J-S17033-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ANDREW ALLEN PERRY 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 930 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 13, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-04-CR-0001177-2020

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OLSON, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: July 12, 2023

Appellant, Andrew Allen Perry, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Beaver County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial 

convictions for burglary, aggravated assault, simple assault, recklessly

endangering another person (“REAP”), and possession of drug paraphernalia, 

and his bench trial conviction for the summary offense of harassment.

1

 We 

affirm. 

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. In 

the early morning hours on July 28, 2020, Victim was badly beaten in her 

home in Daugherty Township, Pennsylvania. In connection with this incident, 

the Commonwealth charged Appellant with burglary, aggravated assault, 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3502(a)(1); 2702(a)(1); 2701(a)(1); 2705; 35 P.S. § 780-

113(a)(32); and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1), respectively. 
J-S17033-23

- 2 -

simple assault, REAP, possession of drug paraphernalia, loitering and prowling 

at night, and the summary offenses of harassment and restrictions on 

alcoholic beverages. Appellant proceeded to a jury trial on March 9, 2022. 

Appellant’s theory of the case throughout trial was that Appellant was not the 

person who assaulted Victim. Defense counsel argued that Appellant and 

Victim were in a prior romantic relationship and Appellant was with Victim 

approximately two days before the assault. On that date, Appellant claimed 

he was helping Victim up the stairs with her groceries when Victim fell, 

scraping her elbows and getting her blood on Appellant’s jeans. 

At trial, the Commonwealth presented the following 

testimony/evidence.2 Officer Keith Smith of the New Brighton Area Police 

Department testified that he was on duty in the early morning hours of July 

28, 2020. (See N.T. Trial, 3/10/22, at 48). At approximately 5:00 a.m. on 

that date, Victim arrived at the police station. (Id. at 49). Victim looked as 

if she had been attacked. (Id.) Victim had obvious injuries to her face and 

appeared to be in shock. (Id. at 49-50). Victim also had open wounds on 

her forearms. (Id. at 54). Officer Smith photographed Victim’s various 

injuries. (Id.) After Officer Smith photographed Victim’s injuries, he called 

for an ambulance. (Id. at 50-51). 

Based on Officer Smith’s conversation with Victim, he decided to arrest 

____________________________________________

2 Victim died prior to trial so she was unavailable to testify. Victim’s death 

was not a result of the injuries at issue in this case. 
J-S17033-23

- 3 -

Appellant. (Id. at 57). Sometime between 5:30-6:00 a.m., Officer Smith and 

Officer Jeremy Conley went to arrest Appellant at a location where the officers 

thought Appellant would be, which was the home of Bryan Keith Richards. 

(Id. at 58, 62). Mr. Richards’ residence was approximately ten minutes away 

from the Victim’s residence. (Id. at 131). Within a few blocks of Mr. Richards’

home, Officer Smith observed Appellant’s car. (Id. at 59). The hood of 

Appellant’s car was warm to the touch. (Id. at 59-60).

The officers knocked on the door and announced their presence, and Mr. 

Richards informed the officers that Appellant was upstairs asleep. (Id. at 60-

61). Officers found Appellant asleep naked on the bed. (Id. at 63). On the 

floor next to Appellant was a pile of clothes covered in bright red blood. (Id.

at 67-68). Officer Smith testified that bright red coloring was an indication 

the blood was fresh. (Id. at 68). There was also blood on Appellant’s shirt 

and shoes. (Id. at 144, 152). Officer Smith also observed a pile of cleaning 

wipes on a chair next to the bed that were clumped up together. (Id. at 147). 

The officers also found Appellant’s wallet, a large amount of cash, a social 

security card, and a pipe for smoking methamphetamine in the pockets of 

Appellant’s bloodied jeans. (Id. at 85-86). The front door to Victim’s 

residence also suggested there had been some type of forced entry inside the 

residence. (Id. at 150).

The Commonwealth next called Officer Conley to the stand. (Id. at 

157). Officer Conley testified to the details of Appellant’s arrest and the 
J-S17033-23

- 4 -

officers’ observations, consistent with Officer Smith’s testimony. (Id. at 159-

173).

The Commonwealth then played a series of recorded phone calls which 

Appellant made while he was in Beaver County jail following his arrest.3 The 

Commonwealth recalled Officer Smith to discuss the content of some of the 

calls. (Id. at 178-190). 

Dr. Shayla Cammarata testified next. (See N.T. Trial, 3/11/22, at 6). 

Dr. Cammarata testified that she evaluated Victim around 6:00 a.m. on July 

28, 2020. (Id. at 9). Victim had “so much facial trauma” and swelling. (Id.

at 10). Victim presented to the emergency department saying that she had 

been assaulted. (Id. at 14). Specifically, Victim said she was hit repeatedly 

with a closed fist, and her assailant had also attempted to strangle her with 

an extension cord. (Id.) Dr. Cammarata observed abrasions on Victim’s 

____________________________________________

3 The Commonwealth also played jailhouse recordings later in the trial. The

recordings are included in the certified record on appeal. Nevertheless, this 

Court had technical difficulties playing the recordings, so we were unable to 

review them. 

