Com. v. Engram, S.

J-A05012-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
SHATAYLA ALEXANDRIA ENGRAM :
:
Appellant : No. 1876 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 13, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0014890-2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 12, 2019
Appellant, Shatayla Alexandria Engram, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, following
her bench trial convictions for aggravated assault, terroristic threats, and
recklessly endangering another person.1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court accurately set forth the relevant facts and
procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises one issue for our review:
DID THE [TRIAL] COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT
DENIED THE REQUEST TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL BASED
UPON THE ISSUE THAT THE VERDICT IS AGAINST THE
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED?
(Appellant’s Brief at 8).
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1); 2706(a)(1); 2705, respectively.
J-A05012-19
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Edward J.
Borkowski, we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The trial court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question
presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed July 30, 2018, at 6-10) (finding:
Victim’s trial testimony was credible; Appellant’s trial testimony was
inconsistent with common sense and physical dynamics of altercation, as well
as how and where it occurred in house; Victim did not threaten Appellant or
possess weapon; Appellant gave multiple inconsistent accounts of events and
sustained no injuries, despite her representations to law enforcement;
Commonwealth satisfied its burden to disprove self-defense beyond
reasonable doubt; verdict was not against weight of evidence). Accordingly,
we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/12/2019
-2-
Circulated 01/30/2019 10:28 AM
,•!I
,I
. .. .
'''.":
IN THE COURT OF C01\t1MON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CO!vlMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, CRIMINAL DIVISION
APPELLEE,
v.
SHATAYLA ALEXANDRIA ENGRAM, CC NO.: 201614890
APPELLANT.
1876 WDA 2017
OPINION
FILED BY:
•_,,;
THE HONORABLE
EDWARD J. BORKOWSKI
COPIES TO:
Victoria H. Vidt
�-·..
Office of the Public Defender
.. .. -- ,
--· ____ , 400 County Office Building
.:...
542 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
Michael Streily, Esq.
Office of the District Attorney
401 Allegheny County Courthouse
436 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CO.f\.1MONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, CRIMINAL DIVISION
APPELL EE CC NO.: 201614890
v.
SHATAYLA ALEXANDRIA ENGRAM,
APPELLANT.
OPINION
BORKOWSKI, J.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant was charged by criminal information ( CC 201614890) with one
count each of criminal attempt - homicide; 1 aggravated assault - serious bodily
injury;2 terroristic threats;3 and recklessly endangering another person.4
On October 5, 2017, Appellant proceeded to a non-jury trial. At the
conclusion, the Trial Court found Appellant not guilty of criminal attempt
(homicide) and guilty of aggravated assault (serious bodily injury inflicted),
terroristic threats, and recklessly endangering another person.
1
18 Pa. C.S. § 90l(a).
2
18 Pa. C.S. § 2702(a)(l).
3
18 Pa. C.S. § 2706(a)(l).
4
18 Pa. C.S. § 2705.
2
On November 13, 2017, Appellant was sentenced by the Trial Court as
follows:
Count two: aggravated assault (serious bodily injury) - eleven and a half to
twenty-three months incarceration with a three year period of probation to follow;
Count three: terroristic threats - one year probation to run concurrent with
the sentence imposed at Count two; and
Count four: recklessly endangering another person - one year probation to
run concurrent with the sentences imposed at Counts two and three.
On November 13, 2017, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion, which was
denied by the Trial Court on November 16, 2017. This timely appeal follows.
STATEMENT OF ERRORS ON APPEAL
Appellant's claim is set forth below exactly as Appellant presented it:
1. The guilty verdicts for aggravated assault, terroristic threats,
and REAP are against the weight of the evidence provided.
The Commonwealth's evidence offered to prove that Ms.
Engram did not act in self-defense was of such low quality,
tenuous, vague, and uncertain that the guilty verdicts based
thereon are based upon pure conjecture and surmise. Ms.
