J-S11020-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JAMIE BROWN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 851 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 9, 2021

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

No(s): CP-02-CR-0000086-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: May 11, 2022

Appellant, Jamie Brown, appeals from the June 9, 2021 judgment of 

sentence imposing an aggregate two years’ probation following her bench trial 

conviction for theft by unlawful taking or disposition – movable property and 

simple assault.1 We affirm.

The trial court summarized the factual history as follows:

On June 27, 2020, at approximately 1:30 p.m., a physical 

altercation ensued between [Appellant] and her child's father [in 

a parking lot located along] Carson Street in [the] South Side 

[neighborhood of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania]. On the date of the 

incident, [the victim] had taken his daughter to the TRAC 

program[,2located along] Carson Street [] for court ordered 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3921(a) and 2701(a)(1), respectively.

2 We take judicial notice that TRAC Services for Families is an organization 

whose mission is “to provide a range of services and resources for children, 

youth, adults[,] and families to ensure stable relationships and strong 
J-S11020-22

- 2 -

visitation. [The victim] dropped his daughter off at the program 

on time and was sitting inside his vehicle for five to ten minutes

[afterwards] when [Appellant] approached his [vehicle’s] driver's 

side door. [Appellant] opened [the victim’s] driver's side door and 

asked [the victim], "[w]here's my F-ing daughter?," to which he 

replied that he had dropped her off at the program.

Subsequently, [Appellant] sprayed [the victim] in the face with

mace and began to swing her arms "repeatedly" toward him. [The 

victim] then screamed, exited his vehicle[,] and "got into a tussle" 

with [Appellant]. [Appellant] bit [the victim] and sprayed him in 

the face with mace again. [The victim] was yelling for help when 

a security guard came out of the TRAC building to break up the 

altercation, saying that he was calling the police. The security 

guard was present at the scene when [Appellant] was there, and, 

after [Appellant] "took off running[,]" he retrieved a bottle of 

water for [use in rinsing the mace from the victim’s] eyes.

[Appellant] took [the victim’s cellular telephone] and glasses

before she fled toward Carson Street. [The victim’s cellular 

telephone] was [valued at] approximately $200[.00]-$300[.00]

and [] his glasses were [valued at] approximately 

$600[.00]-$700[.00. The victim] never recovered his [cellular 

telephone] or his glasses. At the time of the incident, there was 

an outstanding warrant for [Appellant] for a violation of an active 

Protection From Abuse ("PFA")[, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6101-6122,]

order that [the victim] had filed against her.

Trial Court Opinion, 9/2/21, 3-4 (record citations and footnote omitted).

On June 9, 2021, the trial court, in a non-jury trial, found Appellant 

guilty of the aforementioned crimes. On that same date, the trial court 

____________________________________________

community connections.” See https://tracpgh.com/about-2/ (last visited 

04/07/2022). The services provided are “geared to strengthen the total family 

unit, in efforts to improve family relationships and overall functioning, of those 

families working toward being reunified with their children who are in the 

foster care system, as well as those involved in complex custody cases.” See 

https://tracpgh.com/outpatient-services/ (last visited 04/07/2022).
J-S11020-22

- 3 -

sentenced Appellant to two years’ probation for her theft conviction and two 

years’ probation for her simple assault conviction, which was set to run 

concurrently to the sentence imposed for the theft conviction.3 On June 18, 

2021, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court 

subsequently denied. This appeal followed.

4

Appellant raises the following issue for our review: “Did the trial court 

err by denying [Appellant’s] post[-]sentence motion for a new trial because 

the guilty verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence provided?” 

Appellant’s Brief at 6.

Appellant’s issue raises a claim that the verdict was against the weight 

of the evidence, for which our standard and scope of review is as follows:

Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of 

discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict 

is against the weight of the evidence. Because the trial [court] 

had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, an 

appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings 

and reasons advanced by the trial [court] when reviewing a trial 

court’s determination that the verdict is [or is not] against the 

weight of the evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for 

granting or denying a new trial is the [trial] court’s conviction that 

the verdict was or was not against the weight of the evidence and 

that a new trial should be granted in the interest of justice.

