### J

- A06029

- 21

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

LARICIA NICHOLSON

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 353 WDA 2020

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 22, 2020

In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s):

918 of 2019

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED: APRIL 9, 2021

Laricia Nicholson appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the

Court of Common Pleas of Erie County . After care ful review, we affirm based

on the well

- reasoned opinion authored by the Honorabl e Daniel J. Brabender.

On January 6, 2019, Nicholson and the victim, Breonna Payne, engaged

in a verbal altercation at the bar of Hunter’s Inn. N.T. Non

- Jury Trial,

11/22/19, at 4

- 5. A bouncer who overheard the argument told Payne to leave

the bar. Id

. at 5. Payne testified that she and a friend left the bar and went

to her car, and Nicholson and her friends followed them and surrounded the

car. Id. at 6. Payne testified that Nicholson questioned her about the father

of Nicholson’s child, and then Nicholson struck Payne with her hand and a

physical altercation ensued. Id. at 6

- 8. A video admitted into evidence

depicted Payne on the ground, struggling beneath Nicholson , who was on top

### J

- A06029

- 21

- 2

-

of h er. In the background people are heard encouraging Nicholson to “get

her.” Id. Payne testified she was “fighting for [her] life.” Id. at 10.

Payne suffered lacerations to her face, leaving a scar to her left cheek

and another from her eyebrow to her lower eye. Id. at 13. Payne testified

that she did not know what caused the lacerations, “ something sharp

– I don’t

know what it was . I just remember it just went across my face and then by

my eye. That ’s when I just really started fighting for my life.” Id. at 14.

Nicholson was charged with simple as sault, 1 

### harassment, 2 

### and

possessing an instrument of crime (PIC). 3 

### Following a bench trial before Judge

Brabender, the court convicted Nicholson of simple assault and harassmen t

,

and acquitted her of PIC

.

On January 22, 2020, Judge Brabender sentenced Nicholson to two

year s of county

- supervised probation and ordered her to pay costs and

restitution and complete 25 hours of community service. On January 23,

2020, Nicholson’s trial counsel, Michael DeJohn, Esquire, filed a post

- sentence

motion , which was denied on February 3, 2020. On March 4, 2020, counsel

filed a timely notice of appeal and a notice of intent to file an

Anders / McClendon 4 

### b rief in lieu of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 

### 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1).

2 

### 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1).

3 

### 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a).

4 

### Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967 ); Commonwealth v.

McClendon , 434 A.2d 1185 ( Pa. 1981)

.

### J

- A06029

- 21

- 3

-

errors complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 19 25(c)(4) (providing that, in

criminal case, counsel may file of record and serve on judge statement of

intent to file Anders / McClendon brief in lieu of filing Rule 1925(b)

statement)

.

On April 23, 2020, appellate counsel, Emily M. Merski

, Esquire, entere d

her appearance on Nicholson’s behalf . After reviewing Attorney DeJohn’s

notice of intent to file an Anders / McClendon brief in lieu of a Rule 1925(b)

statement, Attorney Merski filed a motion for special relief in this Court. On

July 13, 2020, this Court granted counsel’s motion and entered an order

remanding the case so that Attorney Merski could file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

statement and the court could file a Rule 1925(a) opinion

. See Or der,

7/14/20. 5



### On July 27, 2020, counsel filed a Rule 1925(b) statement . T he trial

court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on September 8, 2020. Nicholson raises

the following issue for our review: “Whether the Commonwealth presented

insufficient evidence to convict [Nicholson] of [s]imple [a]ssault and

[h]arrasment?” 6 

### Appellant’s Brief, at 3.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

5 

### This Court’s order also suspended the briefing schedule and retained

jurisdiction.

6 

### The issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to support Nicholson’s

conviction of harassment was not included in her Rule 192 5(b) statement.

See Rule 1925(b) Statement, 7/28/20. That issue, therefore, is waived. See

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement and/or not

raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are

### J

- A06029

- 21

- 4

-

Our standard of review is well settled:

As a general matter, our standard of review of sufficiency claims

requires that we evaluate the record in the light mo st 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 t he 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 d efendant’s participation in a crime is circumstantial

does not preclude a conviction where the evidence coupled with

the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom overcomes the

presumption of innocence. Significantly, we may not substitute

our judgment for tha t 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.

