author: PER CURIAM:

text:
    511 A.2d 210
    In re J.P. Appeal of ALLEGHENY COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES (Two Cases). In re C.P.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    Argued April 15, 1986.
    Filed June 11, 1986.

      James A. Esler, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
    Joseph Mack, Pittsburgh, for appellee (at 1090).
    Georgene Siroky, Pittsburgh, for appellee (at 1091).
    Before TAMILIA, KELLY and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
   PER CURIAM:

These consolidated appeals, instituted by Allegheny County Children and Youth Services, arise out of a requisition filed in the state of North Carolina pursuant to the Interstate Compact on Juveniles, 62 P.S. § 731, requesting C.P.’s return to her father’s home in North Carolina.

C.P. was born on July 26, 1971, and in December of 1984 gave birth to a son, J.P. J.P.’s birth was the result of C.P. becoming impregnated by Gregory Kline when she was twelve years old. Gregory Kline was charged with statutory rape in connection with the aforementioned incident and is currently awaiting trial. C.P. and her infant son, J.P., resided in North Carolina with C.P.’s father, her legal guardian, before running away from home in February of 1985. C.P. alleged various undocumented instances of abuse by her father. C.P. fled with J.P. to Allegheny County where they stayed with Mrs. Katherine Kline, Gregory’s mother and J.P.’s paternal grandmother.

After receiving the requisition for C.P.’s return, Pennsylvania authorities took both children into custody. Following a shelter hearing on February 19, 1985, they were returned to Mrs. Kline’s home pending receipt from North Carolina of materials necessary for resolution of the case under the Interstate Compact. Upon request of the lower court, the juvenile authorities in North Carolina, by letter dated April 11, 1985, gave assurances that they would intervene immediately upon C.P.’s return to North Carolina to provide supervision and protection from the alleged abuse of C.P. by her father.

The lower court held a hearing to determine C.P.’s best interests after concluding that Pennsylvania courts have the right to inquire into the propriety of a requisition filed under the Compact and order a child’s return only if such return would serve the best interests of the child. Upon conclusion of said hearing, it was determined that the best interests of both children would be served by remaining in Pennsylvania and residing with Mrs. Kline. The lower court held that in view of C.P.’s allegations of abuse and of the apparent lack of interest of her parents and of the North Carolina authorities in her welfare, it doubted a return to the family environment in North Carolina would serve her best interests. Appellant, Children and Youth Services, petitioned for reconsideration and upon reconsideration the prior Order was upheld. This appeal followed.

Appellant now contends that C.P. should have been returned to North Carolina pursuant to the requisition filed under the Interstate Compact. Appellant submits that the plain language of the Interstate Compact indicates that it is for the court of North Carolina to determine what is in the child’s best interest and the power of the Pennsylvania court is limited to a determination of whether the demanding court has made all the findings necessary to issue a requisition. We agree, and hold that the lower court had no jurisdiction to inquire into C.P.’s best interests but was required to send C.P. to North Carolina pursuant to the requisition if the requisition was found to be properly issued.

We first note that both North Carolina and Pennsylvania have adopted the Interstate Compact on Juveniles (G.S. §§ 110-58 to 110-64, and 62 P.S. § 731 respectively). The underlying purposes of the Compact are clearly set forth in Article I which provides, in pertinent part, that:

The cooperation of the states party to this compact is therefore necessary to provide for the welfare and protection of juveniles and of the public with respect to ... (3) the return, from one state to another, of non-delinquent juveniles who have run away from home____ It shall be the policy of the states party to this compact to cooperate and observe their respective responsibilities for the prompt return and acceptance of juveniles and delinquent juveniles who become subject to the provisions of this compact____

(62 P.S. § 731, Art. I)

It becomes apparent that the underpinnings of the Compact are based upon notions of reciprocity and cooperation between the participating states. Article IV of the Compact, dealing specifically with the return of runaways, when read in conjunction with Article I, further delineates the role of the Pennsylvania courts when presented with an out-of-state requisition. Article IV provides, in part, that,

... [i]f the judge of such court [to whom the requisition is addressed] shall find that the requisition is in order, he shall deliver such juvenile over to the officer whom the court demanding him shall have appointed to receive him. The judge, however, may fix a reasonable time to be allowed for the purpose of testing the legality of the proceeding, (emphasis added)

(62 P.S. § 731, Art. IV)

Thus, this section makes delivery of the juvenile to the demanding state mandatory as long as the requisition itself is in order. Appellees would have us read the provision to include a requirement that before a runaway juvenile can be returned to the demanding state the asylum state must determine if it is in his/her best interests to do so. With this we cannot agree.

In the case sub judice, the Pennsylvania court could only determine if the demanding state properly followed the guidelines set forth in Article IV for issuing a requisition. Article IV provides that upon proper petition by the parent, guardian, person or agency entitled to legal custody of a runaway child, C.P.’s father herein, the judge of the court (North Carolina) to which this petition is presented:

... may hold a hearing thereon to determine whether for the purposes of this compact the petitioner is entitled to the legal custody of the juvenile, whether or not it appears that the juvenile has in fact run away without consent, whether or not he is an emancipated minor, and whether or not it is in the best interest of the juvenile to compel his return to the state. If the judge determines, either with or without a hearing, that the juvenile should be returned, he shall present to the appropriate court or to the executive authority of the state where the juvenile is to be located a written requisition for the return of such juvenile.

(62 P.S. § 731, Art. IV)

Additionally, Article IV, in specifically addressing the mandatory format of the requisition order, provides that,

... [the] requisition shall set forth the name and age of the juvenile, the determination of the court that the juvenile has run away without the consent of a parent, guardian, person or agency entitled to his legal custody, and that it is in the best interest and for the protection of such juvenile that he be returned____

(62 P.S. § 731, Art. IV)

At no time during the present action did any of the parties argue that the requisition issued by North Carolina was deficient in any of its findings or procedurally defective in any respect. It is undisputed that James, C.P.’s father, petitioned the North Carolina court setting forth all required information with a verifying affidavit. After a review of the requisition, it is also clear that Judge Burris of North Carolina made all of the required determinations and findings and presented a proper requisition for C.P.’s return to the Pennsylvania courts.

The lower court’s concern with North Carolina’s ability to effectively provide protection and care for C.P. and J.P., however well intended, is misplaced. As principles of comity and reciprocity dictate, Pennsylvania courts must presume that other states party to the Interstate Compact on Juveniles will act as expeditiously and effectively in dealing with juveniles as our state would. That is not to. imply that we advocate sending C.P. and J.P. back to North Carolina on the next bus without any indication that North Carolina authorities are aware of C.P.’s allegations of abuse or are actively investigating them. Rather, instead of second-guessing North Carolina’s social services programs, we find it proper for our courts to require evidence of a proposed plan, from the demanding state, for dealing with the juvenile when he/she is returned. This will insure that the demanding state has been fully apprised of. the juvenile’s situation and plans to take action in concert with that knowledge. We do not think this requirement is overly burdensome for the demanding state. As a practical matter, the protective service agencies of each involved state usually work in conjunction with each other to implement a suitable course of action with regard to the juvenile.

Appellant next contends that the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5341 et seq., is not an alternative basis for jurisdiction in the instant action, as suggested by appellees and the lower court. Under § 5344(b), entitled Physical presence insufficient to establish jurisdiction in custody, none of the requisites for a custody action were met. There had been no prior custody Order and although neglect was alleged, it was not established and finally, no emergency conditions existed which might have permitted a review of custody. All exigencies of this situation were adequately covered by the dependency petition and the hearing under the interstate compact. We find the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act entirely inapplicable to the case sub judice. The UCCJA deals exclusively with custody disputes. There has been no application to any court of this Commonwealth, or elsewhere, seeking a custody determination with respect to C.P. or J.P. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1915.3, requires commencement of a custody action by complaint in the form required by Rule 1915.15(a). C.P.’s father, apparently her legal guardian, has a prima facie right to custody of C.P. in the absence of valid claims by other interested parties. In re Custody of Hernandez, 249 Pa.Super. 274, 376 A.2d 648 (1977). Mrs. Kline has merely agreed to provide C.P. and J.P. shelter in her home; she has not petitioned the court for custody of either child. While unfounded allegations of the abuse of C.P. by her father were considered by the lower court, it ignored the evidence established of the statutory rape of C.P. by Gregory Kline and the continuing contact he has with her while she is in the home of Gregory’s mother, Mrs. Kline. When there is a paucity of facts to establish the alleged abuse (of an out of county parent), the court would not affirm the lower court’s award of custody to the parent (party) alleging the abuse. Commonwealth ex rel. Lettie H.W. v. Paul T.W., 281 Pa.Super. 262, 422 A.2d 159 (1980).

We further hold that J.P., C.P.’s infant son, should be returned with her to North Carolina. There is no evidence on the record to support a separation of the infant, J.P., from its mother, C.P., and Pennsylvania would have no interest in the infant independent of that of C.P. They would both be dealt with as dependent children through the auspices of the North Carolina children’s services in the environment best conducive to resolution of their problems and fulfillment of their needs. The prima facie right to C.P.’s custody of J.P. applies (Hernandez, supra) and C.P. should be with her father; J.P. should likewise be there. Since the legislature made void common law marriage between persons under 18 years of age, 23 P.S. 204(4), as a result of a case which held common law marriage between an adult male and a minor female valid despite an Order of court enjoining it, In the Interest of Miller, 301 Pa.Super. 511, 448 A.2d 25 (1982), and there is no possibility of a parentally approved marriage under the Marriage Law, 48 P.S. § 1-1 et seq., there is no likelihood of a marital relationship between Gregory and C.P. To permit this situation, where a man is under indictment for sexually assaulting a child, condoning continued contact between them through placement of the minor female with his mother, ignores the entire thrust of the Child Protection Acts promulgated throughout this country to control and prevent such behavior.

