The
PCRA court set forth the facts of this case as follows:
G.F. was 13 years old when [Natal] sexually assaulted her.
She was 15 years old when she testified at trial. In February
of 2015, G.F. lived in a house in Philadelphia with her
mother, stepfather, and siblings. At that time
[Natal]-G.F.'s stepbrother-also lived there.
On February 14, 2015, G.F. and her family, including [Natal]
went out to dinner at Applebee's. Upon returning home,
G.F. remained downstairs in the living room, while the rest
of her family went upstairs to sleep. G.F. eventually fell
asleep while watching a movie on the couch. At some point,
she awoke to a sharp pain. G.F. described the pain as
"burning and tearing, something ripping." G.F. also
saw [Natal] on top of her with his pants down and his penis
inside of her vagina. She was unable to push [Natal] away
because he was holding her wrists down. [Natal] eventually
shifted his body, allowing G.F. to raise her left leg and
push him onto the floor. At this time, G.F. noticed that he
was wearing a condom because his penis appeared clear and
shiny. She also observed something white inside of the
condom. After he pulled up his pants, [Natal] stumbled into
the kitchen and then came back and went upstairs.
The following morning, G.F.'s mother, Sandra DeJesus,
noticed two half-dollar sized hickeys on G.F.'s
collarbone. When Ms. DeJesus began asking questions, G.F.
cried and would not look at her. Ms. DeJesus went downstairs
and tried to wake up [Natal]. She yelled at G.F., asking her
what was going on. Ms. DeJesus then walked to the kitchen to
throw away trash. When a napkin fell out of the trashcan, Ms.
DeJesus picked it up and observed a used condom wrapped
inside. She proceeded to scream at [Natal] and ask him what
happened. [Natal] repeatedly said, "I'm sorry."
G.F. ultimately disclosed the assault to Ms. DeJesus. G.F.
explained that she was asleep when she awoke to a pain and
saw [Natal] on top of her. She further described [Natal]
"grabbing on her arms, pulling her down" and being
"inside of her." G.F. did not want to go to the
police or a doctor because she was afraid.
Several weeks later, G.F.'s father took her to Saint
Christopher's Hospital because she was experiencing
stomach pains. At the hospital, G.F. again disclosed the
assault. However, G.F. did not describe
"everything" but rather only the "important
part." The police arrived at the hospital and spoke to
G.F. The hospital then performed tests and diagnosed G.F.
with a urinary tract infection. G.F. also spoke to the
Department of Human Services ("DHS") and was
interviewed by the Philadelphia Children's Alliance
("PCA").
Nolita Martin, 1 [Natal's] sister, testified
on behalf of the defense. Ms. Martin testified that she
attended the Applebee's dinner with her infant son. The
following day, she received a telephone call from Ms. DeJesus
between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. Ms. Martin was told that
[Natal] "had done something wrong, and he had to
leave." When she arrived at the house, Ms. Martin spoke
to G.F.'s parents. Ms. DeJesus told her that [Natal]
raped G.F. Ms. Martin asked for proof and was told about the
condom in the trash can. She dug through the trash but was
unable to find the condom.
1Ms. Martin also goes by the names Nolita Cambose
and Zio.
Ms. Martin then spoke to G.F. privately in her bedroom.
According to Ms. Martin, G.F. appeared "scared because
her mom was mad at her" and was being punished because
"she didn't want to tell her mom if [Natal] had done
it or didn't do it." She also described G.F.'s
demeanor as "sad." During this conversation, Ms.
Martin repeatedly asked G.F. whether [Natal] had touched her.
G.F. responded, "no," and explained that she
"would never say that about [Natal] because [she]
love[d] him as a brother."
[Natal] also testified in his own defense. [Natal] testified
that he was not living with G.F.'s family at the time but
slept over at the house after the Applebee's dinner.
[Natal] fell asleep on the couch and awoke the following
morning to Ms. DeJesus "snapping." Ms. DeJesus
questioned him about the hickeys on G.F.'s neck, and
[Natal] explained that G.F. told him they were from a
girlfriend. [Natal] testified that he and G.F. were
"really close" and that he "look[ed] at her
like [his] sister."
During cross-examination, [Natal] agreed that he saw the
half-dollar sized hickeys on G.F.'s neck that Ms. DeJesus
described. He also initially agreed that G.F. did not have
the hickeys on her neck at dinner the night before. However,
[Natal] then stated that G.F. did not have any hickeys at
all.