Commo nwealth v. Franklin , 69 A.3d 719, 722

- 23 (Pa. Super. 2013)

(internal quotations and citations omitted). Finally, the trier of fact, while

passing upon the credibility of witnesses, is free to believe all, part, or none

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______



### waived.”); see a lso Commonwealth v. Lord , 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998)

(“in order to preserve their claims for appellate review, [a]ppellants must

comply whenever the trial court orders them to file a Statement of Matters

Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Rule 1925”; “[ a]ny issues not raised in

a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived”). “The rule announced in Lord

has been strictly applied by our appellate courts.” Commonwealth v. Phinn

, 761 A.2d 176, 178 (Pa. Super. 2000).

### J

- A06029

- 21

- 5

-

of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Fortson , 165 A.3d 10, 14

– 15 (Pa.

Super. 2017).

To prove simple assault, the Commonwealth must establish that

Nicholson attempted to cause, or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly

caused, bodily injury to Payne. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1). Nicho lson

argues Payne was the aggressor and that Payne struck the first blow outside

the bar. Nicholson claims, therefore, that she was acting in self

- defense and

the Commonwealth failed to disprove self

- defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Appellant’s Brief, at 7

- 8. See Commonwealth v. Houser , 18 A.3d 128, 1135

(Pa. 2011).

A fter a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the

applicable law, and the well

- reasoned opinion of Judge Brabender , we

conclude Nicholson’s claim is meritless. Although Nicholson testified that she

was not the aggressor, Judge Brabender found her testimony was not credible

.

See Trial Court Opinion, 9/8/20, at 3

- 8 (concluding evidence, including

victim’s testimony and video admitted into evidence, supported convi ction of

simple assault; testimony offered in support of self

- defense was not credible).

Accepting the trial judge’s credibility determinations and viewing all evidence

admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict

winner, t here was sufficient evidence to support Nicholson’s conviction of

simple assault. See 18 Pa.C.S. A. § 2701(a); Fortson , 165 A.3d at 14.