Throughout the transcript of the hearing in this matter, it was clear that the hearing judge understood and perceived the nature of the legal issues before him and was initially impelled to follow the mandate of the statute. It appeared, however, that the longer the hearing progressed, the judge, out of compassion and emotional response to the pleas of the child and Gregory Kline, grew more sympathetic and eventually ruled not to return the children to North Carolina. We have great respect for the trial judge and fully understand this reaction. However, it is unlikely that in any contested runaway case there is a willing return to the home jurisdiction by the child and unquestionably the natural inclination is to accede to the emotional plea to remain in the new environment despite the legal and sociological reasons for return. This case appears to be no exception to the basic purpose for the law requiring return.

Accordingly, the .Order of the lower court placing C.P. and J.P. in the home of Katherine Kline is reversed. The requisition must be honored, and C.P. and J.P. returned to North Carolina.

Order reversed.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: WIEAND, Judge:

license: Public Domain

text:
    511 A.2d 214
    CITY OF PHILADELPHIA v. KING KAI CHIN. Appeal of S.R. FRIENDS.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued March 11, 1986.
    Filed June 13, 1986.

      Jerome J. Verlin, Philadelphia, for appellant.
    Andrew P. Bralow, Philadelphia, for City, appellee.
    Louis Perez, Philadelphia, for Chin, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, WIEAND and POPOVICH, JJ.
   WIEAND, Judge:

The several issues in this appeal pertain to the amounts which must be paid by a property owner, pursuant to the General Municipal Law of May 16, 1923, P.L. 207, § 32, as amended, 53 P.S. § 7293, in order to redeem property which has been sold “under a tax or municipal claim.”

King Kai Chin failed to pay municipal taxes on real estate which he owned at 216 North Twelfth Street, Philadelphia. Therefore, the property was sold at sheriff’s sale on April 4, 1983. It was “knocked down” for a high bid of $28,500.00. The successful bidder thereafter assigned his right to purchase the real estate to S.R. Friends, a general partnership, for a consideration of $2,500.00. S.R. Friends paid the purchase price and took title to the real estate by sheriff’s deed dated May 9, 1983, and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds on May 24, 1983. Chin thereafter filed a petition to redeem the property, and redemption was allowed by court order dated August 30, 1983. On May 4, 1984, Chin tendered to S.R. Friends the sum of $31,587.50, which sum included the bid price of $28,500.00 and interest thereon. S.R. Friends refused to accept the amount tendered and, on May 15, 1984, filed a petition to set aside the order of redemption because of Chin’s failure to tender an amount which included, inter alia, the costs of repairs made to the premises ($13,965.00) less rents collected by S.R. Friends ($7,340.00). On April 2, 1985, after depositions had been taken and copies of repair and other bills submitted, the trial court dismissed the petition to set aside the redemption, holding that the moneys expended by S.R. Friends had been for improvements, not repairs. The trial court subsequently granted reconsideration, but, following argument, reinstated its original order refusing to set aside the redemption and directing Chin to pay the purchase price of $28,500.00 plus interest of $3,087.50 and taxes of $1,743.00. Chin was given credit, however, for $12,667.67 collected as rent by S.R. Friends, plus the $2,500.00 paid by S.R. Friends for an assignment of the rights of the original bidder, plus interest of $354.17. A timely appeal was filed by S.R. Friends.

Appellant contends, inter alia, that the trial court erred (1) when it allowed Chin a credit for the $2,500.00 which appellant had paid to purchase the rights of the highest bidder; (2) when it failed to require Chin to pay the costs of drawing, acknowledging and recording the sheriff’s deed; (3) when it failed to require Chin to reimburse appellant for insurance premiums paid to insure the property; (4) when it refused to require that Chin reimburse appellant for repairs necessary to make the property habitable and to bring it into compliance with city housing ordinances; and (5) when it refused to allow reimbursement for amounts expended on account of services rendered by public utilities. The City of Philadelphia, which is also an appellee, agrees with S.R. Friends that the trial court erred with respect to the foregoing matters and joins in urging that we reverse.

The pertinent section of the statute provides in relevant part that

[t]he owner of any property sold under a tax or municipal claim, or his assignees, or any party whose lien or estate has been discharged thereby, may, except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, redeem the same at any time within one year from the date of the acknowledgment of the sheriffs deed therefor, upon payment of the amount bid at such sale; the cost of drawing, acknowledging, and recording the sheriffs deed; the amount of all taxes and municipal claims, whether not entered as liens, if actually paid; the principal and interest of estates and encumbrances, not discharged by the sale and actually paid; the insurance upon the property, and other charges and necessary expenses of the property, actually paid, less rents or other income therefrom, and a sum equal to interest at the rate of ten per centum per annum thereon, from the time of each of such payments.

53 P.S. § 7293(a) (emphasis added).

This Court has held that reasonable expenses incurred to make a property habitable are reimbursable under the foregoing statutory provision. City of Philadelphia v. Watkins, 343 Pa.Super. 380, 384, 494 A.2d 1135, 1137 (1985). There, as here, the redeeming party argued that “necessary expenses” should be limited solely to the cost of those repairs necessary to preserve the property from damage or deterioration, while the purchaser contended that recoverable expenses should include the cost of making the premises habitable. The Superior Court agreed with the latter contention and held that recovery could be had for costs of renovations and carpeting, as well as the cost of purchasing casualty and liability insurance coverage for the property.

The evidence in the instant case suggests that at the time when S.R. Friends purchased the property there was neither heat nor hot water; pipes had frozen and cracked; a gas-fired hot water heater had been broken; and the roof was in need of repair. In addition, according to the evidence, trash, debris, mattresses and garbage were removed from the building in an amount sufficient to fill five dumpsters. In the several apartments located in the building there were damages of varying degrees to bathroom fixtures, plaster, and doors. Repairs were made, according to the evidence, to make the premises habitable and to bring the same into compliance with municipal codes. In addition, S.R. Friends purchased insurance, paid taxes, and provided gas, water and sewer services to the property. That appellant was entitled to be reimbursed for the reasonable amount actually expended for such items seem clear. Indeed, the statute expressly provides therefor.

We reject Chin’s contention that appellant can recover only those costs necessary to keep the property in the same condition in which it existed at the time when it was purchased at sheriff’s sale. Otherwise, a delapidated, uninhabitable building will have to remain in that condition until the period for redemption has expired. Such an interpretation would be absurd; it would ignore the interests of the parties, the municipality and the public. We will not place such a limitation upon the right to recover amounts expended to make the premises habitable.

The statute also requires that a redeeming property owner reimburse the purchaser for the cost of drawing, acknowledging, and recording the sheriff’s deed; for taxes paid by the purchaser; for the insurance coverage purchased for the property; and for the cost of providing water, sewer, gas and electric power to the property. Even appellee agrees that these items are properly the subject of reimbursement. Moreover, they are to bear interest at the rate of ten (10%) percent per annum from the dates on which payments were made. The redeeming property owner, however, is entitled to a credit for the rents collected by the purchaser prior to redemption.

When the trial court refused to consider costs expended to make the premises habitable and failed to make findings of fact with respect to the reasonableness of moneys actually expended therefor by appellant, as well as other items for which reimbursement is required by the statute, the court fell into error. Upon remand, the trial court should determine the necessary expenses actually paid by S.R. Friends, less rents collected, and all other amounts, in addition to the amount bid at the sheriffs sale, for which S.R. Friends is entitled to be reimbursed. .The burden of proving the reasonableness of such amounts, of course, is upon the party who claims reimbursement, in this case the appellant. If S.R. Friends has failed to • show by a fair preponderance of the evidence the amounts actually paid and that such amounts were reasonable and in keeping with the statute, then recovery therefor should be disallowed.

Finally, the trial court erred when it allowed a credit to the redeeming property owner for the payment of $2,500.00 made by S.R. Friends to the successful bidder in order to purchase the latter’s right to receive a deed for the property. This transaction was collateral to and separate from the right of redemption and the reimbursement asserted by the parties to this litigation. The payment thereof was not a factor to be considered in determining the rights of the appellant and appellee in the instant proceedings. It was not an expense for which S.R. Friends was entitled to be reimbursed, and it was not a credit to be given to Chin.

Reversed and remanded to permit the trial court to make findings of fact and enter a decree consistent with the foregoing opinion. Jurisdiction is not retained.


author: ROWLEY, Judge:

text:
    511 A.2d 217
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Kermeth Roy WRIGHT, Appellant.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued March 25, 1986.
    Filed June 17, 1986.

      Morton J. Earley, Indiana, for appellant.
    William J. Martin, District Attorney, Indiana, for Com., appellee.
    Before ROWLEY, WIEAND and DEL SOLE, JJ.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

ROWLEY, Judge:

This is an appeal from judgments of sentence imposing a sentence of five to ten years incarceration for robbery, a concurrent sentence of four to ten years incarceration for burglary, and a suspended sentence for attempted theft. On appeal, appellant raises two issues: 1) whether the line-up and subsequent in-court identification of himself was tainted; and 2) whether Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100 was violated by bringing appellant to trial more than 180 days after the complaint was filed and appellant was arrested. We affirm.

Prior to commencement of trial, appellant was aware of the circumstances which he alleges tainted the line-up and the subsequent in-court identification of him. However, he did not raise this issue in his omnibus pre-trial motion in violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 323(b), and therefore has waived the issue. Commonwealth v. Scaine, 337 Pa.Super. 72, 486 A.2d 486 (1984); Commonwealth v. Throckmorton, 241 Pa.Super. 62, 359 A.2d 444 (1976). See also: Commonwealth v. Johnson, 484 Pa. 545, 400 A.2d 583 (1979) (Three of the six justices participating in the case specifically stated that failure to raise the issue of the allegedly tainted identification in a pre-trial suppression motion, when the defendant knew of the allegedly improper identification prior to trial, waives the issue.)

