J. S34039/20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

JONATHAN JACKSON, : No. 131 MDA 2020

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 9, 2019,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County

Criminal Division at No. CP-22-CR-0002353-2018

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E. AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 06, 2020

Jonathan Jackson appeals from the January 9, 2019 judgment of 

sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas following his conviction of 

one count each of strangulation and simple assault1following a bench trial. 

The trial court sentenced appellant to a term of 18-36 months’ imprisonment. 

After careful review, we affirm.

The trial court set forth the following factual and procedural history:

On December 24, 2017, appellant and Heather Wright 

began arguing. According to Ms. Wright’s testimony, 

appellant threw a chair against the wall[,] then threw 

her on the bed and restrained her. Ms. Wright was 

able to kick him off her and yell for her mother, 

Carol Wright, to call the police. Carol heard a loud 

crash caused by the Christmas tree being knocked 

over during the argument and the ornaments 

breaking. Carol witnessed appellant on top of 

 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2718(a)(1) and 2701(a)(1), respectively.
J. S34039/20

- 2 -

Ms. Wright on the bed. Carol also saw marks on 

Ms. Wright’s neck following the incident.

Officer Christian Ribec[

2] responded to the incident on 

December 24th, 2017, after a call to 9-1-1 from Carol. 

Officer Ribec testified that Ms. Wright was hysterical, 

crying, and yelling when he arrived. Ms. Wright was 

on the phone with appellant and allowed Officer Ribec 

to speak with him. Appellant failed to return to the 

home after Officer Ribec asked him to. Ms. Wright 

stated to Officer Ribec that appellant became angry 

and slammed her against the wall. She further stated 

that appellant went to strangle her on the bed with 

enough force that she could not breathe.

Ms. Wright then provided a written statement to police 

and signed a strangulation questionnaire. 

Ms. Wright’s written statement alleged that appellant 

threw her against the wall, threw their baby’s rocking 

chair against the wall, then took her phone and 

started choking her on the bed. The written 

statement also alleged that appellant continued to 

throw Ms. Wright around the room every time she 

tried to get up. Ms. Wright’s strangulation 

questionnaire stated that appellant strangled her with 

two hands with full-force pressure to the point that 

she could no longer breathe. Ms. Wright denied 

treatment from EMS.

Trial court opinion, 3/12/20 at 2-3 (extraneous capitalization, footnotes, and 

citations to the record omitted).

Appellant appeared in [the trial] court on 

November 16, 2018 for a bench trial. On the same 

day, appellant was found guilty of strangulation and 

simple assault. On January 9, 2019, appellant was 

sentenced to one (1) year six (6) months to three (3) 

years in a state correctional facility.

 

2 Officer Ribec is employed by the Harrisburg Bureau of Police. (Notes of 

testimony, 11/16/18 at 31.)
J. S34039/20

- 3 -

On September 20, 2019, appellant filed a 

Post-Conviction Relief Act[

3 (“PCRA”)] petition. On 

October 3, 2019, [the PCRA] court appointed 

William M. Shreve, Esquire. On November 26, 2019, 

a motion to reinstate appellate rights was filed with 

[the PCRA] court pursuant to the PCRA. On 

December 20, 2019, appellant’s appellate rights were 

reinstated.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on 

January 17, 2020. [The trial] court ordered a concise 

statement of matters complained of on appeal on 

January 24, 2020. Appellant complied with said order 

on February 13, 2020.

Id. at 1 (extraneous capitalization and footnotes omitted). The trial court filed 

an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on March 12, 2020.

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

Whether the evidence presented at trial was 

insufficient to convict appellant of the crime of 

strangulation, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2178[?]

Appellant’s brief at 9 (bolding and full capitalization omitted).

Following a thorough review of the record, including the briefs of the 

parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, it 

is our determination that appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence claim is 

without merit. The trial court authored a comprehensive seven-page opinion 

wherein it discussed appellant’s claim and concluded that it was without merit. 

We find that the trial court’s conclusion is supported by competent evidence 

and is free of legal error. Specifically, we agree with the trial court that the 

 

3 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J. S34039/20

- 4 -

Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to establish beyond a 

reasonable doubt that appellant knowingly or intentionally, “threw 

[Ms. Wright] on the bed, put his hands on her neck, and applied pressure to 

the point that she could no[t] breathe[.]” (Trial court opinion, 3/12/20 at 5; 

citing notes of testimony, 11/16/18 at 18, 32-33.)

Accordingly, we adopt the trial court’s comprehensive March 12, 2020 

opinion as our own for purposes of this appellate review.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/06/2020
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

: DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 131 MDA 2020

2353 CR 2018

v.

JONATHAN JACKSON CRIMINAL APPEAL

TRIAL COURT MEMORANDUM OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE

OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925(A)

Appellant, Jonathan Jackson (“Appellant” or “Mr. Jackson”) appeals from this Court’s

Order dated January 9, 2019 which sentenced Appellant. This opinion is written pursuant to

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).

