J-A09042-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DAMIAN WHITAKER 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1664 EDA 2020

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 7, 2020

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

No(s): CP-23-CR-0005797-2018

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED APRIL 12, 2022

Damian Whitaker (Whitaker) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County (trial court) after

his jury conviction of misdemeanor Strangulation, Simple Assault, Possession 

of an Instrument of Crime (PIC) and Institutional Vandalism.1 He argues that 

the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Counsel has filed an 

application to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967). We grant counsel’s application to withdraw and affirm the judgment 

of sentence.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2718(a), 2710(a)(3), 907 and 3307(a)(3), respectively. The 

jury acquitted Whitaker of the felony charges of Rape, 18 Pa.C.S. 

§ 3123(a)(1), and Sexual Assault, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3124.
J-A09042-22

- 2 -

We take the following facts from the trial court’s March 9, 2021 opinion 

and our independent review of the record.

I.

On October 24, 2018, the Commonwealth filed an Information charging 

Whitaker with the foregoing crimes. A three-day trial commenced on 

November 6, 2019. Brandi Gray, her fifteen-year-old son and Yeadon Borough

police officers Jenna Long and Nicholas Tokonitz testified on behalf of the 

Commonwealth.

Ms. Gray testified that as of the time of the May 19, 2018 incident, 

Whitaker had been her boyfriend for a few months. After going out to a 

restaurant in the afternoon with Whitaker and her sons to celebrate the oldest 

son’s twenty-second birthday, they returned to her apartment. Whitaker 

asked her to have sex two to three times, to which she said no. She fell asleep 

on her bed and woke when Whitaker put a pillow over her face that restricted 

her breathing until she was able to turn her head. He then wrapped the 

pillowcase around her throat which she had to loosen to breathe. He used his 

body and elbows to hold her down. He removed Ms. Gray’s jeans and 

penetrated her vagina. Whitaker momentarily left the bedroom. When he

returned, he retrieved a knife from her dresser and held it to her throat, pulling 

her to a standing position. She testified that she had been fearful that 

Whitaker would harm her with the knife, which she identified at trial. (See

N.T. Trial, 11/07/19, at 52-62, 65, 67, 91, Exhibit C-6).
J-A09042-22

- 3 -

Ms. Gray’s fifteen-year-old son testified that on the day of the incident,

he heard a “loud commotion” from the bedroom that concerned him so he 

went in to investigate. While standing at the bedroom doorway in shock, he

observed that Whitaker had a pillowcase around Ms. Gray’s neck and she was 

struggling to break free. Ms. Gray was able to toss her cellphone to her son 

and he then hid in a closet and called his grandmother and 911. (See id. at 

127-29, Exhibit C-6).

Officer Long testified that she was the first officer to arrive on scene. 

When she parked her vehicle in front of the apartment, she could hear a 

female screaming. Upon entering the residence and approaching the stairway, 

she observed Ms. Gray and Whitaker standing close together at the top of the 

stairs with him holding the knife. Whitaker tossed the knife down the stairs 

and Ms. Gray was visibly upset and shaking. The officer collected the knife, 

pillows and pillowcases. She identified the knife at trial.

Officer Long stated that after Whitaker was placed in a holding cell at 

the police station, she observed him masturbating on the closed-circuit 

camera. The trial court overruled Whitaker’s best evidence rule objection to 

testimony about what was seen on the video. The officer stated that she

accompanied Officer Tokonitz when he went to tell Whitaker to stop his 

behavior and she saw urine on the floor of the cell. (See id. at 144-47, 149-

50).
J-A09042-22

- 4 -

Officer Tokonitz testified that he and another officer were dispatched to 

Ms. Gray’s residence after Officer Long had gotten there. They placed 

Whitaker in handcuffs and escorted him to a police vehicle. Although Whitaker 

initially cooperated with the officers, he then resisted, and the police had to 

forcibly place him in their vehicle and into the holding cell at the police station. 

Afterward, Officer Tokonitz observed Whitaker masturbating on the closedcircuit television. The officer went to the cell to tell him to stop and observed 

fresh urine both in the cell and in front of it, and that the plywood frame on 

the cell’s bed was broken in half. Whitaker had been the only person in this 

cell block and the officer testified the cell had been clean earlier and there had 

been no damage to the bedframe before he placed Whitaker in it. (See id. at 

164-65, 177-78).

