J-S04043-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MARVEN BELOTTE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 885 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 4, 2022

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0008046-2021

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED MARCH 1, 2023

Marven Belotte (Belotte) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court)

following his bench conviction of simple assault and false imprisonment.

1

 

Belotte challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. 

We affirm.

I.

This case arises from a June 2021 altercation involving Belotte and his 

then-girlfriend, Kimberly Kravets (Kravets). Belotte and Kravets were in a 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2701(a)(1) (attempts to cause or causes bodily injury, graded 

as a second-degree misdemeanor (M2) and 2903(a)).
J-S04043-23

- 2 -

relationship from December 2020 through June 2021 and they resided 

together in Kravets’ apartment located on the second floor of a rowhome in 

Northeast Philadelphia. Kravets’ friend, Amala Muhammad, Muhammad’s

boyfriend Brian,

2 and their two-year-old daughter also lived in the apartment 

and were present during the incident.

A.

Belotte waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded to a bench trial on 

February 18, 2022, at which Kravets was the only witnesses. Kravets testified 

that on June 5, 2021, at about 8:30 a.m., she tried to end her relationship 

with Belotte, as she had at many points in the past. Kravets recounted that 

Belotte “wasn’t happy to hear it,” ignored her requests that he leave, and “we 

got into an altercation in which he snatched off a necklace from my neck that 

he had given me.” (N.T. Trial, 2/18/22, at 11). Kravets went into the 

bathroom, saw that her neck was bleeding and called 911. When she locked 

the door, Belotte “continued to force the door open with a knife.” (Id. at 12). 

Kravets went into the kitchen and told Belotte that she had called the police. 

She recounted that Belotte “then followed me into the front room . . . and he 

shoved me to the ground as I was trying to run . . . when he shoved me to 

the ground, I busted my knee open, and my hands also got a little scratched 

up.” (Id. at 14). While Kravets was on the ground, Belotte kicked her in the 

____________________________________________

2 Brian’s last name is not apparent from the record.
J-S04043-23

- 3 -

back and ripped the pocket of her shorts open while she protected her cell 

phone. As Brian attempted to calm the situation, Kravets got up and called 

911 a second time.

Kravets testified: “I knew I had called the police and I was trying to get 

myself outside [. . . but Belotte] wasn’t letting me, so I had to push him down 

the steps, and he caught himself, and then I somehow made it running [] 

down the steps and when I got to the bottom, he was blocking the door and 

telling me ‘You’re not going anywhere,’ that I was not allowed to leave[.]” 

(Id. at 16). Kravets received a phone call from a police officer, [and]

“eventually after a couple of minutes [Belotte] finally let me to go outside,” 

where police had arrived at the scene. (Id.). Kravets testified that during 

the altercation, she sustained a scratch to her neck and a bloody, busted knee 

that left her with a scar.

On cross-examination, Kravets indicated that she and Belotte argued 

frequently and that the incident lasted for over an hour. Kravets conceded

that she tried to push Belotte down the steps and bit his arm, but explained 

that she took these actions in self-defense. Kravets also acknowledged that

she had hurt her knee before this altercation, but that Belotte reinjured it and 

the wound reopened.

On redirect examination, Kravets clarified: “When I tried to push 

[Belotte] down the stairs, it was because I felt I was being held hostage in my 

house and was not allowed to go outside where the police were, and I felt I 
J-S04043-23

- 4 -

was being held against my will, so I felt the need to defend myself and try to 

get him out of my way” as he blocked her path down the steps. (Id. at 44). 

Kravets explained that she bit Belotte on the arm while she was on the ground

protecting her cell phone “to try to get him off of me.” (Id. at 45).

The trial court found Belotte guilty of the above-mentioned offenses. On 

March 4, 2022, the court sentenced him to 6 to 12 months’ incarceration, 

followed by two years of probation. Belotte timely appealed and he and the 

trial court complied with Rule 1925. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)-(b).

II.

A.

Belotte first contests the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his 

conviction of simple assault.

3

 In doing so, Belotte characterizes the incident 

____________________________________________

3

In determining whether the evidence was sufficient to support a 

defendant’s conviction, we must review the evidence admitted 

during the trial along with any reasonable inferences that may be 

drawn from that evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth as the verdict winner. If we find, based on that 

review, that the jury could have found every element of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt, we must sustain the defendant’s 

conviction. Further, a conviction may be sustained wholly on 

circumstantial evidence, and the trier of fact—while passing on the 

credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence—is free 

to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. In conducting this 

review, the appellate court may not weigh the evidence and 

substitute its judgment for the fact-finder.

Commonwealth v. Hummel, 283 A.3d 839, 846 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citations 

omitted).
J-S04043-23

- 5 -

between himself and Kravets as a “mutual domestic argument” that, at most, 

established simple assault graded as an M3 instead of the M2 conviction. 

Belotte also contends the evidence shows he lacked criminal intent to cause 

or attempt to cause bodily injury to Kravets, that she “exaggerated and 

oversold her injuries,” which were superficial only, and that he and Kravets

acted in a “reciprocally cruel” manner. (Id. at 17-19).