Procedural History

Appellant appeared in this Court on November 16, 2018 for a bench trial. On the same

day, Appellant was found guilty of Strangulation1

and Simple Assault2

. On January 9, 2019,

Appellant was sentenced to one (1) year six (6) months to three (3) years in a State Correctional

Facility.

On September 20, 2019, Appellant filed a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition3

. On

October 3, 2019, this Court appointed William M. Shreve, Esquire. On November 26, 2019, a

Motion to Reinstate Appellate Rights was filed with this Court pursuant to the PCRA. On

December 20, 2019, Appellant’s appellate rights were reinstated.

Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal on January 17, 2020. This Court ordered a

Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal on January 24, 2020. Appellant

complied with said Order on February 13, 2020.

1

18 Pa.C.S. § 2718(a)(1)

2

18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1)

3 Hereinafter “PCRA”

1

Circulated 09/08/2020 03:18 PM
Factual Background

The following facts were established during a bench trial held on November 16, 2018. On

December 24, 2017, Appellant and Heather Wright4

began arguing. (Notes of Testimony, Bench

Trial, 11/16/18, 10; 32).5 According to Ms. Wright’s testimony, Appellant threw a chair against

the wall then threw her on the bed and restrained her. (N.T., 10). Ms. Wright was able to kick

him off her and yell for her mother, Carol Wright,6

to call the police. (N.T., 10-11). Carol heard a

loud crash caused by the Christmas tree being knocked over during the argument and the

ornaments breaking. (N.T., 28-30). Carol witnessed Appellant on top of Ms. Wright on the bed.

(N.T., 28). Carol also saw marks on Ms. Wright’s neck following the incident. (N.T., 29).

Officer Christian Ribec,

7

responded to the incident on December 24th

, 2017, after a call to

9-1-1 from Carol. (N.T., 32-33). Officer Ribec testified that Ms. Wright was hysterical, crying,

and yelling when he arrived. (N.T., 32). Ms. Wright was on the phone with Appellant and

allowed Officer Ribec to speak with him. (N.T., 32). Appellant failed to return to the home after

Officer Ribec asked him to. (N.T., 32). Ms. Wright stated to Officer Ribec that Appellant

became angry and slammed her against the wall. (N.T., 33). She further stated that Appellant

went to strangle her on the bed with enough force that she could not breathe. (N.T., 33).

Ms. Wright then provided a written statement to police and signed a strangulation

questionnaire. (N.T., 14-16). Ms. Wright’s written statement alleged that Appellant threw her

against the wall, threw their baby’s rocking chair against the wall, then took her phone and

started choking her on the bed. (N.T., 15). The written statement also alleged that Appellant

continued to throw Ms. Wright around the room every time she tried to get up. (N.T., 15). Ms.

4 Hereinafter, “Ms. Wright”

5 Hereinafter, “N.T.”

6 Hereinafter, “Carol”

7 Hereinafter, “Officer Ribec”

2
Wright’s strangulation questionnaire stated that Appellant strangled her with two hands with fullforce pressure to the point that she could no longer breathe. (N.T., 18). Ms. Wright denied

treatment from EMS. (N.T., 35).

Appellant’s Statement of Matters Complained of on Anneal

1. Whether the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict appellant of the crime

of strangulation.

Discussion

In addressing the Appellant’s sole error complained of on appeal, we must disagree with

the argument that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict Appellant of the

crime of strangulation. The Superior Court said the following regarding sufficiency of evidence

presented at trial:

A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of

law. 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.

Where the evidence offered to support the verdict is in contradiction

to the physical facts, in contravention to human experience and the

laws of nature, then the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law.

When reviewing a sufficiency claim the court is required to view the

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner giving the

prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from

the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Robinson. 817 A.2d 1153, 1158 (Pa.Super. 2003).

Additionally, the Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick stated, “[a]ny doubts

regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak

8 Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick, 159 A.3d 562, 567 (Pa.Super. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 947

A.2d 800, 805-806 (Pa.Super. 2008)).

3
and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined

circumstances.”

In order to address a sufficiency of the evidence argument, we must review the elements

of said crime. Id. The statute states in relevant part:

(a) Offense defined -A person commits the offense of strangulation

if the person knowingly or intentionally impedes the breathing

or circulation of the blood of another person by:

(1) Applying pressure to the throat or neck; or

(2) Blocking the nose and mouth of the person.

(b) Physical injury -Infliction of a physical injury to a victim shall

not be an element of the offense. The lack of physical injury to

a victim shall not be a defense in a prosecution under this

section.

See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2718

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania explained the appropriate standard of review when

an appellate court is required to review an insufficiency of the evidence claim:

Normally, the evidence is deemed to be sufficient where there is

testimony offered to establish each material element of the crime

charged and to prove commission of the offense by the accused

beyond a reasonable doubt. The question of credibility is left to the

jury and the verdict will not be disturbed if the jury determined the

evidence is worthy of belief. We have, however, made exception to

the general rule that the jury is the sole arbiter of the facts where the

testimony is so inherently unreliable that a verdict based upon it

could amount to no more than surmise or conjecture.

