J-S40037-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DINESH BABU MANNEPULI Appellant No. 8 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 6, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0000881-2013

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and PANELLA, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 Appellant, Dinesh Babu Mannepuli, appeals from the Judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County. On appeal, weight of the evidence. We affirm.

On October 13, 2012, Rachel Delp was working at the Beer Mart.

conversing with Delp. Part way through the conversation, Mannepuli told Delp that he wanted to take her to a shed behind the business to continue the conversation. Initially, Delp refused to go, but eventually agreed due to -27/13, at 67. Inside the shed, Mannepuli asked Delp if she wanted to kiss him and she declined. He then pulled her onto his lap and then laid her onto a sofa. She was pinned underneath him, J-S40037-14

unable to move because of his size. Mannepuli proceeded to kiss Delp

it. Id., at 72. All the while, he rubbed his body against hers. During this Id., at 71. The assault ended and Delp returned to work. She did not tell anyone about the assault as she needed the job.

Eventually, Delp told two of her other managers about the assault.

the assault and two other previous assaults he perpetrated on her. The owners told her not to go to the police, but the following day she reported the assault to the authorities. Delp also hired an attorney. She explained

Id., at 85. She quit approximately three weeks after the incident on the advice of counsel.

Following a jury trial, Mannepuli was found guilty of one count of indecent assault (by force), one count of indecent assault (without consent), and one count of harassment. The trial court imposed a judgment of sentence. Both the Commonwealth and Mannepuli filed post-setnence motions the Commonwealth to clarify the sentence and Mannepuli to argue that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The trial court entered an order clarifying the sentence (the trial court sentenced Mannepuli

-2- J-S40037-14

to nine to twenty- -sentence motion. This timely appeal follows.

Mannepuli maintains that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Our standard of review for a challenge to the weight of the evidence is well settled. The finder of fact is the exclusive judge of the weight of the evidence as the fact finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented and determines the credibility of the witnesses.

See Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (2003). As an appellate court, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the finder of fact. See id. grant a new trial only where the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to See Commonwealth v. Passmore, 857 A.2d 697, 708 (Pa. Super. 2004).

A verdict is said to be contrary to the evidence such that it shocks

lose his breath, temporarily, and causes him to almost fall from the bench, Commonwealth v. Davidson, 860 A.2d 575, 581 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted), , 595 Pa. 1, 938 A.2d 198 (2007).

Furthermore,

-3- J-S40037-14

where the trial court has ruled on the weight claim below, question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.

Champney, 574 Pa. at 444, 832 A.2d at 408 (citation omitted).

Mannepuli evidence and that the trial court erred in denying his post-sentence motion

admission of a civil demand letter from the v

settlement demand of $1.5 million was made after the trial; the demand -sentence motion.

With respect to the settlement demand, the trial court writes as follows: this is simply not a case where proof of pending civil actions are so clearly of greater weight than the facts resulting in the adjudication that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts would be to deny Appellant justice. The fact the Ms. Delp has taken civil action against Appellant was established by Defense counsel at trial. Furthermore, the jury was aware of such pending claims against Appellant before determining a verdict.

Trial Court Opinion, 2/6/14, at 3. We agree with the trial court. The demand letter simply has no bearing on the case.

of the jury does not come as a shock to this [c]ourt. The evidence

-4- J-S40037-14

Id., at 5.

We can find no abuse of discretion with this conclusion.

and contradictory, are unavailing. The jury, as noted, was free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented and determines the credibility of the witnesses.

Here, the jury heard the testimony and believed Delp, the trial court found

abuse of discretion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/24/2014

-5-