Appellant’s second issue is that he was not brought to trial within 180 days in violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100. Appellant argues that the 63 days during which his application for participation in the A.R.D. program was pending with the District Attorney must be included in the calculation of the 180 days. Appellant agreed to exclude from the calculation of the 180 day rule the time during which the District Attorney processed and reviewed the application. The application for participation in the A.R.D. program used in this case clearly states: “I hereby waive my rights under Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100....” This limited waiver of Rule 1100, which is actually an agreement to exclude from the 180 day calculation the time during which the application is pending, is not contingent upon acceptance into the A.R.D. program and must be distinguished from the agreement signed by a defendant in open court upon being accepted into the program. The latter agreement is to exclude from the 180 day calculation the time in which the defendant is actually enrolled in the A.R.D. program.

In Commonwealth v. Knupp, 340 Pa.Super. 304, 490 A.2d 1 (1985) the court held that a waiver of Rule 1100 for the period during the pendancy of an A.R.D. application cannot be excluded. However, that case involved an interpretation of Rule 1100 prior to the 1982 amendment to Rule 1100 which added section (d)(2). Section (d)(2) provides, “In determining the period for commencement of trial, there shall be excluded therefrom any period of time for which the defendant expressly waives Rule 1100.” The Note to Rule 1100 also now states:

In addition to waiving Rule 1100 for the period of enrollment in the A.R.D. program ... the attorney for the Commonwealth may request that the defendant waive Rule 1100 for the period of time spent in processing and considering the defendant’s inclusion into the A.R.D. program.

Because section (d)(2) was in effect in 1984 and 1985 when appellant’s application for A.R.D. was pending and when he signed the waiver of Rule 1100 for the duration of the application period, Knupp is not controlling.

Appellant does not argue that his limited waiver of Rule 1100 during the pendancy of his A.R.D. application was involuntary or unknowing. Rather, he argues that the Commonwealth simply took too long to act on his application, that the applications for A.R.D. must be reviewed within a reasonable period of time, and that the amended Rule 1100 implies such a requirement. Appellant cites us to no cases, and we have found none, in which a limitation has been placed on the time in which the District Attorney must either accept or reject the application for participation in the A.R.D. program. A fortiori, sixty-three days is not too long.

Applying the 180 day rule to appellant’s case, we find no violation of Rule 1100. Appellant was arrested and a criminal complaint was filed against him on September 7, 1984. He was brought to trial 214 days later on April 9, 1985. Excluding the sixty-three days during which his A.R.D. application was being processed, appellant was brought to trial within 151 days, well within the 180 days required by Rule 1100.

Judgments of sentence affirmed.


author: TAMILIA, Judge:

text:
    511 A.2d 219
    In the ESTATE OF Eugene C. ROSSI, Late of Chapman Township, Clinton County, Pennsylvania, Deceased. Appeal of Helen VUCCULO, Anna Orio, Mary Rossi and Carl Rossi.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued May 22, 1986.
    Filed June 23, 1986.

      Charles R. Rosamilia, Jr., Lock Haven, for appellants.
    Marc S. Drier, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
    Before CIRILLO, President Judge, and TAMILIA and HESTER, JJ.
   TAMILIA, Judge:

Eugene Rossi died October 15, 1984, survived by his wife, Gladys L. Wenrik Rossi.

The surviving spouse was granted Letters of Administration on October 26, 1984. Subsequently on December 20, 1984, a Petition to Determine Forfeiture was filed by two sisters of the decedent on behalf of themselves and their other sister and brother. A citation was issued on December 26, 1984 and served along with the petition on Gladys Rossi the next day. Gladys Rossi filed an Answer and New Matter along with a Motion to Dismiss Petition and Rescind Citation on January 28, 1985. The court then issued a Rule to Show Cause why the petition and citation should not be dismissed. At a hearing on February 5, 1985, the court extended the time during which Mrs. Rossi could file preliminary objections.

Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer were filed February 21, 1985 and following submission of briefs and oral argument the demurrer was granted and appellant’s petition dismissed by Order of May 7, 1985.

The petitioners filed exceptions to this Order which were denied by an Order dated August 1, 1985 and the appeal presently before us was taken from the August 1, Order.

Because the notice of appeal was not taken from the Order of May 7, 1985, we must quash this appeal.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in U.S. National Bank in Johnstown v. Johnson, 506 Pa. 622, 629, 487 A.2d 809, 813 (1985), noted it has long been the law that the sustaining of a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer and dismissal of the complaint in an equity action, is a final appealable Order, citing Otto v. American Mutual Insurance Co., 482 Pa. 202, 393 A.2d 450 (1978); J.A. and W.A. Hess, Inc. v. Hazle Township, 465 Pa. 465, 350 A.2d 858 (1976); Hudock v. Donegal Mutual Insurance Company, 438 Pa. 272, 264 A.2d 668 (1970); Ahrens v. Goldstein, 376 Pa. 114, 102 A.2d 164 (1954); Smith v. Philadelphia v. Reading Railroad, 286 Pa. 55, 132 A. 804 (1926); other citations omitted.

Although special rules govern actions in Orphans’ Court, pleadings and practice conform to equity practice through Orphans’ Court Rule 3.1 which provides:

3.1 Conformity To Equity Practice in General
Except where otherwise provided by a rule adopted by the Supreme Court, or by an Act of Assembly, or by general rule or special order of the local Orphans’ Court, and except for the Notice to Defend required by Rule of Civil Procedure 1018.1, which form of notice shall be required only if directed by general rule or special order of the local Orphans’ Court, the pleading and practice shall conform to the pleading and practice in equity in the local Court of Common Pleas.

Amended Nov. 24, 1975, effective Jan. 1, 1976.

Preliminary objections are proper in an equity action and are specifically provided for in Pa.R.C.P. 1509 which incorporates the pleading practice set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1017(b).

Having established that the use of preliminary objections was proper, the rule established in Johnson, supra, leads us to the determination that the Order of May 7, 1985 was final and appealable as of right under Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). This is reinforced by the fact that the Order terminated the litigation as far as appellants were concerned, putting them out of court. See Praisner v. Stocker, 313 Pa.Super. 332, 459 A.2d 1255 (1983); Dash v. Wilap Corp., 343 Pa.Super. 584, 495 A.2d 950 (1985).

The filing of exceptions to the May 7, 1985 Order was improper. Under the equity rules, post-trial relief is sought by filing motions under Pa.R.C.P. 227.1. These requirements are applicable when an adjudication under Pa.R.C.P. 1517(a) is made by the court in the form of a proposed final disposition of a complaint or Decree Nisi. The ruling on the preliminary objections was not an adjudication as contemplated by Rule 1517. It was pre-trial in nature and not the type to which the rules governing post-trial motions were meant to apply. “No where in our rules are exceptions permitted from the disposition of preliminary objections and such practice is expressly disapproved.” Johnson, supra, 506 Pa. at 630, 487 A.2d at 813.

Once the preliminary objections were sustained and the complaint dismissed by the Order of May 7, 1985, appellants had thirty days under Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) to file a notice of appeal. The fact that the lower court ruled on the merits of the exceptions filed does not alter our determination, for untimely appeals present a question of jurisdiction and must be quashed. Swidzinski v. Schultz, 342 Pa.Super. 422, 493 A.2d 93 (1985); Murphy v. Brong, 321 Pa.Super. 340, 468 A.2d 509 (1983).

Appeal quashed.

      . Pa.R.C.P. 1509 provides:
      Rule 1509. Preliminary Objections
      (a) Preliminary objections authorized by Rule 1017(b) are available to any party.
      (b) The objections of laches and failure to exercise or exhaust a statutory remedy may be raised by preliminary objection, answer or reply but are not waived if not pleaded.
      (c) The objection of the existence of a full, complete and adequate non-statutory remedy at law shall be raised by preliminary objection. If the objection is sustained, the court shall certify the action to the law side of the court. If not so pleaded, the objection is waived.
      Adopted Jan. 4, 1952, effective July 1, 1952.

      . Pa.R.C.P. 1017(b) provides in pertinent part:

        Rule 1017. Pleadings Allowed
      (b) Preliminary objections are available to any party and are limited to
      (4) a demurrer, which may not include the bar of a statute of limitations or frauds; and

        Note: The amendments to subdivision (b)(4) and Rule 1030 discontinue the prior practice of raising the defense of the bar of a nonwaivable statute of frauds or statute of limitations by preliminary objections. Such defense can be asserted only in a responsive pleading as new matter.

      . Pa.R.A.P. 341 provides in pertinent part:
      Final Orders
      Rule 341. Final Orders Generally
      (a) General Rule. Except as prescribed in Subdivisions (b) and (c) of this rule, an appeal may be taken as of right from any final order of an administrative agency or lower court.

      . Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(c) provides in pertinent part:
      Rule 227.1. Post-Trial Relief
      (c) Post-trial motions shall be filed within ten days after
      (2) notice of nonsuit or the filing of the decision or adjudication in the case of a trial without jury or equity trial.

      . Pa.R.C.P. 1517(a) provides:
      Rule 1517. The Adjudication. Notice
      (a) The court shall make an adjudication and may do so before the testimony has been transcribed. The adjudication shall consist of (1) a statement of the issues; (2) a closely condensed chronological statement, in narrative form or in separate findings, of all the facts which are necessary to be known in order to determine the issues; (3) a discussion of the questions of law involved and the court’s conclusions of law and (4) a decree nisi.


author: HOFFMAN, Judge:

text:
    511 A.2d 221
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Dale SAMUELS, Appellant.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued April 3, 1985.
    Decided April 22, 1986.
    Reargument Denied June 26, 1986.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Granted Nov. 21, 1986.