Commonwealth v. Karkaria. 625 A.2d 1167, 1170 (Pa. 1993).

In reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner, we believe the

verdict rendered is supported by the evidence. The evidence presented by the Commonwealth,

namely the testimony of Ms. Wright, Carol Wright, and Ms. Wright’s written statements to

police, was enough for the fact-finder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant

impeded the breathing of Ms. Wright by applying pressure to her throat or neck. Ms. Wright

testified that Appellant threw her onto the bed and began restraining her by putting his hands

4
around her neck and shoulders area. (N.T., 10-11). The Commonwealth also presented the

written statement that Ms. Wright provided to police on the night of the incident. (N.T., 14-15).

Ms. Wright’s written statement to police states that Appellant choked her on the bed. (N.T., 15).

Ms. Wright completed a strangulation questionnaire on the night of the incident. (N.T., 16). In

this questionnaire, Ms. Wright indicated that Appellant used two hands with full-force pressure

to the point that Ms. Wright could not breathe. (N.T., 18). Ms. Wright also testified that the

action caused her to vomit. (N.T., 18). According to Ms. Wright’s testimony, she was able to

kick Appellant off and immediately yelled for Carol Wright, her mother, to call the police. (N.T.,

11). In response to Defense Counsel’s questioning, Ms. Wright testified that she did not

experience symptoms such as blacking out, loss of bodily functions, raspy voice, or red eyes.

(N.T., 18-21). However, the plain language of the statute states that a lack of injury is not a

defense and that the actual infliction of an injury is not considered an element of strangulation.

18 Pa.C.S. § 2718(b).

The Commonwealth then presented testimony from Carol Wright, Heather Wright’s

mother. Carol Wright testified that she saw handprint marks on her daughter’s neck after the

incident. (N.T., 29).

Further, the testimony presented by the Commonwealth is not so inherently unreliable as

to require the exception to the general rule that the jury is the sole arbiter of the facts. See

Commonwealth v. Karkaria. 625 A.2d at 1170. The testimony of Officer Ribec showed that Ms.

Wright completed and signed the domestic violence form and signed the strangulation form,

completed by Officer Ribec based on the statements from Ms. Wright, on the night of the

incident. (N.T., 32). Ms. Wright’s assertion that Appellant threw her on the bed, put his hands on

her neck, and applied pressure to the point that she could no breathe remained consistent and

5
reliable through her statements to police, both written and oral, and her testimony at trial. (N.T.,

32-33; 18). Any question regarding the credibility of the testimony presented at trial was

properly left to the arbiter of the facts, in this case the Honorable Judge Curcillo, and the verdict

should not be disturbed.

Additionally, the evidence presented by the Commonwealth, was enough for the jury to

conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant knowingly or intentionally impeded the

breathing of Ms. Wright by applying pressure to her throat or neck. Appellant testified, through

cross-examination by the Commonwealth, that he had to restrain Ms. Wright during a verbal

argument that became physical. (N.T., 42-43). Appellant testified that Ms. Wright was screaming

for her mother to call the police. (N.T., 43). Through his testimony, Appellant claimed that he

restrained Ms. Wright by holding her down on the bed so that he could put his sneakers on to

leave. (N.T., 39-40). This took place during an argument in which Appellant threw a chair

against the wall and threw Ms. Wright up against a wall in anger. (N.T., 15). This argument was

physical enough to knock down the Christmas tree in the process, creating a loud crash and

breaking the ornaments. (N.T., 28-30) Again, any question regarding the credibility of

Appellant’s testimony was properly left to the fact-finder, the Honorable Judge Curcillo.

After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner and after

giving the Commonwealth the benefit of all reasonable inferencing drawn from the evidence

presented at the bench trial, we conclude that the evidence presented by the Commonwealth

through the testimony of Ms. Wright, Carol Wright, and Officer Ribec as well as the written

statements provided to police by Ms. Wright on the night of the incident is sufficient for the factfinder to conclude that Appellant impeded the breathing of Ms. Wright by applying pressure to

her throat or neck.

6
For these reasons, we ask the Superior Court to uphold and affirm our judgment.

Respectfully submitted:

lr

Deborah E. Curcillo, Judge

^

"Z

^

)

Dated:

Distribution:

' ( 2,

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania \

The Hon. Deborah E. Curcillo /UA < r^VJV/V

Ryan Lysaght, Esq., Dauphin Coutity District Attorney’s Office '

William Shreve, Esq., 3618 North Sixth Street, P.O. Box 5292, Harrisburg, PA 171 lOVY^^ V

Smart Communications/PADOC, Jonathan Jackson/#JN8019, SCI-Mahanoy, P.O. Box 33028,

St. Petersburg, FL 33733

I

A r

C

--

ro

—n

ro••

r

- > ro

•% CP

O

\ o

ro

ro

CO

7