J. S 34 0 39 /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 M DA 20 20 : 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 assault 1 following 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 W right 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 hear d 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 . S 34 0 39 /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 24 th , 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 all owed 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 str angle 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 th eir 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 . S 34 0 39 /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, 201 9, 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 capita lization 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. S pecifically, we agree with the trial court that the

3 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541 - 9546.J . S 34 0 39 /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 r eview. 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 Strangulation 1 

### and Simple 

### Assault 2



### . 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 

### Petition 3 

## . 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” 2Wright ’ s 

### strangulation 

### questionnaire stated 

### that Appellant strangled 

### her 

### with two 

### hands with full 

## force 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 . 3 d 562 , 567 (Pa . Super . 2017 ) (quoting Commonwealth v. Hutchinson

### , 947 A . 2 d 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 4around 

### 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 

### fact

## finder 

### 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/

### #JN 

### 8019 , 

### SCI

## -Mahanoy , 

### P . 

### O . 

### Box 33028 , 

### St 

### . Petersburg , 

### FL 33733

I

A 

### r C 

# -- ro



# —n 

### ro • • 

### ro r

## - > CP • % O \ o

ro ro CO



### 7