***
During cross-examination [of G.F.], trial counsel pointed out
that the description of the events given by G.F. at Saint
Christopher's Hospital differed from her trial testimony.
Trial counsel, relying on G.F.'s medical records, recited
the following:
[P]atient also reports sexual assault on 2/13/2015. The
family went out to dinner at Applebee's that night. She
feel [sic] asleep on the couch and awoken [sic] in the middle
of the night to find her 22-year-old stepbrother, [Natal], on
top of her, touching her thighs and "everywhere."
She noted that he seemed like he was drunk. She told him to
get off her, which he did. But then got on top of her again.
This time he tried to pull her pants off so she kicked him
off, ran up to her room and locked herself in her room.
N.T. 10/12/2016, at 62-63. However, G.F. testified that she
did not recall providing that account. Rather, she recalled
telling the doctor or nurse that she awoke to find
[Natal's] penis inside of her vagina.
During an interview with DHS, G.F. stated that [Natal] held
her wrists down, placed his penis inside of her vagina, and
left hickeys on her neck. She also described the pain she
experienced as feelings of "ripping" and
"stinging."
Finally, G.F. attended a PCA interview on March 30, 2015, at
which time she again described waking up to find
[Natal]'s penis inside of her vagina.
***
The final Commonwealth witness to testify was Christina
Donnian, a DHS employee assigned to a specialty unit for
sexual abuse. Ms. Donnian had an opportunity to speak with
G.F. at her home and later to observe her PCA interview.
According to Ms. Donnian, those two interviews were
substantially the same. Furthermore, she described G.F. as
consistent throughout the investigation.
PCRA
Court Opinion, 3/25/21, at 1-4, 7-9 (citations omitted).
Following
a non-jury trial, Natal was found guilty of statutory sexual
assault, sexual assault, corruption of minors, indecent
assault and two counts of rape.[2] He was sentenced to 6 to 15 years
of incarceration to be followed by 15 years of probation.
Natal
filed a timely direct appeal raising a single issue: whether
his conviction for indecent assault should merge for
sentencing purposes with his conviction for rape. See
Commonwealth v. Natal, 876 EDA 2017, at *2 (Pa. Super.
May 9, 2018) (unpublished memorandum). We concluded that it
did and vacated his conviction for indecent assault but
declined to remand for resentencing because our disposition
did not upset the sentencing scheme. Id. at 8. The
judgment was entered and jurisdiction was relinquished on May
9, 2018. The docket sheet from his direct appeal reveals that
the record was remitted to the trial court on June 25, 2018.
Id. (docket sheet). Natal did not file a petition
for allowance of appeal in the Supreme Court.
No
further action was taken until February 1, 2019, when direct
appeal counsel filed a praecipe to be removed as
counsel in the Supreme Court. See Commonwealth v.
Natal, 10 EM 2019 (Pa. March 29, 2019) (docket sheet).
Neither the docket sheet nor the certified record reveal what
precipitated this filing. On March 29, 2019, the Supreme
Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine
whether counsel should be permitted to withdraw. Id.
Additionally, the order stated: "If present counsel is
permitted to withdraw, the court is DIRECTED to resolve any
issues relative to Angel Natal being appointed counsel or
granted leave to proceed pro se." Id.
(per curiam).
On
April 30, 2019, the trial court granted direct appeal
counsel's motion to withdraw and appointed new counsel
"for appeal purposes." Order, 4/30/19. On May 17,
2019, newly-appointed appellate counsel filed a petition for
leave to file petition for allowance of appeal nunc pro
tunc in the Supreme Court. See Commonwealth v.
Natal, 49 EM 2019 (Pa. July 15, 2019) (docket sheet).
The Supreme Court denied the petition on July 15, 2019.
Id.
On
October 2, 2019, Natal filed the instant pro se PCRA
petition and did not plead any exception to the PCRA's
jurisdictional time-bar. The PCRA court appointed counsel who
filed an amended petition on February 18, 2020. In his
memorandum in support of the amended petition, PCRA counsel
set forth the above procedural history and asserted that
Natal had until October 15, 2020, to file a first timely PCRA
petition.[3] Memorandum of Law in Support of Amended
Petition for Relief Pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief
Act, 2/18/2020, at 10-11. In the alternative, the memorandum
asserted:
If the Commonwealth contends that the PCRA is
...