On November 8, 2019, the jury convicted Whitaker of misdemeanor 

Strangulation, Simple Assault, PIC and Institutional Vandalism and acquitted 

him of felony Rape and Sexual assault. On December 6, 2019, the trial court 

sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of not less than forty-four nor more 

than 132 months’ incarceration.

Timely post-sentence motions were filed on December 16, 2019 ,in 

which Whitaker raised several challenges and counsel requested the 

opportunity file a supplemental post-sentence motion. On December 26, 

2019, the trial court granted the request to file a supplemental motion, giving 

Whitaker fourteen days after transcripts were filed. On January 3, 2020, the 
J-A09042-22

- 5 -

court appointed new counsel at Whitaker’s request. On March 11, 2020, it 

granted new counsel fifteen more days to file supplemental post-sentence 

motions. On May 11, 2020, counsel filed supplemental post-sentence 

motions, and on August 7, 2020, the trial court granted the motion to the 

extent it challenged the sentence and denied all other claims. Whitaker timely 

appealed.2, 3 Counsel has filed an application to withdraw and an Anders

____________________________________________

2 On August 31, 2020, Whitaker filed a pro se notice of appeal at 1660 EDA 

2020. Counsel filed a notice of appeal on September 3, 2020, at 1664 EDA 

2020. On April 27, 2021, this Court dismissed the pro se appeal as duplicative.

3 On June 30, 2021, a Rule was issued for Whitaker to show cause why this 

matter should not be quashed as untimely. After receiving his response, the 

Rule was discharged and referred to the merits panel. Hence, as a preliminary 

matter, we must determine if this appeal is properly before us. On March 11, 

2020, during the 120-day period to decide Whitaker’s post-sentence motion, 

the trial court granted counsel until March 26, 2020, to file a supplemental 

motion. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(1)(b). The 120-day period for filing an 

order on Whitaker’s December 16, 2019 post-sentence motion expired on April 

15, 2020. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3). However, the Supreme Court of 

Pennsylvania entered a Judicial Emergency Order in response to the Covid-19 

pandemic stating that all papers required to be filed between March 19, 2020,

and May 8, 2020, shall be deemed timely if filed by May 11, 2020. Therefore, 

because the deadline for deciding the motion and the date for filing the 

supplemental post-sentence motion fell during this time, May 11, 2020,

became the 120-day deadline for: (1) Whitaker to file a supplemental postsentence motion; and either (2) the court to file an order deciding the postsentence motion; or (3) the prothonotary to file an order denying the postsentence motion by operation of law pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(a). 

Whitaker timely filed his supplemental post-sentence motion, but neither the 

trial court nor prothonotary entered an order. Instead, the trial court decided 

the post-sentence motion on August 7, 2020, which was within 120-days after 

May 11, 2020, but well after it had lost jurisdiction to decide the December 16 

2019 post-sentence motion, including any supplement thereto. See

Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(a). Whitaker filed a notice of appeal within thirty days 

of the August 7, 2020 decision, but because the decision was filed outside the 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A09042-22

- 6 -

brief. On December 27, 2021, Whitaker filed a pro se response brief to the 

Anders brief and on March 10, 2021, he filed a pro se reply brief.

II.

A.

Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to a direct appeal as well 

as to counsel on that appeal. See Commonwealth v. Woods, 939 A.2d 896,

898 (Pa. Super. 2007). Before appointed appellate counsel may be permitted 

to withdraw pursuant to Anders, the following conditions must be met:

Direct appeal counsel seeking to withdraw under Anders must file 

a petition averring that, after a conscientious examination of the 

record, counsel finds the appeal to be wholly frivolous. Counsel 

must also file an Anders brief setting forth issues that might 

arguably support the appeal along with any other issues necessary 

for the effective appellate presentation thereof.

Id. at 898.

Once an Anders brief is filed, its contents are only sufficient if they:

(1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with 

citations to the record; (2) refer to anything in the record that 

counsel believes arguably supports the appeal; (3) set forth 

counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) state 

counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is frivolous. 

Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of record, controlling 

____________________________________________

120-days authorized by Rule 720, it was a legal nullity; thus, ordinarily we 

would be deprived of jurisdiction to decide this matter. However, under the 

circumstances and due to any potential confusion caused by the Covid-19 

pandemic and the Judicial Emergency Order entered in response thereto, we 

will deem the failure of either the trial court or the prothonotary to timely act 

on Whitaker’s post-sentence motion to be a breakdown in the operation of the 

court and will consider the merits of his appeal. See Commonwealth v. 