Engram's testimony regarding the injuries she received, and
the photographs, establish that Mr. Mc Williams had
knocked her down. Ms. Engram was frightened for her two
small children in the house. Thus, she took to defend herself
and get Mr. McWilliams to leave her home. Ms. Engram
did call 911 to report the incident right away and remained
in the residence to speak with police. The Commonwealth
failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Engram
did not act in self-defense. Ms. Engram is entitled to a new
3
trial at which justice shall have another opportunity to
prevail.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On the morning of November 2, 2016, at approximately 6:45 am, Shatayla
Alexandria Engram (hereinafter "Appellant") and Damian Lee McWilliams
(hereinafter "McWilliams"), who were in a romantic relationship and shared a
home in the City of Pittsburgh, awoke to begin getting ready for work. At that
time, an argument ensued between Appellant and McWilliams, in which Appellant
threatened to kill McWilliams. (T.T. 6-8, 22).5 Mr. McWilliams informed
Appellant that the relationship was over, got dressed, and attempted to gather up
his personal belongings and leave the residence. While attempting to leave the
residence, Appellant again threatened to kill Mc Williams and pulled a large
kitchen knife from under the bed. (T.T. 8-9).
Immediately thereafter, Appellant walked around the bed to block
McWilliams' ability to exit the bedroom and again threatened to kill him if he
attempted to leave. (T.T. 9, 10, 23). Seeing some space between Appellant and the
doorway, McWilliams attempted to walk around Appellant, at which time
Appellant raised the knife with her right hand and stabbed McWilliams in his right
mid-chest area. Appellant pulled the knife from Mc Williams' chest, and he fell
5 The designation "T.T." followed by numerals refers to Trial Transcript, October 5, 2017.
4
onto the bed grabbing a rag to cover the bleeding wound. (T.T. 10-12). At no
point did McWilliams possess a weapon. (T.T. 68).
McWilliams was able to leave the room but fell down the stairs to the first
floor. He was able to get up and exit the residence. He drove a very short distance
to his mother's residence where a 9-1-1 call was made. Paramedics responded to
Mr. McWilliams' mother's residence, and he was emergently transported to
UPMC Presbyterian Hospital for treatment. (T.T. 12-14).
Detective Elvis Duratovic and Officer Steven John of the Pittsburgh Police
Department responded to the domestic violence aspect of the call and proceeded to
Appellant's residence. (T.T. 29, 55). Appellant told the officers that there had
been a physical altercation between herself and McWilliams, and that during the
altercation she stabbed him. Appellant further stated that she sustained injuries on
her neck and arms; however, officers observed no injuries on Appellant. (T.T. 30,
34 ). During her contact with officers at her residence, Appellant changed her
description of events multiple times. Initially she claimed to 9-1-1 operators that
she had used a pocket knife, but when questioned by Detective Duratovic she
claimed she went to the kitchen for the knife. She also stated that she stabbed him
in the kitchen, but later changed her account alleging she stabbed him in the living
room. (T.T. 31, 37, 68). Appellant's children later disclosed to Detective
Duratovic that the altercation occurred in the bedroom. (T.T. 31 ). Detective
5
Duratovic recovered a large ten-inch kitchen knife between the bed and nightstand
in the upstairs bedroom with blood on it. The bedroom showed clear signs of a
visible struggle, and the interior stairs had clear indications that someone had fallen
down the steps from the bedroom. (T. T. 31-3 3, 40-42 ).
Mc Williams required three serious surgeries, and following his release from
the hospital, he attended-a Mercy Hospital facility for approximately a month of
rehabilitation. (T. T. 16-18 ). Appellant was arrested and charged as noted
hereinabove.
DISCUSSION
Appellant alleges in her sole claim that the verdict was against the weight of
the evidence. Specifically, Appellant alleges the Commonwealth's evidence
offered to prove Appellant did not act in self-defense was "of such low quality,
tenuous, vague, and uncertain that the guilty verdicts based thereon are based upon
pure conjecture and surmise." Further, Appellant claims that her testimony
regarding her injuries and photographs establish that "Mr. McWilliams had
knocked her down," and that she was "frightened for her two small children in the
house" which forced her to defend herself against McWilliams. As such,
Appellant claims that the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that Appellant did not act in self-defense, thus entitling her to a new trial.
