Com. v. Stevens, C. ( 2017 )

J-S78010-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CANDACE STEVENS :
:
Appellant : No. 451 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 27, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0014831-2015
BEFORE: OLSON, DUBOW and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED DECEMBER 21, 2017
Appellant, Candace Stevens, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on October 27, 2016, as made final by the denial of her post-sentence
motion on February 15, 2017. We affirm.
The factual background of this case is as follows. On October 1, 2016,
Tajzmiqua Fletcher (“Fletcher”) was at a residence in Pittsburgh. When she
opened the door of the residence, she encountered Appellant. Fletcher was
familiar with Appellant because Fletcher previously dated Appellant’s husband.
Appellant attempted to enter the residence but Fletcher shut the door. After
Fletcher went upstairs, she told Appellant, through an open window, to leave.
Appellant challenged Fletcher to come outside and fight. At this point, Fletcher
called police. Appellant then used a blunt object to break several windows of
Fletcher’s vehicle before fleeing when police arrived.
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court
J-S78010-17
The procedural history of this case is as follows. On January 20, 2016,
the Commonwealth charged Appellant via criminal information with criminal
mischief.1 On August 15, 2016, Appellant proceeded to a nonjury trial. On
October 27, 2016, the trial court found Appellant guilty and immediately
sentenced her to one year of probation. On November 4, 2016, Appellant filed
a post-sentence motion. On February 15, 2017, the trial court denied the
motion. This timely appeal followed.2
Appellant presents one issue for our review:
[Was the trial court’s verdict against the weight of the evidence?]
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
In her lone issue, Appellant contends that the trial court’s verdict was
against the weight of the evidence. “A new trial based on a weight of the
evidence claim is only warranted where the verdict is so contrary to the
evidence that it shocks one’s sense of justice.” Commonwealth v. Akrie,
159 A.3d 982, 989 (Pa. Super. 2017) (internal alterations and citation
omitted). “[W]hen an appellate court reviews a weight claim, the court is
reviewing the exercise of discretion by the trial court, not the underlying
question of whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.”
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3304(a)(5).
2 On March 29, 2017, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal (“concise statement”). See
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On June 22, 2017, Appellant filed her concise statement.
On July 21, 2017, the trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion. Appellant’s
lone issue was included in her concise statement.
-2-
J-S78010-17
Commonwealth v. Jacoby, 170 A.3d 1065, 1080 (Pa. 2017) (citation
omitted). Instead, we will reverse the trial court’s ruling on a weight of the
evidence claim after a nonjury trial only if “the court’s determination was
manifestly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious[,] or flagrantly contrary to the
evidence.” Gutteridge v. J3 Energy Grp., Inc., 165 A.3d 908, 914 (Pa.
Super. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Appellant argues that the trial court’s verdict was against the weight of
the evidence because Fletcher’s testimony was not credible. She contends
that Fletcher’s testimony was self-serving as Fletcher was jealous and angry
at Appellant for marrying her ex-boyfriend. Moreover, she contends that she
presented credible alibi evidence. Finally, Appellant argues that the only
credible evidence presented at trial indicated that Fletcher broke the windows
herself or paid another individual to break the windows.
As this Court has explained:
When the challenge to the weight of the evidence is predicated on
the credibility of trial testimony, our review of the trial court’s
decision is extremely limited. Generally, unless the evidence is so
unreliable and/or contradictory as to make any verdict based
thereon pure conjecture, these types of claims are not cognizable
on appellate review.
Commonwealth v. Fortson, 165 A.3d 10, 16 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation
omitted).
In this case, Fletcher’s testimony was not so unreliable and/or
contradictory as to make the trial court’s verdict pure conjecture. The trial
court witnessed Fletcher’s demeanor and determined that she was truthfully
-3-
J-S78010-17
relaying what occurred on the night in question. It noted that Officer Devin
Small’s testimony was consistent with Fletcher’s testimony. Specifically, the
trial court noted that Officer Small, who responded to the scene, testified that
Fletcher’s vehicle was parked in a well-lit area that Fletcher could see from
the upstairs window. Trial Court Opinion, 7/21/17, at 7. Although Fletcher
was jealous and angry with Appellant, the trial court concluded that Appellant
fueled this jealousy and anger. Id. at 6. Similarly, although Fletcher’s
testimony was self-serving, that does not mean the fact-finder was required
to disregard it. See Commonwealth v. Freeman, 441 A.2d 1327, 1332 (Pa.
Super. 1982); see also Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 896 A.2d 508, 522
(Pa. 2006) (self-serving testimony is often viewed with skepticism).
As to the alibi evidence, the trial court found Appellant’s testimony not
credible. Similarly, it found Shanell Gray’s (“Gray’s”) testimony that Appellant
was attending a football practice at the time of the incident not credible.
Finally, the trial court found the evidence regarding Appellant breaking the
windows, or paying someone to break the windows, not credible. See Trial
Court Opinion, 7/21/17, at 7 n.4.
Appellant asks us to reweigh the evidence and find her testimony, along
with Gray’s testimony, more credible than Fletcher’s testimony. We may not
do so, however, because the Fletcher’s testimony was not so unreliable as to
make the trial court’s verdict pure conjecture. See Fortson, 165 A.3d at 16.
Likewise, the trial court’s factual findings were not “manifestly erroneous,
-4-
J-S78010-17
arbitrary and capricious[,] or flagrantly contrary to the evidence[.]”
Gutteridge v. J3 Energy Grp., Inc., 165 A.3d at 914. Accordingly, we
conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s
motion for a new trial based upon the weight of the evidence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/21/2017
-5-