The record and briefs on appeal suggest that in the recordings, Appellant 

admitted that he was near the scene of the crime when Victim was assaulted 

and that he knew Victim had money hidden in her home. In another recording, 

Appellant’s brother told Appellant that the Commonwealth had significant 

evidence against Appellant and that Appellant needed an alibi. In a 

subsequent recorded call, Appellant told his brother he had found an alibi, and 

maintained that he had found a witness who observed Victim’s alleged fall 

down the stairs when Appellant was helping her with groceries. 

Appellant does not dispute that any of this content is on the recorded calls. 
J-S17033-23

- 5 -

forearm and her knee. (Id.) Dr. Cammarata testified that Victim’s wounds 

were fresh and could not have been caused two days prior. (Id. at 16). Dr. 

Cammarata confirmed that Victim’s injuries could not have resulted from a fall 

down the stairs while carrying groceries. (Id. at 24). Regarding the scrapes 

on Victim’s arms, Dr. Cammarata opined that those specific injuries were also 

inconsistent with a fall. (Id. at 26-27). 

Dr. Justin Torok testified that he is a diagnostic radiologist who reviewed 

Victim’s scans. (Id. at 37, 47). Dr. Torok testified about Victim’s injuries. 

The Commonwealth next called Mikayla Shaffer, a forensic DNA 

specialist. (Id. at 67). Ms. Shaffer identified item “K1” as the DNA profile 

obtained from Victim. (Id. at 93). Item “Q1” was the blood sample taken 

from Appellant’s jeans. (Id.) Ms. Shaffer confirmed that the blood sample 

taken from Appellant’s jeans matched Victim’s DNA. (Id.) Ms. Shaffer further 

testified that it was near certain that the blood on Appellant’s jeans matched 

Victim’s DNA,

4 and there was no possibility that the blood came from 

Appellant. (Id.) 

The Commonwealth also presented testimony from Detective Roger 

Patrick Young, a blood spatter expert. (Id. at 110). The detective reviewed 

____________________________________________

4 Specifically, Ms. Shaffer testified that the probability of randomly selecting 

an unrelated individual in the population with this DNA profile would be 1 in 

340 nonillion from the Caucasian population; 1 in 9.2 decillion from the 

African-American population; and 1 in 3.5 decillion from the Hispanic 

population. (Id. at 94). 
J-S17033-23

- 6 -

the blood spatters from the crime scene and testified that the blood spatters 

were consistent with “bloodletting,” and that such occurrences are 

inconsistent with gunshots or high energy weapons. (Id. at 138). Detective 

Young opined that the bloodletting suggested that Victim’s injuries were

caused by a fist or by kicking, or some other low-velocity instrument. (Id. at 

144). Furthermore, Detective Young testified the blood spatters were

inconsistent with a falling event. (Id.) 

On March 12, 2022, at the conclusion of trial, the jury convicted 

Appellant of burglary, aggravated assault, simple assault, REAP, and 

possession of drug paraphernalia.5 After the jury rendered its verdict, the 

court convicted Appellant of summary harassment, and acquitted him of the 

restrictions on alcoholic beverages offense. On April 13, 2022, the court 

sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 6 to 12 years’ imprisonment. 

Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion on April 22, 2022. On July 14, 

2022, the court granted sentencing relief and resentenced Appellant to an 

aggregate term of 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment. The court denied Appellant’s 

motion in all other respects. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on 

August 12, 2022. The court did not order Appellant to file a concise statement 

of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and

Appellant filed none. 

____________________________________________

5 The court granted Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the 

loitering and prowling charge. (See N.T. Trial, 3/12/22, at 20).
J-S17033-23

- 7 -

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

Whether Appellant’s convictions as to counts 1 through 6 of 

the Information[6] should be reversed and vacated with 

prejudice given the Commonwealth’s failure to present 

sufficient evidence establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, 

that Appellant was in fact the perpetrator of the offenses

charged? 

(Appellant’s Brief at 4). 

Appellant argues the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to 

prove he was the person who assaulted Victim. Appellant claims that Victim 

did not identify Appellant as her attacker.7 Appellant asserts that witness 

testimony demonstrated it was possible that Victim’s injuries were inflicted by 

a fist. Appellant insists that the force required to inflict the damages caused 

to Victim by a fist would result in bruising and cuts to the perpetrator’s hand. 

Appellant emphasizes that the Commonwealth did not present evidence that 

Appellant’s hands were bruised or cut when police apprehended him.