Khalil, 806 A.2d 415, 420-21 (Pa. Super. 2002).
J-A09042-22

- 7 -

case law, and/or statutes on point that have led to the conclusion 

that the appeal is frivolous.

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009).

In addition, counsel must provide the appellant a copy of the petition to 

withdraw and the Anders brief, advising him of the right to retain new 

counsel, to proceed pro se, or to raise new grounds for appellate relief. See 

id. If counsel has met these obligations, “it then becomes the responsibility 

of the reviewing court to make a full examination of the proceedings and make 

an independent judgment to decide whether the appeal is in fact wholly 

frivolous.” Id. at 354 n.5.

In this case, counsel has satisfied the technical requirements of Anders 

and Santiago. He has filed a petition seeking to withdraw with this Court, 

stating that he has examined the entire record and found this appeal to be 

frivolous. The petition included an attached copy of the letter he sent to 

Whitaker. Enclosed with that letter was a copy of the petition to withdraw, as 

well as a copy of the Anders brief. The content of the Anders brief also 

comports with all requirements for counsel’s withdrawal.

Because the Anders requirements have been satisfied, we will turn to 

an independent review to determine if Whitaker’s appeal challenging the 
J-A09042-22

- 8 -

sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction of Strangulation, Simple 

Assault, PIC and Institutional Vandalism is, in fact, wholly frivolous.4

B.

1.

In his response brief to the Anders brief, Whitaker maintains that the 

evidence was insufficient to support the charge of Strangulation because he 

was acquitted of Sexual Assault. (See Whitaker’s Response Brief, 12/27/21, 

at 7).

The Crimes Code provides, in pertinent part, that:

____________________________________________

4 When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we must determine:

[w]hether viewing all of the evidence admitted at trial in the light 

most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence 

to enable the 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 that the facts and circumstances established by 

the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of 

innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be 

resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and 

inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be 

drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth 

may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial 

evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record 

must be evaluated 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. Gause, 164 A.3d 532, 540-41 (Pa. Super. 2017)

(citations and quotation marks omitted).
J-A09042-22

- 9 -

(a) ... 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[.]

* * *

(d) Grading—

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) or (3) a violation of 

this section shall constitute a misdemeanor of the second degree.

(2) A violation of this section shall constitute a felony of the 

second degree if committed:

* * *

(iii) in conjunction with sexual violence as defined in

42 Pa.C.S. § 62A03 (relating to definitions)[.]

18 Pa.C.S. § 2718(a), (d)(1), (2)(iii).

As the above unambiguous language demonstrates, although sexual 

assault is considered for grading purposes, it is not an element that must be 

proven to support a conviction for strangulation.5 Moreover, the evidence 

presented at trial was sufficient to support the Strangulation conviction.

Ms. Gray testified that Whitaker secured a pillowcase around her throat 

and she could not breathe. (See N.T. Trial, 11/07/19, at 53-54). This 

testimony was corroborated by Ms. Gray’s son who observed Whitaker 

____________________________________________

5 As stated previously, Whitaker was convicted of Strangulation as a seconddegree misdemeanor because he was found not guilty of sexual assault.
J-A09042-22

- 10 -

wrapping the pillowcase around his mother’s throat before calling the police.6 

(See id. at 127). This evidence was sufficient to establish that Whitaker 

intentionally impeded Ms. Gray’s breathing by applying pressure to her throat. 

See 18 Pa.C.S. § 2718(a).

7

2.

Whitaker next maintains that the evidence was insufficient to establish 

Simple Assault because Ms. Gray was not in fear of serious bodily injury. (See

Whitaker’s Response Brief, at 7). In support of his position, he directs this 

Court’s attention to Ms. Gray’s preliminary hearing testimony in which she 

____________________________________________

6

In his March 10, 2022 reply brief, Whitaker states that the Commonwealth 

erred in using the testimony of Ms. Gray’s minor son without first performing 

a competency hearing. (See Whitaker’s Reply Brief, 3/10/22, at 1-2, 5)

(pagination provided). This issue is waived because Whitaker provides no 

legal authority for this allegation, discussion thereof, references to the record

or place of raising any such objection at trial. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101, 2119(a)-

(c), (e). Moreover, our review of the record reflects that although the witness 

was fourteen at the time of the incident, he was fifteen at the time of trial. 