____________________________________________

3 Appellant was also ordered to have no contact with the victim, successfully 

complete a batterers’ intervention program, undergo drug and alcohol and 

mental health evaluations (and successfully complete any recommended 

treatment), and pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $688.00. Order 

of Sentence, 6/9/21.

4 Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
J-S11020-22

- 4 -

Commonwealth v. Horne, 89 A.3d 277, 285 (Pa. Super. 2014), citing

Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000). A trial court abuses 

its discretion “where the course pursued represents not merely an error of 

judgment, but where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable or where the 

law is not applied or where the record shows that the action is a result of 

partiality, prejudice, bias[,] or ill-will.” Horne, 89 A.3d at 285-286 (citation 

omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) 

(stating, “[t]he term ‘discretion’ imports the exercise of judgment, wisdom[,]

and skill so as to reach a dispassionate conclusion within the framework of the 

law, and is not exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the [trial 

court]”). In order for an appellant to prevail on a weight of the evidence claim, 

“the evidence must be so tenuous, vague[,] and uncertain that the verdict 

shocks the conscience of the [trial] court.” Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 820 

A.2d 795, 806 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted), appeal denied, 833 A.2d 143 (Pa. 2003).

When the challenge to the weight of the evidence is predicated on 

the credibility of trial testimony, our review of the trial court's 

decision is extremely limited. Generally, unless the evidence is so 

unreliable [or] contradictory as to make any verdict based thereon 

pure conjecture, these types of claims are not cognizable on 

appellate review.

Commonwealth v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254, 1262 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal 

denied, 64 A.3d 630 (Pa. 2013).

Appellant challenges the weight of the evidence to support both her theft 

by unlawful taking conviction and her simple assault conviction. Appellant’s 
J-S11020-22

- 5 -

Brief at 14-26. Regarding her theft by unlawful taking conviction, Appellant 

asserts that the victim’s testimony regarding Appellant “grabbing” his cellular 

telephone and glasses conflicts with Appellant’s strenuous denial of this fact. 

Id. at 20. Appellant contends that “no objective witness, neither the security 

guard nor the arresting officer, either saw [Appellant] take anything from the 

scene, or [be] in possession of [the victim’s] property.” Id. at 21. Appellant 

argues, “[b]ased upon the relationship dynamics evidenced between the 

parties at trial, along with the objective testimony about the volatile 

interaction at TRAC which provided that the parties looked like two wrestlers 

in the parking lot, [the victim’s] vague testimony that [Appellant] ‘just 

grabbed stuff’ should be treated with caution.” Id. at 22.

Concerning the simple assault conviction, Appellant explained that her 

use of mace, which she admittedly sprayed in the victim’s face, was justified, 

as self-defense, because “[w]hen she opened the door to [the victim’s vehicle] 

after being denied visitation with her child, [she] saw [the victim] furtively 

moving toward the far side of his front seat, and, because of the animosity 

between the parties, she became fearful for her safety.” Id. at 24. Appellant 

asserts that she “knew [the victim] to carry a weapon with him at all times” 

even though the victim denied having a weapon in his vehicle that day. Id.

at 25. The fact that the victim “had to receive treatment for a broken hand 

after this incident,” Appellant contends, is very telling and “seems to create 

an inference that he had been very violent during this altercation.” Id.
J-S11020-22

- 6 -

In denying Appellant’s post-sentence motion challenging the weight of 

the evidence to support both of her convictions, the trial court stated,

[The trial] court found the victim [] to be highly credible. He 

appeared confident and sincere, and he was consistent in his 

testimony. Moreover, his testimony was corroborated by the 

observations made by the responding officer, who observed 

injuries to [the victim’s] face and hand when he responded to the 

physical altercation call shortly thereafter. Additionally, [the 

victim’s] testimony was corroborated by the observations made 

by the security guard at the scene, who observed [Appellant]

approach [the victim’s vehicle] and the physical altercation

between [Appellant] and [the victim], and who subsequently 

intervened to break up the fight.