### J

- A06029

- 21

- 6

-

We , therefore, rely on Judge Brabender’s opinion to affirm Nicholson’s

judgment of sentence. We direct the parties to attach a copy of that opinion

in the event of further proceedings.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/9/2021**Circulated 03/31/2021** **01:59 PM** **COMMONWEALTH OF** **PENNSYLVANIA V.** **LARICIA DESARIE** **NICHOLSON IN** **THE COURT** **OF COMMON** **PLEAS OF** **ERIE COUNTY,** **PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL** **DIVISION NO.** **918 of** **2019 OPINION** **This matter** **is before** **the Court** **on Appellant's** **1925(b) Concise** **Statement of** **Matters Complained** **of on** **Appeal. affirmed.** **i-2 .** **> For** **the reasons** **set forth** **below, the** **judgment of** **sentence sh6@d** **bed BACKGROUND** **I7 Appellant,** **Laricia Desarie** **Nicholson, was** **charged with** **Simple Assault,** **Harassment, and** **Possessing Instruments** **of Crime.'** **The charges** **arose from** **Appellant's actions** **in assaulting** **the victim,** **Breonna Payne,** **on January** **6, 2019** **near Hunter's** **Inn Tavern** **in the** **City of** **Erie. The** **incident occurred** **shortly after** **Payne and** **Appellant exited** **the bar.** **A non-jury** **trial was** **held on** **November 22,** **2019, Appellant** **was convicted** **Simple Assault** **and Harassment.** **Appellant was** **acquitted of** **the charge** **of Possessing** **Instruments of** **Crime. On** **January 22,** **2020, Appellant** **was sentenced** **two years** **of County-supervised** **probation for** **Simple Assault,** **and for** **the conviction** **for Harassment** **the Court** **made a** **determination of** **guilt without** **further penalty.** **18 Pa.C.S.A.** **§§2701(a)(1) ,** **2709(a)(1) and** **18 Pa.C.S.A.** **§907(a), respectively.** **2 There** **is a** **discrepancy regarding** **the correct** **spelling of** **the victim's** **first name.** **In the** **Magisterial Docket** **and the** **Information, the** **victim's name** **is spelled** **13reonna Payne.** **In the** **transcript of** **proceednigs from** **the non** **jury trial,** **the victim's** **name is** **spelled Brianna** **Payne._ 1** **On January** **23, 2020** **Appellant filed** **a post-sentence** **motion seeking** **a lesser** **period of** **probation or** **a non-probationary** **sentence. On** **January 28,** **2020, the** **Commonwealth filed** **a response** **thereto. On** **February 3,** **2020, the** **Court denied** **the motion.** **On March** **4, 2020,** **Appellant's counsel** **filed a** **Notice of** **Appeal and** **concurrently filed** **a Statement** **of Intent** **to File** **an AnderslMcClendon** **Brief. On** **April 20,** **2020, the** **Court filed** **a 1925(a)** **Opinion and** **thereafter the** **record was** **transmitted to** **the Superior** **Court. On** **July 13,** **2020, the** **Superior Court,** **upon consideration** **of Appellant's** **"Application for** **Special Relief,"** **remanded the** **matter with** **instructions for** **Appellant to** **file and** **serve a** **concise statement** **of matters** **complained of** **on appeal** **within 14** **days. On** **July 28,** **2020, Appellant** **filed an** **Amended Statement** **of Matters** **Complained of** **On Appeal.** **On appeal,** **Appellant challenges** **the sufficiency** **of the** **evidence for** **the conviction** **for Simple** **Assault. At** **trial, Appellant,** **through her** **testimony and** **that of** **her cousin,** **Shantae Green,** **introduced evidence** **of self-defense.** **The Commonwealth** **introduced evidence** **to disprove** **the self-defense** **claim, through** **cross-examination of** **witnesses, the** **introduction of** **a video** **of a** **portion of** **the altercation** **which was** **admitted in** **evidence, as** **Commonwealth Exhibit** **No. 1,** **and through** **the testimony** **of Payne** **and an** **investigating City** **of Erie** **Police officer,** **Officer Peter** **Balesk. In** **the Amended** **1925(b), Statement,** **Appellant asserts** **the Commonwealth** **failed to** **establish Appellant** **attempted to** **cause or** **intentionally, knowingly** **or recklessly** **caused injury** **to Brianna** **Payne. Appellant** **asserts Shantae** **Green testified** **Green and** **Appellant "never** **engaged" Payne** **inside Hunter's** **Inn Tavern.** **"Conversely, Ms.** **Payne and** **her friends** **engaged the** **Appellant which** **was why** **they were** **asked by** **the bar** **security to** **leave the** **establishment. Further,** **it was** **Ms. Payne** **who followed** **the Appellant** **to her** **vehicle and** **it was** **Ms. Payne** **who 2** **f struck** **the Appellant."** **See Amended** **Statement of** **Maters Complained** **of On** **Appeal, I2.** **Essentially, Appellant** **asserts the** **evidence was** **insufficient for** **the conviction** **of Simple** **Assault because** **of Green's** **testimony the** **victim, not** **Appell4, was** **the -instigator** **of some** **verbal disagreement** **inside the** **bar, and** **Payne struck** **the first** **blow outside** **the bar..** **In other** **words. Appellant** **raises the** **claim of** **self-defense. LEGAL** **ST'ANDA"S Simple** **Assault at** **18 Pa.C.S.A.** **§270I (a)(1)** **is defined** **as follows:** **(a) Offense** **defined. —** **Except as** **provided u6der** **section 2702** **(relating to** **aggravated assault),** **a person** **is guilty** **of assault** **if he:** **(1) attempts** **to cause** **or intentionally,** **knowingly or** **recklessly causes** **bodily injury** **to another.** **18 Pa.C.S.A.** **§27d1(a)(1), 18** **Pa.C.S,A. §505** **sets forth** **when use** **of force** **in!self-defense is** **justifiable. In** **pertinent part,** **the statute** **provides: §** **505. Use** **of force** **in self-protection** **(a) Use** **of force** **justifiable for** **protection of** **•he person.** **— The** **use of** **force upon** **or toward** **another person** **is justifiable** **whin the** **actor believes** **that such** **force is** **immediately necessary** **for the** **purpose of** **protecting: himself** **against the** **use of** **unlawful force** **by such** **other person** **on the** **present occasion.** **18 Pa.C.S.A.** **§545(a). Where** **a defendant** **introduces evidence** **of self-defense,** **the Commonwealth** **bears the** **burden of** **disproving the** **self-defense claim** **beyond a** **seasonable doubt.** **Commonwealth v.** **Houser, 18** **A.3d 1128,** **1135 (Pa.** **2011). "Although** **the Commonwealth** **is required** **to disprove** **a claim** **of self-defense** **... [the** **trier of** **fact] is** **not required** **to believe** **the testimony** **of the** **3**