(See N.T. Trial, 11/07/19, at 7, 126). No competency test was required. See 

Commonwealth v. Moore, 980 A.2d 647, 650 (Pa. Super. 2009), appeal 

denied, 991 A.2d 311 (Pa. 2010) (“[W]hen a witness is under the age of 

fourteen, the trial court must hold a competency hearing. [C]ompetency 

presumed where the child is more than 14 years of age.”) (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted).

7 Although there was testimony that Whitaker held a pillow against Ms. Gray’s 

face so she could not breathe without turning her head, which arguably would 

have supported a conviction pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 2718(b), Whitaker was 

only charged under subsection (a). (See Information, 10/24/18, at 1); see 

also 18 Pa.C.S. § 2718(b) (“A person commits the offense of strangulation if 

the person knowingly or intentionally impedes the breathing ... of another 

person by ... blocking the nose and mouth of the person.”).
J-A09042-22

- 11 -

stated that she would not have called the police and did not direct her son to 

do so. (See id.); (N.T. Preliminary Hearing, 9/25/18, at 17). He also argues

that the 911 recording played at trial reflects that she did not tell her son to 

request an ambulance. (See N.T. Trial, 11/08/19, at 71).

First, Whitaker’s argument, which considers the evidence in the light 

most favorable to him, is contrary to our standard of review, which requires 

we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as 

verdict winner. See Gause, supra at 540-41. Second, it is irrelevant 

whether Ms. Gray advised her son to tell the 911 operator to send an 

ambulance or not because there was sufficient evidence to establish the crime 

of Simple Assault.

Under the Crimes Code, “a person is guilty of assault if he ... attempts 

by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury[.]” 

18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(3). Here, not only did Whitaker commit the crime of 

Strangulation as described above, but he also pressed a pillow against Ms. 

Gray’s face to restrict her breathing and held her down against her will, 

physically restraining her with his elbows and restricting her movements

before he jabbed a knife into her neck, which she repeatedly testified caused 

her to fear that he was going to use the weapon to slice her. (See N.T. Trial, 

11/07/19, at 52-53, 57-58, 62, 91). Officer Long observed Whitaker with the 

knife and both she and Ms. Gray identified it at trial as the same one that he 
J-A09042-22

- 12 -

threw to the officer and that he had held to Ms. Gray’s neck. (See id. at 65, 

67, 146-47, Exhibit C).

Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to support the Simple Assault 

conviction where the jury could reasonably find that it showed that Whitaker 

attempted by physical injury to put Ms. Gray in fear of imminent bodily injury. 

See 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(3).

3.

Whitaker next argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his 

conviction of PIC because the Commonwealth failed to obtain DNA or 

fingerprint evidence from the pillowcases or knife. (See Whitaker’s Response 

Brief, at 8); (Whitaker’s Reply Brief, at 1) (pagination provided).

The Commonwealth charged Whitaker with PIC based on his possession 

of the subject knife. (See Information, at 1, Count 5). “A person commits a 

misdemeanor of the first degree if he possesses any instrument of crime with 

intent to employ it criminally.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 907(a). An “instrument of crime” 

is “anything used for criminal purposes and possessed by the actor under 

circumstances not manifestly appropriate for lawful uses it may have.” 18 

Pa.C.S. § 907(d)(2).

Fingerprint and DNA evidence are not required elements of PIC and,

therefore, do not implicate sufficiency. See Gause, supra at 540-41

(sufficiency claim focuses on whether evidence established each element of 

offense).
J-A09042-22

- 13 -

Ms. Gray testified that Whitaker brandished a knife and held it to her

throat hard enough to jab her. (See id. at N.T. Trial, 11/07/19, at 52-54). 

Officer Long saw the knife in Whitaker’s hand before he threw it to her and 

she secured it at the scene. (See id. 145-46, 148). Both Ms. Gray and Officer 

Long identified the knife at trial. (See id. at 65, 67, 147).

This evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Whitaker 

possessed the knife with the intent to employ it criminally under circumstances 

not manifestly appropriate for its lawful purposes. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 907(a), 

(d)(2). This issue lacks merit.

4.

In his final sufficiency argument, Whitaker contends that his conviction 

for Institutional Vandalism was insufficient because there was no videotape of 

the closed-circuit footage or photograph of the damage contrary to the best 

evidence rule and the charge was supported by perjury and hearsay. (See

Whitaker’s Response Brief, at 8-9); (Whitaker’s Reply Brief, at 2). He also 

contends that at the preliminary hearing, Officer Tokonitz stated that two 

other officers told him that Whitaker vandalized his holding cell, and at trial,

he stated that Officer Long witnessed the institutional vandalism, which 

conflicted with his prior testimony and was insufficient to support his 

conviction because it was hearsay. (See Whitaker’s Response Brief, at 8-9).