Moreover, [Appellant] admitted to spraying [the victim] in the face

with mace, unprovoked. While [Appellant] claimed that she 

suspected [the victim] was reaching for a gun in his vehicle before 

she sprayed him, [the victim] credibly testified that he did not own 

a gun, nor had [Appellant] ever [observed] him with one.

[Appellant] also admitted on cross[-]examination that she never 

actually saw what [the victim] was supposedly reaching for in his 

vehicle.

Likewise, the [trial] court did not find [Appellant’s] self-serving 

testimony to be credible in the least. [Appellant] was incredibly 

hostile and combative, and her testimony had material 

inconsistencies and was unsupported by the other credible 

evidence in the record. For example, [Appellant] testified on 

cross[-]examination that there was an active PFA order against 

her, prohibiting her from making contact with [the victim]. 

Despite her knowledge of the active PFA order against her, 

[Appellant] admitted to initiating contact with [the victim] by 

approaching his vehicle, opening the vehicle's doors, and 

questioning [the victim] about their daughter. [Appellant] also 

testified on direct[-]examination that she was told by the 

employees at the TRAC program that her daughter was at the 

facility but that they were not going to let her see the child. 

However, she then went on to testify that she approached [the 

victim’s] vehicle after leaving the facility because she "thought her 

daughter was" in the vehicle. The [trial] court also did not believe 

her testimony that she was given permission to leave by the
J-S11020-22

- 7 -

security guard because he clearly testified that she had already 

left by the time he could process what had transpired.

Furthermore, [Appellant] testified on direct[-]examination that 

she told a TRAC employee that there was no warrant out for her 

arrest and, on cross[-]examination, accused [the victim] of filing 

a false police report against her[. Appellant] also testified that 

she felt threatened by [the victim] during the altercation. 

However, she subsequently testified that she did not wait for the 

police to arrive and instead chose to leave the scene, which is 

curious given her testimony that [the victim] caused her to fear 

for her safety because she thought he was reaching for a firearm.

[Appellant’s] version of events further failed to account for the

injuries that were readily observable by law enforcement shortly 

after the altercation[,] and [Appellant’s version of events was]

contradictory to what the security guard [] observed[.] 

Specifically, [Appellant] testified that she never swung at [the 

victim]. However, the responding officer observed that [the 

victim] had an injured hand, the security guard testified that 

[Appellant] was swinging her arms at [the victim], and [the 

victim] testified that he was using his hands to try to protect his 

face. [Appellant’s] testimony not only failed to carry "the ring of 

truth," but in [the trial] court's estimation, it was entirely 

self-serving and contrived, particularly when considered against 

the testimony provided by the victim, the responding officer, and 

the security guard at the scene.

Trial Court Opinion, 9/2/21, 12-16 (record citations and original brackets

omitted).

Appellant’s argument invites this Court to do nothing more than 

reassess the credibility of the victim, Appellant, and the other witnesses and 

reweigh the evidence in an attempt to convince us to reach a result different 

than the one reached by the trial court as the fact-finder. See, e.g., 

Appellant’s Brief at 22 (stating, “believing [the victim’s] tenuous and also 

clearly slanted testimony to find [Appellant] guilty is offensive to one’s sense 

of justice”). We decline Appellant’s invitation. Clay, 64 A.3d at 1056 (holding 
J-S11020-22

- 8 -

that, the role of an appellate court when addressing a weight claim is to 

determine if the trial court exceeded its limit of judicial discretion or invaded 

the providence of the fact-finder). Based upon the record before us, we 

discern no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying 

Appellant’s request for a new trial based upon her claim that the verdict was 

against the weight of the evidence. Therefore, Appellant’s claim is without 

merit.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/11/2022