      Cynthia M. Weaver, Solicitor, Newtown, for appellant.
    Gail Fairman, Assistant District Attorney, Doylestown, for Com., appellee.
    Before CAVANAUGH, OLSZEWSKI and HOFFMAN, JJ.
   HOFFMAN, Judge:

This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence for statutory rape, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3122, indecent assault, id. § 3126, indecent exposure, id. § 3127, and corruption of minors, id. § 6301. Appellant contends that (1) the lower court erred in limiting his expert’s testimony at trial; (2) the statute granting sexual assault counselors an absolute privilege “not to be examined as a witness in any civil or criminal proceeding” concerning confidential communications made to them by sexual assault victims, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5945.1, is unconstitutional under various provisions of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions; (3) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel (seven allegations); (4) the sentencing guidelines, see 204 Pa. Code §§ 303.1-303.9, reprinted following 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721, are unconstitutional under various provisions of our state constitution; and (5) his prior misdemeanor convictions not involving the use of a deadly weapon were improperly counted in determining his prior record score under the sentencing guidelines because the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing .had no authority to so allow their use. For the following reasons, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand this case for resentencing.

On June 17, 1983, appellant was arrested in connection with the May 29, 1983 sexual assault of an eleven-year-old girl. He was charged with rape, statutory rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, indecent exposure, corruption of minors, and simple assault. Following a July 28, 1983 preliminary hearing, appellant was held for court on each of the charges and arraigned on September 7, 1983. At a November 11, 1983 hearing on appellant’s pre-trial motions, the Commonwealth withdrew the charge of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. N.T. November 11, 1983 at 2.

Appellant was tried before a jury on November 18 and 21, 1983. Essentially two versions of what transpired in the early morning hours of May 29 were presented at trial. Appellant lived with the victim’s stepsister and their daughter. About 9:30 on the evening of May 28, appellant and his girlfriend picked up the victim at her home; the couple then drove her to their home to babysit their daughter while they went out to a bar. At this point, the versions diverge.

According to the Commonwealth, the couple returned after midnight, and then appellant proceeded to drive the victim home in her stepsister’s automobile. At some point on the way there, appellant kissed the victim and then drove to an area where he committed the acts that form the basis of the charges filed against him. The victim testified that she smelled alcohol on appellant’s breath, but did not know whether he was drunk. Notably, during the victim’s struggle with appellant in the backseat of the car, she put her foot through the roof of the convertible. See N.T. November 21, 1983 at 10 (testimony of police officer Howard Bennett); id. November 18, 1983 at 35 (victim’s testimony that she “tried to kick [her] way out of it”). Afterwards, appellant drove the victim home. Out of fear, she did not tell her father (who was awake when she came home) or her mother what had happened. In the morning she did, however, tell her fifteen-year-old friend and neighbor. Then, after a conversation with “two girlfriends [who] said if you don’t tell them, [we] will,” id. at 39, the victim told her mother about the attack on the following Tuesday (May 31) or Wednesday (June 1). Her mother took her, on June 2, to see Dr. Valerie Bossard, a physician who specializes in gynecology and obstetrics. Dr. Bossard testified that the victim had “a small area of ecchymosis [redness] about two by two centimeters, on the left labium minora” and a hymen that was not intact, factors suggesting that sexual intercourse had occurred. Id. at 79-80.

Appellant testified in his own defense. He and the victim’s stepsister stayed at the bar until “last call,” 2:00 a.m. He had two beers there. N.T. November 21, 1983 at 49-50. After leaving the bar, appellant’s girlfriend “noticed the roof was cut and [he] checked out the car and noticed it.” Id. at 47; see also id. at 17 (testimony of the victim’s stepsister). The couple drove her brother, who had gone with them, to his house, and then returned to their home. Next appellant drove the victim home and returned at about 3:15 a.m. His girlfriend did not accompany him because she was not feeling well and, because her car was low on gas, she did not want to get stranded outside so early in the morning. The following Monday, Memorial Day, the victim spoke to her stepsister and appellant at a cookout and was paid for babysitting. On Thursday (June 2), the victim’s brother accused appellant of raping his sister, and appellant testified that he was “really shocked” and told him “that I did not do it.” Id. at 46.

On November 21, 1983, the jury found appellant guilty of statutory rape, indecent assault, indecent exposure, and corruption of minors. Timely post-verdict motions were filed, and because appellant alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, new (present) counsel was appointed to represent him. A hearing on the ineffectiveness claims was held on March 22, 1984. All of appellant’s post-trial motions were denied on August 3, 1984, and, on August 29, he was ordered to pay the costs of prosecution and was sentenced to a term of thirty-eight-months-to-fifteen-years imprisonment on “Criminal Action 3261 of ’83.” Appellant thereupon filed a motion to modify or reconsider sentence, and, on September 7, 1984, the lower court lowered the maximum sentence to ten years imprisonment. This appeal followed.

I

Appellant first contends that the lower court erred in prohibiting his expert witness, James Rearick, from stating his opinion as to what kind of object caused the hole in the roof of the convertible. This claim is meritless.

The qualification of an expert witness is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Kravinsky v. Glover, 263 Pa.Superior Ct. 8, 20, 396 A.2d 1349, 1355 (1979). “ ‘If a witness has any reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge on the subject under investigation he or she is qualified as an expert.’ ” Id. (quoting Ragan v. Steen, 229 Pa.Superior Ct. 515, 522, 331 A.2d 724, 728 (1974)). Moreover, “[i]t is not necessary that the witness possess all the knowledge in his special field of activity.” Erschen v. Pennsylvania Independent Oil Co., 259 Pa.Superior Ct. 474, 477, 393 A.2d 924, 926 (1978).

Here, we find no “clear case of error” requiring reversal of the trial court’s ruling. See Pratt v. Stein, 298 Pa.Superior Ct. 92, 152, 444 A.2d 674, 706 (1982). Appellant’s witness testified that he had been doing upholstery work on cars “off and on [for] about 13 years.” N.T. November 21, 1983 at 60. Rearick stated that he patched torn roof tops once every two weeks. Id. at 61. We believe that, given the foregoing, the court correctly concluded that Rearick was not qualified to give his opinion as to the cause of the cut. He did not testify that he had any specialized knowledge to determine what might cause a tear. We note, also, that the court did allow him to describe the nature of the cut, id. at 63-64, and from that testimony the jury could decide for itself what caused the tear. See Ryan v. Furey, 225 Pa.Superior Ct. 294, 298, 303 A.2d 221, 224 (1973) (“expert witness should not be permitted to state an inference or judgment as to the ultimate facts to be determined by the jury if the evidentiary facts can be fully developed so that [it] can reasonably estimate their bearing on the issues”).

In any event, we believe that the defense conveyed its point to the jury that someone had broken into the car:

[Defense Counsel]: When you examined that roof, what type of cut was it?
[Rearick]: It was either done by a knife or razor blade.
[The Prosecutor]: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
sic »fc *
[Defense Counsel]: By “straight,” how do you mean?
[Rearick]: Somebody took something and just cut it. Made a straight run out of it.
[The Prosecutor]: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. The jury will disregard that. [Defense Counsel]: Do you have an opinion as to whether that cut was done by a foot or a straight cutting object?
[The Prosecutor]: Objection.
THE COURT: ’Sustained.

N.T. November 21, 1983 at 61-62. Furthermore, the Commonwealth’s and the defense’s versions of what caused the cut were not necessarily mutually exclusive: the victim could have more easily put her foot through an already torn car roof than an untorn one. Accordingly, we can find no merit in this contention and absolutely no prejudice to appellant by the court’s limitation of Rearick’s testimony.

II

Appellant next contends that the statute granting “sexual assault counselors” an absolute privilege “not to be examined as a witness in any civil or criminal proceeding without the prior written consent of the victim” concerning “confidential communications” made by sexual assault victims, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5945.1, is unconstitutional because (1) it denies him an opportunity to present evidence in his own behalf, a violation of due process, U.S.Const. amend. XIV; Pa. Const. art. I, § 9; (2) it denies him his right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, U.S. Const. amend. VI; Pa. Const. art. I, § 9; (3) it fails to define the nature and scope of communications protected from disclosure at trial, a violation of due process; and (4) it denies him the equal protection of the law, U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Pa. Const. art. III, § 32, because defendants charged with sex offenses are treated differently from other defendants not so charged with regard to obtaining prior statements of a witness. Appellant also contends that the trial court’s post-trial review of the Bucks County Women Organized Against Rape (WOAR) files prejudiced him because, had he known that the files contained no relevant statements made by the victim, "he could have cross-examined [her] concerning the absence of any statements inculpating [him].” Brief for Appellant at 22. Lastly, he requests this Court, if it should find no error in the procedure utilized by the court below, to rule on the constitutional question thereby presented, the limitation of his ability to cross-examine the complainant, “because in this guise [the question] is capable of repetition yet evading review.” Id. For the following reasons, we decline to rule on the constitutionality of § 5945.1 because, even assuming its applicability to the instant case, we find that appellant has not been prejudicially affected by its operation in this case. We also conclude that appellant was not prejudiced by the lower court’s post-trial review of the WOAR files.

Our Legislature enacted the sexual assault counselors’ privilege statute in response to our Supreme Court’s decision in In re Pittsburgh Action Against Rape, (PAAR), 494 Pa. 15, 428 A.2d 126 (1981), see Commonwealth Ritchie, 509 Pa. 357, 359 n. 1, 502 A.2d 148, 149 n. 1 (1985) (LARSEN, J., dissenting); Note, Pennsylvania Establishes New Privilege for Communications Made to a Rape Crisis Center Counselor — [PAAR], 55 Temp.L.Q. 1124, 1125 (1982), and the response of rape crisis centers to that decision, id. In PAAR, appellant, director of PAAR, a rape crisis center, “ask[ed] [our Supreme] Court to expand the common law of this Commonwealth to create an absolute privilege for all communications between PAAR personnel and persons seeking PAAR’s assistance.” PAAR, supra, 494 Pa. at 19, 428 A.2d at 127. The Court refused. Instead, the Court, though recognizing “the undoubtable public interest in helping victims of rape to cope with inevitable disruption of emotional stability caused by the physical assaults they suffer” and “in encouraging victims of violent crime to come forward,” id., 494 Pa. at 24, 428 A.2d at 130, found that “[i]t would be unfair to erect a privilege that would deny [an] accused the opportunity at least to ascertain what the complainant previously has said,” id., 494 Pa. at 27, 428 A.2d at 132. Accordingly, the Court held

that upon defense request a court should authorize defense inspection of only those statements of the complainant contained in the [center’s] file which bear on the facts of the alleged offense. The court, however, must not permit defense inspection of statements of the complainant having no bearing on the facts of the alleged offense and relating instead only to the counselling services [that the rape crisis center] provides. The trial court shall not permit defense review of any other aspect of the file.