Appellant's claim is without merit.
6
The Superior Court has held that the applicable standard of review that
applies to weight challenges is as follows:
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. Moreover, where the trial court has ruled on
the weight claim below, an appellate court's role is not to consider
the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the
weight of the evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to
whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on
the weight claim.
Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 282 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citations and
quotations omitted). Notably, a "new trial should not be granted because of a mere
conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same facts would have arrived
at a different conclusion." Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 426, 432 (Pa. Super.
2012). The fact finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the testimony offered
in assessing the credibility of witnesses, and it is not within the purview of the
appellate court to reweigh the credibility determinations made by the fact finder.
Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732, 738 (Pa. Super. 2012).
Thus, when assessing a weight of the evidence claim, the appellate court
reviews the Trial Court's exercise of discretion rather than answer for itself
whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and relief is only
granted if "the facts and inferences of record disclose a palpable abuse of
7
discretion." Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128, 1135-36 (Pa. 2011) (internal
citation omitted) (refusing to provide relief where jury determined defendant's
testimony was self-serving and the verdict did not "shock one's sense of justice").
Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, an appellate court cannot reverse
merely because it would have come to a different conclusion, rather, it must find
"manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of
support so as to be clearly erroneous." Commonwealth v. Dillon, 925 A.2d 131,
136 (Pa. 2007).
Self-defense is the "use of force upon or toward another person" that is
justifiable if "the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the
purpose of protecting himself [herself] against the use of unlawful force by such
other person on the present occasion." 18 Pa. C.S. § 505(a). An actor must retreat
if able, except from "his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial
aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work
the actor knows it to be." 18 Pa. C.S. § 505(b) (2)(ii). If necessity, lack of
provocation, or impossibility of retreat are negated, the use of force or deadly force
is not justified and a self-defense claim fails. Commonwealth v. Maione, 554 A.2d
939, 944 (Pa. Super. 1989)(self-defense claim failed in case involving aggravated
assault and recklessly endangering another person because defendant/actor had no
reasonable belief that he was in danger of imminent bodily harm when he injured
8
the victim, he was not free from fault in provoking the incident, and he made no
attempt to retreat). Further, for self-defense, the Commonwealth has the burden to
disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53
A.3d 738, 740 (Pa. 2012).
The Trial Court, sitting as the finder of fact, determined that Mc Williams'
testimony was credible, demonstrating that: ( 1) Appellant threatened to kill him;
(2) refused to let him leave; (3) retrieved a large knife; ( 4) blocked his ability to
exit the bedroom; and (5) ultimately stabbed him in the chest. (T.T. 8, 9, 10, 11,
25). As such, the evidence clearly established that: ( 1) Appellant did not
reasonably believe that she was in danger of death or serious bodily injury at the
time she stabbed McWilliams; (2) Mc Williams did not provoke the altercation; and
(3) Appellant had ample opportunity to leave the residence under the
circumstances. As such, Appellant's actions during the altercation were not
justified, thus negating her claim of self-defense.
As the Trial Court stated at the time of entering the verdict, Appellant
testified inconsistent with respect to "common sense and the physical dynamics" of
the altercation, as well as how and where it occurred in the house. (V.T. 3).6
Additionally, the testimony established that the victim, Mc Williams, never
threatened Appellant nor did he possess a weapon of any sort. Appellant gave
6 The designation "V.T." followed by numerals refers to Verdict Transcript, October 12, 2017.
9
multiple inconsistent accounts of the events, and did not sustain any mjunes
despite her representations to law enforcement. (T.T. 30, 34, 68).
Therefore, the Commonwealth satisfied its burden in disproving self-defense
beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, the verdict was not against the weight of the
evidence, and Appellant's claim is without merit.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, the judgment of sentence imposed by this Court
should be affirmed.
By the Court,
10