We first consider the issue of any alleged conflicts in testimony between 

the preliminary hearing and trial about Institutional Vandalism. As a 
J-A09042-22

- 14 -

preliminary matter, we note that this issue is waived on two bases. First, 

Whitaker fails to identify where in the record this issue was raised and, second, 

our independent review confirms that counsel did not question Officer Tokonitz 

about any alleged conflicts between his preliminary hearing and trial 

testimony. See Pa.R.C.P. 302(a), 2119(e).

Moreover, the argument lacks merit. Officer Tokonitz stated at the 

preliminary hearing that two other officers told him that they observed 

Whitaker break the bed. (See N.T. Preliminary Hearing, at 46). This was not 

inconsistent with his trial testimony in which he stated that he observed 

Whitaker masturbating on the closed-circuit television and when he went to 

the holding cell to tell Whitaker to stop, he saw that the bed in the cell had 

been broken. (See N.T. Trial, 11/07/19, at 176-77). Furthermore, although 

Officer Tokonitz first stated that Officer Long “brought his attention to the 

closed-circuit television,” before re-phrasing this to he “had occasion to look 

at the closed-circuit television,” at no time did he say that it was Officer Long 

who witnessed Whitaker breaking the bed. (Id.).

Regarding his best evidence rule contention, that rule provides“[a]n 

original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its 

content unless these rules, other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court, or a 

statute provides otherwise.” Pa.R.E. 1002. The best evidence rule:

is applicable only in circumstances where the contents of the 

writing, recording or photograph are integral to proving the 

central issue in a trial.... Consequently, if the Commonwealth is 

introducing a writing, recording, or photograph at trial, Rule 1002
J-A09042-22

- 15 -

requires that the original be introduced only if the Commonwealth 

must prove the contents of the writing, recording or photograph 

to establish the elements of its case.

Commonwealth v. Green, 162 A.3d 509, 518 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation 

omitted).

In this case, Officers Tokonitz and Long testified that they saw Whitaker 

masturbating on the closed-circuit television to explain why they went to his 

holding cell. (See N.T. Trial, 11/07/19, at 149-50, 177). The Commonwealth 

did not rely in any way to prove the Institutional Vandalism charge. Because 

the contents of the video were not integral to proving Institutional Vandalism, 

which was based on Whitaker breaking the holding cell bed, the best evidence 

rule did not apply.

Finally, the Commonwealth produced sufficient circumstantial evidence 

to prove that Whitaker committed Institutional Vandalism. “A person commits 

the offense of institutional vandalism if he knowingly ... vandalizes, defaces or 

otherwise damages ... any ... municipal building” or any property located 

therein. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3307(a)(3), (5).

Here, Officer Tokonitz testified that when he went to Whitaker’s cell to 

tell him to stop masturbating, he observed that the bedframe of his cot was 

broken. (Id. at 177-78). Officer Tokonitz stated that prior to this incident, 

no one else was in the cellblock and the cot was not damaged. (See id. at 

177-78). It was for the jury to consider the credibility of Officer Tokonitz, and 

there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for the jury to find that the 
J-A09042-22

- 16 -

evidence established Whitaker knowingly vandalized, defaced or otherwise 

damaged the municipal property in his jail holding cell. See 18 Pa.C.S. 

§ 3307(a)(3), (5).

Based on the foregoing, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the Commonwealth, we conclude that it was sufficient for the jury to convict

Whitaker of all crimes charged. See Gause, supra at 540-41. Whitaker’s

issues lack merit, and our independent review of the record does not reveal 

any non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s application to 

withdraw and affirm the judgment of sentence.8

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw 

granted.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/12/2022

____________________________________________

8

In his reply brief, Whitaker also states that the Commonwealth violated the 

appellate filing rules and its duty to produce a witness statement for Officer 

Long pursuant to the federal rules. (See Whitaker’s Reply Brief, at 3-5) 

(pagination provided). Not only does our review of the record fail to disclose 

any filing errors by the Commonwealth that would support the grant of relief 

requested by Whitaker, (see id. at 6) (pagination provided), the rules of 

Federal Criminal Procedure do not apply to this matter. We also note that, 

although Whitaker lists “violation of Lively standard” and “violation of Brady 

Rule,” he provides absolutely no discussion, so it is not clear to what he is 

referring.