Id., 494 Pa. at 19, 428 A.2d at 127-28 (emphasis added). The trial court’s inquiry is to be conducted in camera with an eye to determining what in the file “are indeed ‘statements.’ ” Id., 494 Pa. at 28, 428 A.2d at 132. Furthermore, the Court cautioned the defense against improperly disclosing or using any statements made available to it. Id., 494 Pa. at 29, 428 A.2d at 133.

The PAAR procedure was modified in Commonwealth v. Ritchie, supra, over the vigorous dissent of Justice Larsen, joined by Justice Hutchinson. At issue in Ritchie was the constitutionality of § 2215 of the Child Protective Services Law, 11 P.S. §§ 2201-2224. Under § 2215,

reports made pursuant to [the] act including but not limited to report summaries of child abuse ... and written reports ... as well as any other information obtained, reports written or photographs or x-rays taken concerning alleged instances of child abuse in the possession of the department, a county children and youth social service agency or a child protective service shall be confidential and shall only be made available to: [eleven enumerated categories of persons and institutions].

11 P.S. § 2215(a). The Court noted that, with all of its exceptions, this confidentiality provision differs from others enacted by our Legislature, such as the statute at issue here, § 5945.1.

In Ritchie, the defense did not ask solely for statements made by the complainant that bore on the facts of the alleged offenses (a father’s sexual assaults on his thirteen-year-old daughter); “[the Court was] asked for a review and inspection by counsel of all materials in the possession of [the Child Welfare Services (CWS) ], that their relevancy might be determined and their uses in testing credibility ascertained.” Commonwealth v. Ritchie, supra, 509 Pa. at 362, 502 A.2d at 150. The Court, finding PAAR “useful,” found as follows:

In [PAAR ], we gave what we were asked, to wit, inspection of communications between the victim and personnel of PAAR. Now we are asked for the right to inspect the entire file. The rationale for such a request is the same rationale underlying the right granted in [PAAR ], to inspect prior statements of a victim or witness. In short, as with prior statements, the eye of an advocate may see connection and relevancy in any material gathered from the victim, other witnesses, or circumstances developed by the investigation of a child. “The search for truth” and the quest for “every man’s evidence” so plainly the basis of the Sixth Amendment, and so aptly applied in \PAAR ], are as applicable to any material as to prior statements.

Id., 509 Pa. at 367-368, 502 A.2d at 153. (footnote omitted). Accordingly, even though the trial court found that the CWS files contained nothing of any benefit to the defendant, the Court remanded the case so that the defendant, through his counsel, could have access to them and “then be permitted to argue to the trial court what use, if any, could have been made of the files in cross-examining the complainant or in presenting other evidence.” Id., 509 Pa. at 368, 502 A.2d at 153. The Commonwealth could argue that any error was harmless. Id., 509 Pa. at 368, 502 A.2d at 153. The Court did not declare § 2215 unconstitutional, however, because the Legislature excepted “court[s] of competent jurisdiction pursuant to a court order,” 11 P.S. § 2215(a)(5), from the confidentiality provision, thus “clearly recognizpng] that material in [a] child’s file cannot be denied them.” Commonwealth v. Ritchie, supra, 509 Pa. at 367, 502 A.2d at 153.

We must now assess § 5945.1 as it applies to the facts of the instant case and in light of our Supreme Court’s decisions in PAAR and Ritchie. In so doing, we take note of the well-established proposition that a court is not to rule on the constitutionality of a statute unless it is absolutely necessary to do so in order to decide the issue before it. Millcreek Township School District v. Star Theatre, Inc., 172 Pa.Superior Ct. 291, 294, 94 A.2d 53, 54 (1953). Furthermore, one who is not prejudicially affected by the statute in the case under review is not entitled to be heard on the question of its alleged unconstitutionality. Commonwealth v. Bonadio, 490 Pa. 91, 94 n. 2, 415 A.2d 47, 49 n. 2 (1980); Commonwealth v. Bottchenbaugh, 306 Pa.Superior Ct. 406, 409-10, 452 A.2d 789, 791 (1982).

We must first determine here the WOAR materials that we are being asked for, and for what purpose we are being asked to allow their disclosure. With regard to these questions, the record is sparse indeed. At the pre-trial motions hearing, the following exchange occurred:

[Defense Counsel]: ... I have two other Motions I want to present to the Court.
One is I have typed up and have not filed a Motion to — challenging the Judicial Code, constitutionality of that section which deals with the WOAR records.
I have subpoenaed those records, received a letter from Mr. Adamson indicating that they would not respond to the subpoena.
Subpoena was served and the Motion is typed. If it is necessary that I present evidence, I will do so, but I thought perhaps—
THE COURT: I think everybody would probably agree that you in fact attempted to get the records but were denied access to them under the appropriate sections of the Judicial Code.
Would you agree to that?
[The Prosecutor]: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You have preserved that issue.

N.T., Pre-trial Motions Hearing, November 11, 1983 at 4. This is the only reference that we could find in the record made either pre-trial or at trial. Unlike the pre-trial conference held in Ritchie, defense counsel asserted no justification in seeking to compel disclosure of the WOAR records. See Commonwealth v. Ritchie, supra, 509 Pa. at 359, 502 A.2d at 149. (CWS records sought in order to gain information that could impeach or discredit the complainant or that could reveal potential witnesses; defense also sought information pertaining to a medical examination of the victim); cf. PAAR, supra, 494 Pa. at 21-23, 428 A.2d at 129 (complainant testified at trial that she spoke with PAAR personnel; defendant sought production of PAAR records containing communications between them for the purpose of impeaching the complainant).

In his motion in arrest of judgment and for a new trial, defense counsel argued that the court erred in failing to rule § 5945.1 unconstitutional pre-trial. In her brief in support of that motion, new (present) counsel argued that the court erred in failing to grant appellant’s request to compel the testimony and production of evidence from WOAR. For the first time, counsel offered a reason in support of disclosure: that the information may have undermined the victim’s testimony about the alleged attack upon her by appellant, that is, that it may have cast doubt on her identification of him. Brief for Appellant in Support of Post-Verdict Motions at 9-10. The lower court did not address appellant’s constitutional challenges to § 5945.1, however, because, following PAAR and this Court’s decision in Ritchie, it “reviewed the WOAR records in camera and found that no statements whatsoever were made by the victim." Lower Court Opinion at 4-5 (emphasis added).

Nor will we reach the issue of the constitutionality of § 5945.1. First, we question whether the statute.is applicable here. It grants sexual assault counselors a privilege “not to be examined as a witness in any civil or criminal proceeding without the prior written consent of the victim being counseled....” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5945.1(b). Defense counsel never sought to examine any WOAR counselor as a witness. To the extent that the statute is inapplicable, then, this case is governed solely by the principles announced in PAAR and Ritchie, and we need not address the constitutionality of § 5945.1.

It is, however, of no consequence whether the statute applies here, because it is evident that appellant suffered no prejudice by its operation, real or imagined, or by the procedure employed by the court below. We note that it is only new counsel, not appellant’s trial counsel, who offers any justification for disclosure of the file. The justification offered below hardly bears discussion: identification was not an issue in this case (appellant did not deny driving the victim home); credibility of the witnesses was.

On appeal, counsel adds a rather belated reason. Had trial counsel known that the victim made no statements, she argues, he could have cross-examined her as to the absence of any statements made to WOAR personnel inculpating appellant. Even assuming that this claim is not waived, it is utterly frivolous. The victim reported the attack to her girlfriends, her mother, and the police. Furthermore, when the victim was interviewed by Officer Howard Bennett on June 2, 1983, she was accompanied by “Kathy,” a WOAR representative. The Commonwealth forwarded the interview form to the defense pursuant to a discovery request; thus, the defense knew that WOAR was well aware of whom the victim was inculpating. Accordingly, we will not waste more time and judicial resources by remanding this case, as was done in Ritchie, for a fishing expedition through the WOAR files that has no chance of producing anything even remotely helpful to the defense.

Ill

Appellant next contends that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to (1) investigate whether the victim’s father’s alleged sexual advances towards his daughters precipitated her accusations against appellant and provided medical corroboration for them, (2) preserve objections to testimony concerning out-of-court statements made by the victim, (3) call at trial a medical expert to contradict the testimony of the Commonwealth’s expert medical witness, (4) request a jury charge on the victim’s delay in reporting the alleged assault, (5) timely object to the prosecutor’s expressions of personal belief in her closing argument and to preserve that issue for appeal, (6) present evidence of the victim’s family’s animosity towards him, and (7) present character witnesses on his behalf. These claims are meritless.

In reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel,

“We remain guided by the standards first articulated in Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 605-06, 235 A.2d 349, 352-53 (1967):
[Cjounsel’s assistance is deemed constitutionally effective once we are able to conclude that the particular course chosen by counsel had some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client’s interests.
The test is not whether other alternatives were more reasonable, employing a hindsight evaluation of the record. Although weigh the alternatives we must, the balance tips in favor of a finding of effective assistance as soon as it is determined that trial counsel’s decisions had any reasonable basis.
Moreover, counsel will not be deemed ineffective for failing to raise baseless or frivolous issues. Commonwealth v. Arthur, 488 Pa. 262, 265, 412 A.2d 498 (1980). It is only when the claim which has been foregone is of arguable merit that further inquiry must be made into the basis for counsel’s decision not to pursue the matter. Commonwealth v. Hubbard, 472 Pa. 259, 372 A.2d 687, 696 (1977).”
Additionally, because counsel’s stewardship of the trial is presumptively effective, the burden of establishing counsel’s ineffectiveness rests upon the defendant. Commonwealth v. Miller, 494 Pa. 229, 233, 431 A.2d 233 (1981); Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, supra at 427 Pa. 608, 235 A.2d 349.