### defendant**who raises** **the claim."** **Commonwealth t.** 

### Houser,**18 A.3d** **at 1135,** **citing i** 

### Commonwealth**v. Carbone,** **574 A.2d** **584, 589** **(Pa. 1990).** **The standard** **of review** **for sufficiency** **of the** **evidence claims** **is well-established:** **The standard** **we apply** **in reviewing** **the sufficiency** **of the** **evidence is** **whether viewing** **all the** **evidence admi4ed** **at trial** **in the** **light most** **favorable to** **the verdict** **winner, there** **is sufficient** **evidence to** **enable a** **fact-finder to** **find every** **element of** **the crime** **beyond a** **reasonable doubt.** **In applying** **the above** **test, we** **may not** **weigh the** **evidence and** **substitute our** **judgment for** **the fact-finder.** **In addition,** **we note** **the facts** **and circumstances** **established by** **the Commonwealth** **nee**

### d**no**

### t**preclude every** **possibility of** **innocence. Any** **doubts regarding** **a defendant's** **guilt may** **be resolved** **by the** **fact-finder unless** **th evidence** **is so** **weak and** **inconclusive that** **as a** **matter of** **law no** **pr bability** **of fact** **may be** **drawn from** **the combined** **circumstances. The** **ommonwealth may** **sustain its** **burden of** **proving every** **element of** **the crime** **beyond a** **reasonable doubt** **by means** **of wholly** **circumstantial evide** **ce. Moreover,** **in applying** **the above** **test, the** **entire record** **must be** **evaltiated and** **all evidence** **actually received** **must be** **considered. Finally,** **the finder** **of fact,** **while passing** **upon the** **credibility of** **witnesses and** **the weight** **of the** **evidence produced** **is free** **to believe** **all, part** **or none** **of the** **evidence. Commonwealth** **v. Smith,** **206 A.3d** **551, 557** **(Pa. Super.** **2P19) (citation** **omitted). DISCUSSION** **Viewing the** **evidence against** **these standards,** **4ppellant's claims,** **are wholly** **without merit.** **Viewing the** **evidence in** **the light** **most favora** **le to** **the Commonwealth,** **there was** **sufficient evidence** **to find** **the Commonwealth** **met its** **burden of** **proof in** **establishing Appellant** **committed Simple** **Assault at** **18 Pa.C.S.A.** **§§2701(a)( ).** **The record** **established Appellant** **attempted to** **cause or** **intentionally, knowingly** **or recklessly** **caused bodily** **injury to** **Payne. The** **Commonwealth disproved** **Appellant's claim** **of self-defense** **beyond a** **reasonable doubt.** **4 Appellant's** **contentions Payne** **and her** **friends "engaged"** **Appellant inside** **the bar,** **and Ms,** **Payne followed** **Appellant to** **her vehicle** **and struck** **Appellant are** **belied by** **the credible** **evidence. The** **testimony offered** **in support** **of the** **defense of** **self- defense** **was not** **credible. The** **testimony of** **Breonna Payne** **established the** **following, Payne** **went to** **Hunter's Inn** **Tavern to** **attend a** **benefit for** **a friend's** **mother. Tr,** **p. 4.** **Appellant and** **others arrived** **five to** **ten minutes** **later. Tr.,** **p. 4.** **Shortly after,** **Appellant and** **her friends** **approached the** **table where** **Payne was** **sitting, Appellant** **tied her** **hood around** **her head** **and tightened** **her boots** **and began** **to "cause** **problems." Tr.,** **pp. 4-5.** **A bouncer** **who apparently** **overheard what** **transpired told** **Payne to** **go ahead** **and leave.** **Tr., p.** **5. Payne** **left with** **her friend.