is the least assailable of its rulings.” (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted)); see also Commonwealth v. Roane, 204 A.3d 998, 1001 (Pa. Super. 2019) (“A reversal of a verdict is not necessary unless it is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.” (citation omitted)). “The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact, who is free to believe all, none, or some of the evidence[,] and to determine the credibility of the ____________________________________________ 5 At trial, A.T. acknowledged that both she and Appellant were charged with disorderly conduct on June 3, 2021 (three days prior to J.P. spending the night at Appellant’s house), arising out of a verbal and physical altercation. N.T., 9/14/23, at 151-52. -7- J-S41023-26 witnesses. Resolving contradictory testimony and questions of credibility are matters for the finder of fact.” Commonwealth v. Salinas, 307 A.3d 790, 795 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citation and quotation marks omitted). In its initial opinion, the trial court detailed the relevant trial testimony, and concluded the verdict was not so contrary to the weight of the evidence as to shock its sense of justice. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/22/24, at 5. Concerning Appellant’s attempts to challenge the credibility of J.P. and A.T., the trial court stated the following: [Appellant] attempted to show, through cross-examination, that J.P. may have made certain statements previously that conflicted, in part, with her trial testimony. However, no such alleged statements (with the exception of her initial denials to police, hospital personnel, and [A.T.]) were corroborated, and, importantly, did not contradict her testimony that she had been sexually assaulted on June 6, 2021[,] by [Appellant]. [Appellant] also attempted to show that A.T. held animus toward him. However, A.T. openly acknowledged that their relationship had been “toxic,” but that she, nevertheless, wanted J.P. to continue to see [Appellant] due to the nature of their close bond. Id. at 5 n.3 (emphasis added). In its February 26, 2026, opinion, the trial court elaborated on its reasoning as follows: [Appellant] bases his claim for relief on certain differences between aspects of [J.P.’s] trial testimony and prior unsworn statements she purportedly made, together with the fact that [A.T.] and [Appellant] had a “toxic” relationship. In his motion, [Appellant] first relies upon J.P.’s testimony during cross- examination wherein she was asked about statements she allegedly made during [the CRC Interview]. Notably, J.P. testified that she did not remember all of the inquiries made to[,] or the answers given by[,] her during the interview. -8- J-S41023-26 With respect to specific portions of J.P.’s testimony, [Appellant] observes that on cross-examination, defense counsel at trial indicated to J.P. that she had told the forensic interviewer that she had seen [Appellant’s] penis and that he had placed a condom on it before he had assaulted her. During direct testimony when asked[,] “When his shorts came down to his knees, what, if anything did you see?,” J.P. responded, “I don’t really see anything because I didn’t want to, like, look.” N.T., 9/14/23, at 41. On cross-examination, the following occurred: Q: Do you remember in the CRC [I]nterview when they asked you if you saw [Appellant’s] penis? A: If I did? Q: Yes. Do you remember the interviewer asking you that? A: No. Q: So then I guess you wouldn’t remember saying not only did you see his penis but you had the time to see that he had a condom on his penis; do you remember that? A: Yea, I do. But I didn’t see if he would, like, open a wrapper, put it on, or if he had it on before. Q: Okay. So today you testified you didn’t see his penis. Now you’re saying that you saw his penis. And back then you saw that he—you said you saw his penis and that he had a condom on it. So which is it, did you see his penis or did you not see his penis[?] A: I don’t know if he had a condom on. Q: That’s not the question I asked. I asked, did you see his penis[,] or did you not see his penis? A: No. Id. at 73. -9- J-S41023-26 [Appellant] also cites to J.P.’s testimony that when [A.T.] caught her on the phone on June 23, 2021, [A.T.] had opened J.P.’s Snapchat app, checked the call log, and saw that [Appellant] was listed as the top contact. On cross-examination, [Appellant] contends, J.P. told the forensic interviewer that [Appellant] was on the screen of the phone when [A.T.] entered J.P.’s room. The record reflects, however, that during questioning about the subject, J.P. actually stated that she was not saying “something different[]” than what she told the forensic interviewer because she did not “remember really.” Id. at 87. Notably, during cross- examination, J.P. was not shown a written or video record of the interview[,] and the forensic interviewer was not called as a witness.[FN] Additionally, it is not evident how J.P.’s testimony contradicts the alleged statements she previously made. FN [Appellant] was not found guilty of any charge related to [his] phone contact with J.P. Consequently, the relevance of alleged discrepancies between J.P.’s testimony and her prior statements about the phone incident vis-à-vis the charges upon which [Appellant] was found guilty has not been specified by [Appellant]. Finally, in his [post-sentence] motion[ Appellant] raises the fact that [A.T.] held great animus toward [Appellant]. However, A.T. openly acknowledged at trial that her relationship with [Appellant] had been “toxic,” but that she, nevertheless, wanted J.P. to continue to see [Appellant] due to the nature of their close bond. [Appellant] claims that on July 25, 2021, A.T. filed a petition for a [PFA] against [Appellant] but did not include in the petition any allegations about [Appellant’s] phone contact with J.P. When cross-examined about why she did not include allegations about J.P. in her petition, A.T. testified that allegations about J.P. were irrelevant to A.T.’s allegations of abuse against herself by [Appellant]. Moreover[,] A.T. testified that in obtaining the [PFA] order she had her children named as protected parties. Trial Court Opinion, 2/26/26, at 5-7 (citation format modified). Additionally, the trial court emphasized that A.T. did not witness the crimes for which Appellant was convicted. Id. at 9 n.2. - 10 - J-S41023-26 Appellant exclusively challenges the credibility of J.P.’s and A.T.’s testimony. Appellant does not identify any testimony or evidence which he believes should be afforded greater weight. We further reiterate the trial court’s sentiment that, even if J.P. made certain inconsistent statements concerning specific details of the events, she never wavered in her claims that Appellant sexually assaulted her. We decline Appellant’s invitation to act as fact finder, reweigh the evidence, and disturb the jury’s credibility findings based on a cold record. See Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 262 A.3d 1283, 1288-89 (Pa. Super. 2021) (“[I]t is not the function of the appellate court to substitute its judgment based on a cold record for that of the trial court. The weight to be accorded [] evidence is exclusively for the fact finder, whose findings will not be disturbed on appeal if they are supported by the record.”) (citations omitted). The verdict is not “so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.” Roane, 204 A.3d at 1001; see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 146 A.3d 257, 265 (Pa. Super. 2016) (stating that, in order for an appellant to prevail on a weight challenge, he must establish that the evidence supporting a conviction is “so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the court” (citation omitted)). As we discern no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in rejecting Appellant’s weight challenge, his sole claim is without merit. Judgment of sentence affirmed. - 11 - J-S41023-26 Judgment Entered. Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 11/2/2026 - 12 -