Commonwealth v. McNeil, 506 Pa. 607, 614-15, 487 A.2d 802, 805-06 (1985) (quoting Commonwealth v. Anderson, 501 Pa. 275, 286, 461 A.2d 208, 213 (1983)). To this two-pronged “performance component” for analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, this Court has added a “prejudice component” as follows: “[AJfter proving that his [or her] counsel was ineffective, the defendant must go on to establish that counsel’s ineffectiveness so prejudiced his case that he was deprived of a fair trial.” Commonwealth v. Pierce, 345 Pa.Superior Ct. 324, 329, 498 A.2d 423, 426 (1985) (en banc). With these standards in mind, we turn to appellant’s allegations of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness.

Appellant first alleges that trial counsel should have investigated whether the victim’s father could have assaulted her. This claim has no arguable merit. At the post-trial ineffectiveness hearing, the victim’s stepsister testified that she discussed her stepfather’s abuse of her with appellant’s trial counsel. N.T. March 22, 1984 at 37. Trial counsel testified that the stepsister told him that she had been assaulted “some ten years ago” and that he had also discovered that another sister had been assaulted “a while ago” by the stepfather, but he had no evidence whatsoever of any attack on the victim. Id. at 12-13, 28-29. Therefore, as the lower court correctly found, counsel did investí-gate the possibility of an alternative explanation for the assault.

Appellant also argues that counsel should have attempted to introduce the evidence of the stepfather’s attacks on his daughters. Any such attempt would have been fruitless. Considering the facts of this case, we fail to understand the relevancy of evidence that a person other than appellant assaulted a person other than the victim. Cf. Commonwealth v. Black, 337 Pa.Superior Ct. 548, 487 A.2d 396 (1985) (Rape Shield Law, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3104, could not be used to prevent the defendant from introducing evidence of the victim’s prior sexual history with another person to show her bias against the defendant). Appellant’s suggestion that those attacks, one taking place over ten years ago, somehow precipitated the victim’s accusations against appellant is nothing short of fanciful.

Appellant next alleges that trial counsel failed to object to testimony concerning the victim's out-of-court statements. Both the victim and her friend testified as to the victim’s statements made to her friends, mother, and brother, accusing appellant of raping her. See N.T. November 18, 1983 at 37-39, 91. As counsel testified, however, he had a strategy in not objecting to the admission of the statements.

[M]y theory of the case was [that the victim] had never told me one of the details of this incident until she finally spoke with the third police officer after which she had had time to go over things with her mother and the times relevant to the incident.
So I want [the victim’s girlfriend] to testify because [she] did not testify to any details as to where the intercourse took place. [She] testified that [the victim] told her it happened at one o’clock, which was totally impossible and I wanted that stuff to come out because I had — we had spoken to [her] prior to trial.

N.T. March 22, 1984 at 17-18. Furthermore, counsel stated that he felt that the victim’s and her friend’s testimony were inconsistent “in terms of where the incident occurred and in terms of the time it occurred.” Id. at 18. We will not second guess trial counsel’s strategy here. It is evident that counsel sought to undermine the victim’s credibility by highlighting inconsistencies in her testimony and by suggesting that she may have invented the story.

Next, appellant alleges that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call an expert witness, a Dr. Gestoso, who had examined the victim before Dr. Bossard and could have rebutted her testimony, thus casting doubt on the victim’s accusations against him. Dr. Gestoso examined the victim at the emergency room of a local hospital. See N.T. November 18, 1983 at 39-40. He told trial counsel’s investigator that he saw no signs of trauma or bruises and that, in his opinion, the victim had not had sexual intercourse within forty-eight hours of his examination. See N.T. March 22, 1984 at 19. However, trial counsel certainly had a reasonable basis for not calling Dr. Gestoso: as counsel testified, Dr. Gestoso adopted what Dr. Bossard had testified to at trial after counsel went over her testimony with him; he was not an expert; he may have missed some things in the busy emergency room; he hedged on everything; and, for several other reasons, was not a good witness. See id. at 20-21.

Appellant argues, nonetheless, that counsel did not testify that Dr. Gestoso’s testimony would in any way have weakened appellant’s case. Cf. id. at 22 (Dr. Gestoso’s testimony was “not nearly as helpful as I thought [it] would have been”). We have held that “[t]he failure to call a possible witness will not be equated with a conclusion of ineffectiveness absent some positive demonstration that the testimony would have been helpful to the defense.” Commonwealth v. Bulard, 305 Pa.Super. 502, 510, 451 A.2d 760, 764 (1982). On the record before us, it is not surprising that appellant has failed to make that showing here. As the lower court put it, “[i]t certainly would not have benefited [appellant] to have Dr. Gestoso confirm what Dr. Bossard said.” Lower Court Opinion at 10.

Appellant also alleges that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request a jury charge on the victim’s delay in reporting the alleged assault. This claim is meritless. The evidence summarized above belies appellant’s suggestion that the victim delayed in reporting the assault. See Commonwealth v. Freeman, 295 Pa.Superior Ct. 467, 475-77, 441 A.2d 1327, 1331-32 (1982) (testimony by the victim that she reported the alleged rape to others and by the victim’s sister-in-law confirming that the victim related the incident to her immediately following its occurrence to show prompt complaint held admissible). We, fail to understand, then, how an instruction could have benefited appellant.

Appellant next alleges that trial counsel failed to timely object to the prosecutor’s expressions of personal belief in her closing argument and to preserve that issue for appeal. He points to the following:

This child would have backed out a long time ago. . She would not continue to subject herself to the humiliation and degradation about talking about things that are so embarassing [sic] to her because they picked her up late from babysitting.
******
I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, the details that she supplied for her age, fifth grade, about herself, about the facts — the way it hurts, are details that this child would not be able to testify to you about.
******
She supplies all of these details step by step. She couldn’t do that if that were not the truth.

N.T., Closing Arguments, November 21,1983 at 31-32. We agree with the lower court that the prosecutor’s comments “were within the boundaries of fair argument from the evidence.” Lower Court Opinion at 13. The language employed by the prosecutor is not

“such that its unavoidable effect would be to prejudice the jury, forming in [the jurors’] minds a fixed bias and hostility toward [appellant], so that they could not fairly weigh in his behalf such circumstances of doubt, extenuation or degree of guilt that may be present in the case, and thus make them unable to render a true verdict.”

Commonwealth v. Wiggins, 231 Pa.Superior Ct. 71, 77, 328 A.2d 520, 523 (1974) (quoting Commonwealth v. Meyers, 290 Pa. 573, 581, 139 A. 374, 377 (1927)). Furthermore, the trial court instructed the jury that the arguments of counsel were not evidence and that, while the jurors could be guided by these arguments, they were to “reject the facts argued to you from the lawyers and accept what you believe to be the facts — ” N.T. November 21, 1983 at 86. In light of this instruction, we do not believe, as appellant argues, that the prosecutor’s comments were given undue weight by the jury.

Appellant also alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present evidence of the animosity of the victim’s family towards him. At the post-trial ineffectiveness hearing, the victim’s stepsister testified that she spoke to trial counsel “about different incidents that had happened that we [appellant and she] were accused of robbing my grandmother and killing her.” N.T. March 22, 1984 at 37. Trial counsel testified that “[t]here was a lot of hate before” the rape occurred between appellant and the victim’s family. Id. at 28. Appellant argues that this evidence could have been used to attack the credibility of both the victim and her mother and to provide a motive for the victim’s accusations against appellant. These claims are baseless.

First, appellant himself testified at the ineffectiveness hearing that the accusations involving the grandmother occurred after the rape. Id. at 34. Trial counsel stated that he did not have “specific instances” of the hatred, except “that [the victim’s mother] didn’t like [her son] hanging around with [appellant] because he was older and drinking and things like that.” Id. at 28. Understandably, trial counsel decided not to present that evidence. Furthermore, in his direct examinations of the victim’s stepsister, trial counsel did present, and attempted to present, evidence of the victim’s mother’s animosity toward appellant. See N.T. November 21, 1983 at 25-27, 83. Lastly, both at trial and the ineffectiveness hearing, appellant testified that he got along with the victim before the rape occurred. N.T. November 21, 1983 at 52; id. March 22, 1984 at 34, 35. Accordingly, trial counsel presented the evidence of the victim’s family’s animosity toward appellant that he had ánd concluded would be helpful to appellant’s defense. He could do no more.

Appellant last alleges that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present character witnesses on his behalf. At the post-trial ineffectiveness hearing, appellant testified that he gave trial counsel the names of character witnesses and expected them to be called at trial. Id. at 32-33. Appellant argues that counsel’s failure to make use of these witnesses to establish character traits of non-violence and chastity deprived him of an opportunity to show that he was not the kind of person who would commit the instant crimes. We disagree.

“In a rape case, evidence of the character of the defendant would be limited to the presentation of testimony concerning his general reputation in the community with regard to such traits as non-violence or peaceableness, quietness, good moral character, chastity, and disposition to observe good order.” Commonwealth v. Luther, 317 Pa. Superior Ct. 41, 50, 463 A.2d 1073, 1078 (1983). In Luther, we held that

[i]n a case where virtually the only issue is the credibility of the witness for the Commonwealth versus that of the defendant, failure to explore all available alternatives to assure that the jury heard the testimony of a known witness who might be capable of casting doubt upon the truthfulness of the Commonwealth witness is ineffective assistance of counsel.

Id., 317 Pa.Superior Ct. at 54, 463 A.2d at 1080 (emphasis added). We find that trial counsel here did explore all available alternatives open to the defense and had a reasonable basis for not calling the character witnesses named by appellant.