A defendant is guilty of simple assault if he “attempts to cause or 

intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another.” 18 

Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1). “Bodily injury” is defined as “impairment of physical 

condition or substantial pain.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2301. “The Commonwealth need 

not establish the victim actually suffered bodily injury; rather, it is sufficient 

to support a conviction if the Commonwealth establishes an attempt to inflict 

bodily injury.” Commonwealth v. Wroten, 257 A.3d 734, 744 (Pa. Super. 

2021) (citation omitted). “This intent may be shown by circumstances, which 

reasonably suggest that a defendant intended to cause injury.” Id. (citation 

omitted). “The existence of substantial pain may be inferred from the 

circumstances surrounding the use of physical force even in the absence of a 

significant injury.” Id. (citation omitted).

Because Kravets was the only witness at trial, we note that it is wellsettled that a single witness’s testimony can establish every element of a 

criminal offense. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 180 A.3d 474, 481 (Pa. 

Super. 2018), appeal denied, 205 A.3d 315 (Pa. 2019). Additionally, in light 
J-S04043-23

- 6 -

of Belotte’s claim disputing the grading of the simple assault charge, we 

observe that the offense is generally graded as an M2 unless committed: “in 

a fight or scuffle entered into by mutual consent, in which case it is a 

misdemeanor of the third degree.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(b)(1).

In this case, the trial court found that the evidence was sufficient to 

convict Belotte of simple assault against Kravets graded as an M2. It 

explained:

The requisite intent to cause bodily injury could be 

reasonably inferred from the surrounding circumstances, 

specifically, Appellant’s actions of shoving the Complainant in the 

back as she was facing away from him with enough force for her 

to hit the ground and bust her knee, and then kicking her in the 

back while she was on the ground.

Appellant [] further contends that the incident was a mutual 

domestic argument that, at most may have established the crime 

of simple assault—mutual consent (M3). This trial court finds that 

this argument is belied by the fact that the Complainant was

actually moving away from the Appellant when he shoved her to 

the ground and kicked her in the back.

(Trial Court Opinion, 8/24/22, at 3) (citations omitted).

We agree with the trial court’s analysis and emphasize that despite 

Belotte’s attempt to minimize this incident by characterizing it as a mutual 

dispute, the record does not support his claim. The evidence instead reflects 

that Belotte protested Kravets’ ending of their relationship by physically 

retaliating against her, prompting her to seek police assistance. Insofar as 

Belotte challenges Kravets’ credibility by asserting that she exaggerated the 

details of the event, the trial court, as fact-finder, after hearing Kravets’
J-S04043-23

- 7 -

testimony and observing her demeanor, was free to credit her version of 

events. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth as verdict winner, we conclude that the evidence was 

sufficient to support Belotte’s simple assault conviction.

B.

Belotte next contends the evidence was insufficient to support his 

conviction of false imprisonment. Belotte maintains that the Commonwealth

failed to establish that he knowingly restrained or substantially interfered with 

Kravets’ ability to move freely during the altercation, and that the evidence

instead shows that they engaged “in a rancorous marathon-like argument.” 

(Belotte’s Brief, at 20; see id. at 7, 19-21).

A defendant commits the crime of false imprisonment if “he knowingly 

restrains another unlawfully so as to interfere substantially with h[er] liberty.” 

18 Pa.C.S. § 2903(a). In determining the degree of restraint necessary for 

false imprisonment, this Court has recognized that the offense covers 

restraints which are less serious than those necessary for kidnapping and 

unlawful restraint. See In re M.G., 916 A.2d 1179, 1181 (Pa. Super. 2007). 

In determining whether the restraint at issue “substantially” interfered with a 

person’s liberty, we give the word its plain meaning and have interpreted it to 

cover restraint where an individual’s liberty is interfered with in an ample or 

considerable manner. See id. 1182; see also 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903(a) (governing 

statutory interpretation).
J-S04043-23

- 8 -

In this case, the trial court rejected Belotte’s sufficiency challenge

concerning false imprisonment and explained:

After being physically assaulted by Appellant, the 

Complainant was attempting to exit her apartment. The Appellant

then proceeded to block the exit door to the apartment and tell 

the Complainant that she was “not going anywhere.” The 

Appellant did not allow her to exit her apartment until a couple of 

minutes after she received a call from a police officer.

The Appellant’s conduct in preventing the Complainant from 

exiting her apartment after physically assaulting her is sufficient 

evidence to establish that the Appellant unlawfully restrained the 

Complainant against her will in a manner to interfere substantially 

with her liberty in violation of [Section] 2903.

(Trial Ct. Op., at 4-5).

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the record shows Belotte 

intentionally and substantially interfered with Kravets’ liberty and ability to 

leave her own home by blocking her path on the stairs, warning her that she 

was not “going anywhere” and relenting only after police intervention. 

Belotte’s final claim merits no relief.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/01/2023