Com. v. GENTLES

Parentheticals

• stating that act of wrapping one’s arms around another person and inserting one’s tongue into another’s mouth clearly involves touching of intimate part; such act does not occur outside of context of sexual or intimate situation

  Com. v. Alexander, E.

• holding evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of indecent assault where defendant wrapped his arms around victim and inserted his tongue into victim’s mouth because act would not occur outside of context of sexual or intimate situation

  In the Interest of: J.R., Appeal of J.R.

• stating issues that challenge discretionary aspects of sentencing are generally waived if they are not raised during sentencing proceedings or in post-sentence motion

  Com. v. Morales-Gasparini, J.

• inserting one's tongue into another's mouth clearly involves the touching of an intimate part of that person

  Com. v. Miles, T.

• “Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or raised in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing.”

  Com. v. Bugna, R.