J-S31019-22 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SUMO DUKULAH : : Appellant : No. 2172 EDA 2021 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 5, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007817-2013 BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 19, 2022 Appellant Sumo Dukulah appeals from the order denying his timely first Post Conviction Relief Act1 (PCRA) petition. Appellant contends that the PCRA court erred in denying his petition, and he alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness, failing to move for a mistrial, and making a factual misstatement relative to medical evidence. After review, we affirm. The PCRA court summarized the factual background in this matter as follows: [The victim, (K.D.),] was born in Liberia, and at the age of seven she immigrated to the United States with . . . Appellant and Sonnie ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. J-S31019-22 Dukulah [(Sonnie)].[2] Shortly after their arrival, the family settled into a home on Riverside Drive in Philadelphia, PA. [K.D.] testified that from the time she was eight years old until she was sixteen years old, Appellant forced her to have vaginal intercourse with him and that he subjected her to multiple acts of sexual abuse. [K.D.] explained that Appellant’s acts of sexual assault and abuse occurred in the family home, most often at a time when [Sonnie] was at work. [K.D.] described one incident when [Appellant] came into her bedroom and hit her in the head while she was asleep. He asked if she used his computer and she advised him that she used it to do her homework. He then left and went into the bathroom, returning with a wet towel which he wrapped around her mouth. At that point, Appellant removed [K.D.’s] pants and inserted his penis into her vagina. [K.D.] described another occasion while she was in elementary school when [Sonnie] was at home and asleep during which Appellant had vaginal intercourse with [K.D.] on the side of a wall in the house before she left to go to school. [K.D.] testified that at first Appellant did not use a condom during intercourse, but that he later used condoms, and when none were available, he used rubber gloves and plastic bags instead. [K.D.] stated that on multiple occasions, Appellant had oral and anal sexual intercourse with her. [K.D.] said that when [Appellant] inserted his penis into her anus it caused her pain so badly and that she could not walk. [K.D.] described that Appellant also licked her vagina and put his mouth on her breasts. [K.D.] testified that Appellant threatened that if she ever said anything about the incidents to anyone, he would send her back to Africa. [K.D.] dreaded that she might be returned to Africa, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals