J-A10020-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MICHAEL GOLDEN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 514 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 17, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0006519-2022

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED JULY 1, 2024

Michael Golden (“Golden”) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas (“trial court”) 

following his conviction of simple assault.1 On appeal, Golden challenges the 

sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.

On April 17, 2022, at around 12:30 p.m., Geneva Holland (“Holland”)

entered the Family Dollar store on Baltimore Avenue in Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania. As she was shopping in one of the aisles, Holland turned around 

to find Golden, who she was in the process of divorcing, approaching her. A 

heated discussion ensued during which Golden asked Holland if they could 

discuss the terms of their divorce; Holland responded that he should discuss 

____________________________________________

1

 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a).
J-A10020-24

- 2 -

it with his lawyer. Golden then pushed Holland and punched her in the face, 

causing her to fall backwards into metal shelving. A brief scuffle between 

Golden and Holland followed, and then Golden attempted to leave the store. 

Holland tried to prevent Golden from leaving the store because she was calling 

the police, and when he pushed past her, she kicked him in the groin.

On May 19, 2022, police arrested Golden and charged him with simple 

assault and recklessly endangering another person. On August 23, 2022, the 

Philadelphia Municipal Court found Golden guilty only of simple assault. 

Golden requested a trial de novo before the trial court. Golden proceeded to 

a bench trial on December 9, 2022, after which the trial court found him guilty 

of simple assault. On February 17, 2023, the trial court sentenced Golden to 

eighteen months of probation under the supervision of the domestic violence 

unit and issued a stay away order.

Golden timely appealed to this Court. Both the trial court and Golden 

have complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925. Golden 

now presents the following issue for review:

Was the evidence presented insufficient to establish the offense of 

simple assault, where video evidence showed that [Golden]’s 

actions did not constitute an assault, and where [Holland]’s

testimony, which contradicted the video, was fundamentally 

unreliable?

Golden’s Brief at 4.

In the sole issue he raises on appeal, Golden argues that the evidence 

was insufficient to sustain his conviction of simple assault. Id. at 10-21. 
J-A10020-24

- 3 -

Specifically, Golden contends that the surveillance video of the incident in 

question does not support a finding that he committed the statutory elements 

of simple assault.

2

 Id. at 14-21. Golden asserts that the video shows him 

remaining calm during their interaction while Holland grew agitated, that he 

made no attempt to stop her from walking away, and that he only pushed her 

after she crowded against him and got in his face. Id. at 16-17. Golden 

further asserts that it is impossible to tell from the video whether he punched 

Holland. Id. at 17. Despite admitting that he pushed Holland, Golden 

maintains that not every unwanted or unpleasant physical contact constitutes 

a simple assault, and nothing about his behavior in the video reveals an actual 

injury or the intent to cause injury. Id. at 10, 14-21.

Our Court’s standard of review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the 

evidence is well settled:

In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must 

determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, as well as all 

reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light 

most favorable to the verdict winner, are sufficient to support all 

elements of the offense. Additionally, we may not reweigh the 

evidence or substitute our own judgment for that of the fact 

finder. The evidence may be entirely circumstantial as long as it 

links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

____________________________________________

2

 As the Commonwealth observes, Golden did not ensure that the surveillance 

video was included in the certified record on appeal. See Commonwealth’s 

Brief at 2 n.1; see also Pa.R.A.P. 1921, note (“Ultimate responsibility for a 

complete record rests with the party raising an issue that requires appellate 

court access to record materials.”). Nonetheless, the Commonwealth filed a 

petition to correct this omission pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 1926, and the trial court subsequently transmitted the video to this 

Court. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 2 n.1.
J-A10020-24

- 4 -

Commonwealth v. Juray, 275 A.3d 1037, 1042 (Pa. Super. 2022) 

(quotation marks and citations omitted).

The Pennsylvania Crimes Code defines simple assault, in pertinent part,

as attempting to cause, or intentionally, recklessly, or knowingly causing, 

bodily injury to another. 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1). Section 2301 of the Crimes 

Code defines “bodily injury” as “[i]mpairment of physical condition or 

substantial pain.” Id. § 2301. “Even if the victim does not sustain bodily 

injury, a person may be found guilty of simple assault if he acted with a 

specific intent to cause bodily injury.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 305 A.3d 

1, 9 (Pa. Super. 2023) (quotation marks, original brackets, and citation 

omitted).

Our review of the surveillance video reveals that Golden approached 

Holland in the Family Dollar store and the parties engaged in an intense 

discussion at close range. N.T., 12/9/2022, Exhibit C-1. The video then shows 

that Golden firmly shoved Holland, sending her careening into metal shelving, 

followed by Golden punching Holland at least once, and then a brief fracas 

between the two individuals. Id. The video also shows that Holland did not 

make physical contact with Golden prior to him shoving her. Id.

Moreover, the video corroborates Holland’s trial testimony. Specifically, 

at trial, Holland stated that Golden approached her in the Family Dollar store, 

attempted to talk to her about the divorce, and when she told him to discuss 

it with his lawyer, he pushed her and then punched her in the face. Id. at 15-
J-A10020-24

- 5 -

16. Holland also testified that she did not make any physical contact with 

Golden prior to the point where he pushed and punched her. Id. at 16. The 

trial court, which was free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence, found 

Holland’s testimony credible. Trial Court Opinion, 6/20/2023, at 3; see also

Juray, 275 A.3d at 1042.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to 

sustain Golden’s conviction of simple assault, as the evidence supports a 

finding that Golden attempted to cause bodily injury to Holland and that 

Golden acted with the specific intent to cause bodily injury by pushing her and 

punching her with enough force to knock her into metal shelving units. See

18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1); see also Smith, 305 A.3d at 9. Golden’s argument 

asks us to reweigh the evidence and view the surveillance video in the light 

most favorable to him, which would contradict our standard of review.3 See 

Juray, 275 A.3d at 1042.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

3

 To the extent that Golden challenges Holland’s credibility, this Court has

explained that a review of the sufficiency of the evidence does not include an 

assessment of witness credibility. Juray, 275 A.3d at 1043. “Instead, such 

arguments are more properly characterized as challenges to weight of 

evidence,” id. (citations omitted), a claim Golden neither raised nor 

preserved. See Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478, 490 (Pa. 

Super. 2014) (“A weight of the evidence claim must be preserved either in a 

post-sentence motion, by a written motion before sentencing, or orally prior 

to sentencing.”).
J-A10020-24

- 6 -

Date: 7/1/2024