Three of the potential witnesses refused to testify because “they were involved in a will contest with the [victim’s] mother” and “didn’t want [those] facts brought up.” N.T. March 22, 1984 at 5. As to the remaining two possible witnesses, counsel explained his strategy as follows:

[Present counsel:] Would you disagree then that the traits of non-violence, peacefulness, quiteness, good moral character—
[Trial counsel:] (Interposing) When you mention all of those traits, I have to say that some of them are relevant but some of them don’t apply to [appellant] as I knew him and as I wished to portray him. I did not wish to portray him as an angel. I wished to portray him as a truthful person who didn’t commit — I couldn’t do that with the type of things that he was doing and the type of people that he was associating with. Peacefulness, I think that would have been pushing it.
[Present counsel:] Was it part of your rationale then to concentrate on his ability to give truthful testimony and not bring that into question?
[Trial counsel:] Yes.

Id. at 7. Consistent with that strategy of portraying appellant as truthful, trial counsel also testified that he did not want appellant’s prior conviction for burglary brought to the judge’s attention. Id. at 8. Thus, this is not a case such as Luther wherein

it [was] clear from a review of the record that [trial counsel’s] decision [not to call character witnesses] was not based upon a careful selection between available alternatives — e.g. consideration of the relative value of presenting character testimony through ascertained potential witnesses as opposed to the absence of such testimony — but was essentially grounded upon the fact that, prior to trial, he had failed to identify, interview, select and prepare any potential character witnesses.

Commonwealth v. Luther, supra, 317 Pa.Superior Ct. at 52, 463 A.2d at 1079. Accordingly, we will not second guess counsel’s strategy here.

With respect to appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we find pertinent the following comment by the lower court:

It has become routine to raise the issue of ineffectiveness. In fact, it has become epidemic. A second (or third) attorney will always be able to peruse a record and make determinations in hindsight of actions which could have been taken or situations which could have been treated differently.
It is the observation of the trial court from considerable experience litigating criminal cases as well as observation from the perspective of the Bench that this type of case requires considerable skill and finesse to defend. Trial counsel did an excellent job. His strategy was well thought out in advance. He handled the case with a sensitivity calculated not to offend the jury and, therefor, to serve his client’s best interests.
He called numerous witnesses, properly cross-examined the Commonwealth’s witnesses and raised objections where appropriate. This Court notes that trial counsel is employed full-time in the Public Defender’s Office of Bucks County and has been associated with that office since 1979. [N.T. March 22, 1984 at 30]. He has appeared before this Court on numerous occasions and has álways provefn] himself to be a competent, zealous advocate. We find that in the present action, trial counsel consistently pursued a reasonable trial strategy.

Lower Court Opinion at 17-18. We would add only that, even were we to assume that trial counsel was in some way ineffective, none of his actions so prejudiced appellant as to deprive him of a fair trial. We note that counsel successfully defended appellant against the rape charge, a felony of the first degree, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3121, that carries a maximum term of twenty years, id. § 1103(1), twice the maximum appellant received here.

IV

We next consider appellant’s contentions with regard to his sentence. Before we do so, we note that appellant was evidently sentenced only for the crime of statutory rape. Under the sentencing guidelines created by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, supra, statutory rape carries an offense gravity score of five. 204 Pa.Code § 303.8. Appellant received a prior record score, see id. § 303.7, of five. See Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, Guideline Sentence Form (Guideline Sentence Form) (docket entry no. 40). The guideline ranges for an offense gravity score and a prior record score of five are as follows: twenty-one-to-thirty months (minimum range), thirty-to-thirty-eight months (aggravated minimum range), sixteen-to-twenty-one months (mitigated minimum range). 204 Pa. Code § 303.9. The trial court sentenced appellant to a minimum term of thirty-eight months, the upper limit of the aggravated minimum range. See N.T. August 29, 1984 at 18 (“I think this [case] falls within the aggravated range.”); see also Guideline Sentence Form § VII (trial court’s setting forth aggravating factors).

Neither appellant nor the Commonwealth has raised the issue of sentencing on the other three guilty verdicts, indecent assault, indecent exposure, and corruption of minors. While the crime of corrupting the morals of a minor is a lesser included offense of statutory rape and is therefore merged into a statutory rape conviction, Commonwealth v. Stafford, 307 Pa.Superior Ct. 278, 283, 453 A.2d 351, 353 (1982), it is not clear whether indecent assault and indecent exposure so merge, though they may merge with one another. See and compare Commonwealth v. Whetstine, 344 Pa.Superior Ct. 246, 253, 496 A.2d 777, 781 (1985) (where Commonwealth relied on the same facts to prove indecent assault and indecent exposure, crimes found merged); Commonwealth v. Ruehling, 232 Pa.Superior Ct. 378, 383-84, 334 A.2d 702, 704-05 (1975) (if Commonwealth proves element of offensiveness of crime of indecent assault, indecent assault and statutory rape crimes do not merge). Because we are remanding this case for resentenc-ing, we believe that the trial court should clarify its new sentence by stating whether it finds the other three charges merged, or whether it was imposing a sentence of guilty without further penalty on those charges, see 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9723 (court may impose a sentence of guilty without further penalty); id. § 9721(a) (former is one of five sentencing alternatives).

Appellant first contends that the sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional because (1) they were not enacted as a bill, Pa. Const. art. III, § 1; and (2) they constitute an improper delegation of legislative authority, id. art. II, § 1; art. III, § 1. These claims are waived because appellant failed to include them in his motion to modify or reconsider sentence. Commonwealth v. Duffy, 341 Pa.Superior Ct. 217, 221, 491 A.2d 230, 231 (1985). Even if we did not find them waived, we would find them meritless. This Court rejected these same contentions in Commonwealth v. Kuphal, 347 Pa.Superior Ct. 572, 576 & n. 2, 500 A.2d 1205, 1207 & n. 2 (1985) (en banc).

Appellant last contends that his prior misdemeanor convictions not involving the use of a deadly weapon were improperly used by the lower court in computing his prior record score under the sentencing guidelines because the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing had no authority to allow their use for that purpose. We agree.

It is well-settled that “[ojnly those powers within the legislative grant, either express or necessarily implied, can be exercised by [an] administrative body.” See, e.g., Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. St. Joe Minerals Corp., 476 Pa. 302, 310, 382 A.2d 731, 736 (1978). Furthermore, “an administrative body cannot violate a statutory mandate even though acting within the general jurisdiction conferred upon it by the statute.” Hotel Casey Co. v. Ross, 343 Pa. 573, 585, 23 A.2d 737, 743 (1942) (emphasis in state reporter only). Thus, while it was undoubtedly the Sentencing Commission’s duty to adopt sentencing guidelines, a reading of the plain language of the authorizing legislation compels the conclusion that the Commission had no authority to include misdemeanors not involving the use of a deadly weapon in the computation of prior record scores.

The Legislature, in the act authorizing the creation of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2151-2155, directed it to adopt sentencing guidelines that “shall: ... [s]pecify a range of sentence of increased severity for defendants previously convicted of a felony or felonies or convicted of a crime involving the use of a deadly weapon.” Id. § 2154(2) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Commission was directed to increase sentences for defendants under two circumstances: when they had prior felony convictions and when they had prior convictions for crimes “involving the use of a deadly weapon.” Pursuant to its statutory mandate, the Commission did both. See 204 Pa.Code § 303.7(b)(1)(i), (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii) (scoring of felonies); id. § 303.7(b)(1)(i), (b)(2)(iii) (scoring of weapons misdemeanors). The Commission, however, went further and provided that one point would be added to a defendant’s prior record score if he or she was previously convicted of two or three other misdemeanors not already scored under the provisions just cited, id. § 303.7(a)(1), and two points would be added to a defendant’s prior record score if he or she was previously convicted of four or more misdemeanors not scored, id. § 303.7(a)(2). This the Commission had no power to do.

“When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(b). The language of the enabling act at issue here, § 2154(2), is plate-glass-clear: it does not state that the sentencing guidelines shall specify a range of sentences of increased severity for defendants previously convicted of misdemeanors not involving the use of a deadly weapon. If the Legislature wants to provide for such sentences, it must explicitly so state in the authorizing statute.

Moreover, because § 2154(2) authorized the creation of guidelines “which shall be considered by the sentencing court in determining the appropriate sentence for felonies and misdemeanors committed by a defendant,” (emphasis added), see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b); 204 Pa.Code § 303.1(a), it is, in a sense, a penal provision. As such, it “shall be strictly construed.” 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1928(b). We are constrained, therefore, to find that, in computing a defendant’s prior record score for sentencing purposes, a sentencing court cannot count that defendant’s prior misdemeanor convictions not involving the use of a deadly weapon.

The Commonwealth argues, however, that, if the Legislature did not intend to have all misdemeanors utilized in computing a defendant’s prior record score, it could have rejected the Commission’s guidelines under its legislative veto power in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 2155(b). Brief for the Commonwealth at 32. By not rejecting the sentencing guidelines as presently written, however, the Legislature did not thereby change § 2154(2) to provide that all misdemeanors could be used in computing prior record scores. “[T]he Pennsylvania Constitution provides that the legislative power of the Commonwealth, which is vested in both Houses of the General Assembly, may be exercised only with the concurrence of both Houses and after presentment to the Governor. Pa. Const. art. II, § 1; art. IIi, §§ 1, 4, 5, and 9; art. IV, § 15.” Commonwealth v. Kuphal, 347 Pa.Superior Ct. 572, 575, 500 A.2d 1205, 1206 (1985) (en banc) (emphasis in original) (citing id., 347 Pa.Superior Ct. at 590, 500 A.2d at 1214 (SPAETH, P.J., dissenting)); see also Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 957 n. 22, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 2787 n. 22, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1982) (Congress cannot enact proposals “by mere silence”). Therefore, the Legislature could not rewrite § 2154(2) simply by failing to reject the Sentencing Commission’s guidelines. Instead, both Houses would have to pass an act amending § 2154(2) and then present the act to the Governor. Cf. Commonwealth v. Kuphal, supra (because the Legislature’s rejection of the first proposed set of sentencing guidelines did not change prior law, i.e., the procedure sentencing judges would follow, but merely maintained the status quo, there was no exercise of legislative power requiring presentment to the Governor). The Commonwealth’s claim would have us ignore the system of governance created by our state constitution.