** **Payne got** **in her** **vehicle and** **moved it** **closer to** **her friend's** **vehicle so** **the friend** **could transfer** **contents from** **Payne's vehicle** **to her** **own. Tr.,** **p. b.** **As the** **transfer of** **items was** **completed, Appellant** **and others** **surrounded Payne's** **vehicle. Appellant** **approached Payne** **and asked** **Payne questions** **about the** **father of** **Appellant's child.** **Appellant went** **"on and** **on and** **on" and** **then struck** **Payne with** **her hand.** **A physical** **altercation between** **Appellant and** **Payne ensued,** **during which** **Payne "tripped** **over someone** **or something."** **Payne fell** **and felt** **a cut** **to her** **face and** **by her** **eye. Tr.,** **pp 6-7.** **The police** **arrived; someone** **pushed Appellant** **off of** **Payne and** **then Payne** **got up** **off the** **ground. Tr.,** **p. 8.** **After Appellant's** **friends got** **in a** **car they** **called Payne.** **During a** **phone call,** **Payne heard** **Appellant'state, "That's** **why l** **cut you** **B." Tr.,** **p. 8.** **Payne went** **to the** **emergency room** **of UPMC** **Hamot Hospital** **for treatment** **because her** **face ,.vas** **bleeding. Tr„** **p. 8.** **Daring Payne's** **testimony the** **Commonwealth played** **several times** **a video** **taken by** **Appellant's friend.** **The video** **was admitted** **in evidence** **as Commonwealth** **Exhibit No.** **1. Tr.,** **pp. 8,** **11, 41.** **The video** **depicts Payne** **on the** **ground, on** **the bottom,** **with Appellant** **on top** **of her.** **Payne is** **seen struggling** **beneath Appellant.** **Payne described** **the video** **as depicting** **Payne 5** **"fighting for** **my life."** **Tr„ p.** **10. People** **in the** **background are** **heard to** **encourage Appellant** **by her** **nickname, "Nene",** **saying "Get** **her, Nene,"** **Tr„ p,** **10. Payne** **was interviewed** **by Officer** **Balesk at** **the hospital** **shortly after** **the incident,** **Tr., pp.** **11-12. Payne** **testified the** **information she** **provided to** **Officer Balesk** **was consistent** **with Payne's** **testimony at** **trial. Tr„** **p, 12.** **Payne identified** **for the** **Court the** **residual scars** **:from her** **facial injuries,** **which include** **a scar** **to her** **left cheek** **and another** **scar from** **her eyebrow** **to her** **lower eye.** **Tr., p.** **13. Payne** **testified she** **did not** **know what** **specifically caused** **the lacerations** **to her** **face. "All** **I know** **is when** **we fell,** **something sharp** **— I** **don't know** **what it** **was. I** **just remember** **it just** **went across** **my face** **and then** **by my** **eye. That's** **when I** **just really** **started fighting** **for my** **life." Tr.,** **p. 14.** **Officer Balesk** **testified as** **follows. Balesk** **interviewed Payne** **and observed** **her facial** **injuries in** **the emergency** **room. 'Payne** **reported to** **Balesk the** **incident technically** **verbally started** **inside Hunter's** **Inn and** **the physical** **altercation occurred** **outside the** **bar near** **Payne's parked** **vehicle. Payne** **reported she** **was knocked** **down or** **tripped, and** **during the** **altercation she** **was cut** **in the** **face and** **struck multiple** **tunes. Payne** **told the** **officer she** **wanted to-** **pursue charges** **against Appellant.** **Payne's trial** **testimony was** **consistent with** **the information** **Payne reported** **to Balesk** **at the** **hospital. Tr.,** **pp. 30--41.** **Shantae Green,** **Appellant's cousin** **and friend,** **testified as** **follows. Green** **did not** **see Payne** **inside the** **bar, only** **Payne's friends.** **Tr., pp,** **44.-45, 51.