Appellant further contends that the blood found at the crime scene does 

not prove Appellant was the assailant. Appellant highlights that the 

Commonwealth did not analyze the wipes found near Appellant upon his 

apprehension to show that Appellant cleaned himself after the assault, and 

____________________________________________

6 Counts 1 through 6 of the Information are listed as follows: burglary, 

aggravated assault, simple assault, REAP, loitering and prowling at night, and 

possession of drug paraphernalia. As the court acquitted Appellant on the 

charge of loitering and prowling at night, we presume Appellant did not mean 

to challenge this count on appeal. 

7 We reiterate that Victim had passed away by the time of trial.
J-S17033-23

- 8 -

police found no evidence of blood in Appellant’s car or on his person. Appellant 

submits that the evidence in this case was equally consistent with the 

possibility that an unknown individual broke into Victim’s home and attacked 

her. Appellant concludes the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence 

to sustain his convictions, and this Court must reverse his convictions and 

vacate the judgment of sentence.8 We disagree. 

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our standard 

of review is as follows: 

As a general matter, our standard of review of sufficiency 

claims requires that we evaluate the record in the light most 

favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the 

benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the 

evidence. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the 

verdict when it establishes each material element of the 

crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the 

Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical 

certainty. Any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is to be 

resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak 

and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of 

fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances. 

The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of 

wholly circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, [t]he fact that 

the evidence establishing a defendant’s participation in a 

crime is circumstantial does not preclude a conviction where 

____________________________________________

8 Appellant makes no specific argument relative to his possession of drug 

paraphernalia conviction, which arose due to the officers’ recovery of drug 

paraphernalia in Appellant’s clothing at the time of his arrest. In other words, 

this conviction was not tied to the actual assault on Victim, but evidence that 

police recovered when Appellant was arrested. Thus, we consider waived any 

challenge to the possession of drug paraphernalia conviction as completely 

undeveloped on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (discussing required content 

of argument section on appeal). 
J-S17033-23

- 9 -

the evidence coupled with the reasonable inferences drawn 

therefrom overcomes the presumption of innocence. 

Significantly, we may not substitute our judgment for that 

of the fact finder; thus, so long as the evidence adduced, 

accepted in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth,

demonstrates the respective elements of a defendant’s 

crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant’s 

convictions will be upheld. 

Commonwealth v. Sebolka, 205 A.3d 329, 336-37 (Pa.Super. 2019) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719, 722-23 (Pa.Super. 

2013)).9 

Instantly, the Commonwealth presented, inter alia, the following 

evidence to prove Appellant was the assailant: (1) police apprehended 

Appellant approximately 30 to 60 minutes after the assault at a residence 

about ten minutes away from Victim’s residence; (2) police discovered 

cleaning wipes and a pile of clothing next to Appellant, who was sleeping 

naked when police apprehended him; (3) police observed blood stains on the 

jeans next to Appellant, which appeared fresh; (4) the officers found 

Appellant’s wallet, a large amount of cash, a social security card, and a pipe 

for smoking methamphetamine in the pockets of Appellant’s bloodied jeans; 

(5) Appellant’s car was parked nearby the residence where he was 

apprehended and the car was warm to the touch, suggesting it had been 

____________________________________________

9 Because Appellant does not directly attack the particular elements of the 

crimes of which he was convicted and bases his argument solely on his claim 

that he was not the assailant, we will not reproduce the statutes for each crime 

at issue. 
J-S17033-23

- 10 -

driven recently; (6) the Commonwealth’s forensic DNA specialist, Mikayla 

Shaffer, testified that it was near certain that the blood on Appellant’s jeans 

was from Victim; (7) Dr. Cammarata testified that the abrasions on Victim’s 

arms were fresh and inconsistent with the falling event as theorized by 

defense counsel; and (8) the front door to Victim’s residence had damage 

suggesting a forced entry. The Commonwealth also provided evidence

through the jailhouse recordings that Appellant knew Victim had money 

hidden in her house, which could have supplied a motive for the assault. 

Additionally, contrary to Appellant’s contention, none of the 

Commonwealth’s witnesses testified that Victim’s injuries were definitively

caused by a fist, to support Appellant’s reasoning that he would have had 

bruising or cuts to his hands if he were the perpetrator. Rather, the 

Commonwealth presented witnesses who testified that the injuries could have 

been caused by a fist or a low-velocity instrument. Further, the jury heard 

Appellant’s theory of the case regarding Victim’s alleged fall and how Appellant

acquired Victim’s blood on his jeans, and it was within the jury’s purview to 

reject that theory in favor of the Commonwealth’s evidence of guilt. See 

Sebolka, supra. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth 

as verdict-winner, the evidence was sufficient to prove that Appellant was the 

assailant necessary to sustain his convictions for burglary, aggravated assault, 

simple assault, and REAP. See id. Accordingly, we affirm.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 
J-S17033-23

- 11 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/12/2023