Appellant was clearly prejudiced here by the use of his prior misdemeanor convictions not involving the use of a deadly weapon. He received two points for a prior burglary (felony) conviction, 204 Pa. Code § 303.7(b)(2)(ii), one point for a weapons misdemeanor, id. § 303.7(b)(2)(iii), and two points for having four or more prior misdemeanor convictions not involving the use of a deadly weapon, id. § 303.7(a)(2). Thus, appellant should have received a prior record score of three, not five. The sentencing guidelines for a defendant with an offense gravity score of five and a prior record score of three are as follows:

eight-to-twelve months (minimum range), twelve-to-eighteen months (aggravated minimum range), four-to-eight months (mitigated minimum range). Here, appellant received a minimum sentence of thirty-eight months. Under the guideline ranges just quoted, the maximum minimum sentence he could receive is eighteen months. Accordingly, because appellant's prior record score must be recomputed, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand this case for resentencing and clarification as discussed above.

Judgment of sentence is vacated. Case is remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion. Jurisdiction is relinquished.

      . In its brief to this Court, the Commonwealth adopts appellant's statement of the facts wherein he sets forth both versions. We note that appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the guilty verdicts.

      . On cross-examination, Dr. Bossard testified that the redness could have been caused by the victim’s falling or sitting hard on a cement object and that it was possible that the victim’s hymen was not intact a week before her examination. N.T. November 21, 1983 at 81-82.

      . Appellant testified that something was stolen from the car, id. at 47, but he did not report the theft or the damage to the car roof to the police, id. at 50.

      . Because the jury was deadlocked on the rape charge, the court below declared a mistrial as to that charge. Id. at 104. The jury was not charged on the elements of simple assault; we assume — the record is not clear at this point — that the Commonwealth dropped that charge.

      . The trial judge did not impose an individual sentence on each of the four charges of which appellant was found guilty. We discuss this in part IV of this opinion.

      . Statutory rape is a felony of the second degree, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3122, that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years, id. § 1103(2). The other crimes of which appellant was found guilty are of a lesser degree.

      . The statute in full is as follows:
      § 5945.1 Confidential communications to sexual assault counselors
      (a) Definitions. — As used in this section the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

        "Rape crisis center.” Any office, institution or center offering assistance to victims of sexual assault and their families through crisis intervention, medical and legal accompaniment and follow-up counseling.

        “Sexual assault counselor.” A person who is engaged in any office, institution or center defined as a rape crisis center under this section, who has undergone 40 hours of training and is under the control of a direct services supervisor of a rape crisis center, whose primary purpose is the rendering of advice, counseling or assistance to victims of sexual assault.

        “Victim." A person who consults a sexual assault counselor for the purpose of securing advice, counseling or assistance concerning a mental, physical or emotional condition caused by a sexual assault.

        “Confidential communication. ” Information transmitted between a victim of sexual assault and a sexual assault counselor in the course of that relationship and in confidence by a means which, so far as the victim is aware, does not disclose the information to a third person other than those who are present to further the interests of the victim in the consultation or those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or an accomplishment of the purposes for which the sexual assault counselor is consulted. The term includes all information received by the sexual assault counselor in the course of that relationship.
      (b) Privilege. — A sexual assault counselor has a privilege not to be examined as a witness in any civil or criminal proceeding without the prior written consent of the victim being counseled by the counselor as to any confidential communication made by the victim to the counselor or as to any advice, report or working paper given or made in the course of the consultation.

      . Justice Larsen, dissenting would have recognized an absolute privilege for confidential communications between rape victims and rape crisis center counselors. In re Pittsburgh Action Against Rape, 494 Pa. 15, 34, 428 A.2d 126, 135 (LARSEN, J., dissenting). We note his "appeal to our Legislature to take cognizance of the rape victim’s plight and to act promptly and compassionately in legislatively enacting a rape victim/rape crisis counselor testimonial privilege.” Id., 494 Pa. at 62-63, 428 A.2d at 150.

      . When Ritchie was decided, there were only five such categories of persons and institutions to whom the reports were to be made available.

      . Our research has disclosed only one other state, California, that has a sexual assault victim-counselor privilege. See Cal.Evid.Code §§ 1035-1036.2 (West Supp.1986). Unlike this Commonwealth’s privilege, however, the California privilege is not an absolute one. Notably, the statute provides a detailed procedure for a court’s disclosure of privileged material as defined by the statute:
      As used in this article, "confidential communication between the sexual assault counselor and the victim” means information transmitted between the victim and the sexual assault counselor in the course of their relationship and in confidence by a means which, so far as the victim is aware, discloses the information to no third persons other than those who are present to further the interests of the victim in the consultation or those to whom disclosures are reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or an accomplishment of the purposes for which the sexual assault counselor is consulted. The term includes all information regarding the facts and circumstances involving the alleged sexual assault and also includes all information regarding the victim’s prior or subsequent sexual conduct, and opinions regarding the victim’s sexual conduct or reputation in sexual matters.
      The court may compel disclosure of information received by the sexual assault counselor which constitutes relevant evidence of the facts and circumstances involving an alleged sexual assault about which the victim is complaining and which is the subject of a criminal proceeding if the court determines that the probative value outweighs the effect on the victim, the treatment relationship, and the treatment services if disclosure is compelled. The court may also compel disclosure in proceedings related to child abuse if the court determines the probative value outweighs the effect on the victim, the treatment relationship, and the treatment services if disclosure is compelled.
      When a court is ruling on a claim of privilege under this article, the court may require the person from whom disclosure is sought or the person authorized to claim the privilege, or both, to disclose the information in chambers out of the presence and hearing of all persons except the person authorized to claim the privilege and such other persons as the person authorized to claim the privilege is willing to have present. If the judge determines that the information is privileged and must not be disclosed, neither he or she nor any other person may ever disclose, without the consent of a person authorized to permit disclosure, what was disclosed in the course of the proceedings in chambers.
      If the court determines certain information shall be disclosed, the court shall so order and inform the defendant. If the court finds there is a reasonable likelihood that particular information is subject to disclosure pursuant to the balancing test provided in this section, the following procedure shall be followed:
      (1) The court shall inform the defendant of the nature of the information which may be subject to disclosure.-
      (2) The court shall order a hearing out of the presence of the jury, if any, and at the hearing allow the questioning of the sexual assault counselor regarding the information which the court has determined may be subject to disclosure.
      (3) At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall rule which items of information, if any, shall be disclosed. The court may make an order stating what evidence may be introduced by the defendant and the nature of questions to be permitted. The defendant may then offer evidence pursuant to the order of the court. Admission of evidence concerning the sexual conduct of the complaining witness is subject to Sections 352, 782, and 1103.
      Cal. Evidence Code § 1035.4. Furthermore, the California statute sets forth who holds the privilege, id. § 1035.6, whom the sexual assault victim can prevent from disclosing confidential communications, id. § 1035.8, and which "sexual assaults” are included within the terms of the statute, id. § 1036.2.

      . As is evident from the above-cited notes of testimony from the pre-trial hearing and from the trial itself, defense counsel never sought to compel the testimony of anyone from WOAR.

      . 324 Pa.Superior Ct. 557, 472 A.2d 220 (1984). Finding the same competing interests involved as in PAAR, we adopted the PAAR procedure outlined above. PAAR was, as noted above, subsequently modified by our Supreme Court.

      . The lower court sealed the file in order to protect its confidentiality and preserve it for appeal. We have reviewed the file and agree with the court’s finding that it contains no statements whatsoever by the victim. We then resealed it. Note that in both Ritchie, see Commonwealth v. Ritchie, 324 Pa.Superior Ct. at 567, 472 A.2d at 226, and PAAR, see PAAR, supra, 494 Pa. at 30, 428 A.2d at 133, our appellate courts did not have the files in question before them. Consequently, our Supreme Court could not consider the defendants’ claims to disclosure in those cases in light of the actual records.

      . Of course appellant could, but does not, argue that, if the files contained statements that would be relevant to his defense, he could have sought to introduce them at trial through WOAR personnel.

      . At the ineffectiveness hearing, trial counsel testified that he subpoenaed the records before trial, but again offered no reason as to why he sought their disclosure. N.T. March 22, 1984 at 23-24.

      . At trial, Dr. Bossard testified as to this reason, among others, why Dr. Gestoso may have missed the ecchymosis in his examination two days before hers. N.T. November 18, 1983 at 88-89.

      . Five judges of the nine-judge en banc panel found the legislative veto provision, see 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 2155(b), of the enabling legislation providing for the creation of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing and the adoption of the sentencing guidelines, id. §§ 2151-2155, unconstitutional. However, because Judge Beck, concurring, found the provision providing for the veto severable, the sentencing guidelines, adopted pursuant to the remaining provisions of the enabling legislation, were held valid.

      . These offenses are listed in 204 Pa.Code § 303.7(a)(3).

      . The phrase is Justice Musmanno’s from Loeb v. Watkins, 428 Pa. 480, 483, 240 A.2d 513, 515 (1968).

      . The legislative veto provision was declared unconstitutional. See supra note 17.

      . These point numbers are taken from the Guideline Sentence Form. The record does not indicate the specific prior misdemeanors of which appellant was convicted.

      . Of course a sentencing court can sentence a defendant outside of the sentencing guideline ranges, but the court must explain on the record and in the defendant’s presence why it is doing so. See Commonwealth v. Catapano, 347 Pa.Superior Ct. 375, 500 A.2d 882 (1985). “Even if a sentencing court sentences a defendant within the aggravated or mitigated minimum ranges, it must state reasons on the record therefor. 204 Pa.Code § 303.3(2).” Id., 347 Pa.Superior Ct. at 382 n. 4, 500 A.2d at 885 n. 4.