** **Green did** **not observe** **Payne speak** **to Appellant** **inside the** **bar. Tr.,** **p. 52.** **Yet Green** **and Appellant** **left the** **bar approximately** **two minutes** **after Payne** **did. Tr.,** **p. 45.** **1" altercation** **occurred outside** **over the** **father of** **Appellant's child,** **Tr., p,** **56. 6** **Appellant's testimony** **is summarized** **as follows.** **Appellant likewise** **denied seeing** **Payne inside** **the bar,** **Tr., pp.** **61, 69.** **A verbal** **exchange occurred** **between Appellant** **and Payne,** **while Appellant** **was inside** **her own** **vehicle, Tr.,** **pp. 62,** **70. Appellant** **exited her** **vehicle and** **continued the** **altercation. Tr.,** **pp. 63,** **70, In** **Appellant's words,** **they met** **half-may between** **their vehicles** **and Payne** **struck Appellant** **first, in** **the face.** **Tr., p.** **63. Appellant** **fough• back,** **in defense** **of her** **unborn child** **After Payne** **landed on** **the ground,** **Appellant got** **on top** **of Payne** **to "stabilize"** **her. Tr.** **pp. 65,** **71-72. Appellant** **denied seeing** **injuries or** **blood on** **Payne. Tr.,** **pp. 67.** **After the** **incident, Appellant** **posted on** **social media,** **"I just** **got done** **whooping this** **musty b---** **a--." Tr,** **pp. 74-75.** **At the** **conclusion of** **the testimony,** **the Court** **made credibility** **findings, specifically** **finding as** **credible the** **testimony of** **Breonna Payne** **and Officer** **Balesk. Tr.,** **pp, 88.** **The evidence** **was sufficient** **to support** **the conviction** **for Simple** **Assault. The** **Commonwealth disproved** **Appellant's claim** **of self-defense** **beyond a** **reasonable doubt.** **The testimony** **of Appellant** **and Green** **contradicts Appellant's** **claim that** **Payne was** **the instigator** **inside the** **bar. Appellant** **and Green** **left the** **bar shortly** **after Payne** **exited the** **bar. According** **to Appellant,** **Appellant went** **to her** **vehicle and** **got inside.** **If this** **was accurate,** **then Appellant** **had the** **opportunity to** **remain inside** **the vehicle** **and/or to** **drive away.** **Instead, Appellant** **exited the** **vehicle and** **escalated the** **event. The** **video clearly** **shows the** **victim struggling** **on the** **ground beneath** **Appellant. Appellant** **demonstrated aggressive** **behaviors on** **top of** **Payne. Third** **persons can** **be heard** **to cheer** **on Appellant.** **Appellant offered** **no plausible** **explanation Why** **she felt** **compelled to** **get on** **top of** **Payne, after** **Payne fell** **to the** **ground, in** **order to** **subdue or** **"stabilize" her.** **3 Appellant** **testified she** **learned she** **was pregnant** **that very** **day, and** **went to** **the bar** **to celebrate** **, T'r.,** **pp. 63--6-4.** **7**

### The**credible evidence** **amply supports** **the conclusion** **Appellant was** **the initial** **aggressor, both** **inside the** **bar and** **outside the** **bar, and** **dispels the** **notion Appellant** **acted in** **self-defense. Furthermore,** **the record** **establishes Appellant** **bragged on** **social media** **after the** **event, "I** **just got** **done whooping** **this musty** **b---- a--."** **CONCLUSION Appellant's** **Amended 1925(b)** **claims are** **wholly without** **merit. For** **the above** **reasons, the** **judgment of** **sentence should** **be affirmed.** **The Clerk** **of Courts** **is hereby** **directed to** **transmit the** **record to** **the Superior** **Court. BY** **THE COURT:** **DO ,-** 

### Daniel**J. ';** 

### a**J.**

### Jr.,**Judge cc:** **District Attorney's** **Office ..Emily.** **M. Mefski,** **Esq., Office** **of the** **Public Defender** **8**