J

- S54039

- 19

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

v.

JOSE MANUEL FEBRES

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 601 MDA 2019 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 22, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 44

- CR

- 0000164

- 2018

BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and DUBOW, J. MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 26, 2020 Appellant, Jose Manuel Febres, appeals from the Judgment of Sentence entered in the Mifflin County Court of Common Pleas following his conviction for Criminal Attempt

- Criminal Homicide, Aggravated Assault, Aggravated Assault wi th a Deadly Weapon, Terroristic Threats, two counts Recklessly Endangering Another Person (“REAP”), and Simple Assault. 1 With this appeal, Appellant’s counsel has filed a Petition to Withdraw as Counsel and an Anders 2 brief. After careful review, we affirm the Judgment of Sentence and grant counsel’s Petition to Withdraw. We glean the following facts from the certified record. The Victim had

an on - and

- off

- again relationship with Appellant. Appellant had threatened the

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 901(a), 2501, 2702(a) (1) , 2702(a)(4), 2706(a)(1), 2705, and 2701(a)(1), respectively.

2 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).J

- S54039

- 19

- 2

-

Victim in the past , informing her that if he ever saw her with another man, he would beat her and the other man. In February 2018, the Victim lived with her then

- 3 year old son, Tresa Walker, and Dwayne Jones. On February 25, 2018, the Victim spent the day with a male friend. Her male friend d ropped her off at her house around 3:00 PM; Appellant a nd Mr. Jones were on the porch when the Victim returned home. Later that day, around 5:00 PM, Mr. Jones prepared dinner in the kitchen while Appellant, Ms. Walker , and the Victim and her son sat in th e living room. The Victim was sitting in a chair and began chatting with a male friend on her cellphone. Appellant then approached the Victim, stood over her, and instructed her to turn off her phone. The Victim turned off her phone and told Appellant “don ’t put your hands on me.” N.T. Trial, 1/15/19, at 37. Appellant began punching the Victim and then stabbed the Victim with a kitchen knife. Ms. Walker screamed that Appellant was hitting and stabbing the Victim, and Mr. Jones ran in to the living room to in tervene. A struggled ensued, in which Mr. Jones threw Appellant into a television. However, Appellant got up and stabb ed the Victim, yelling “bitch, I’m gonna kill you.” Id. at 42. Mr. Jones then grabbed Appellant and pushed him out the door. However, Appellant re

entered the house and again stabbed the Victim. Mr. Jones then threw Appellant on the porch and locked the door. The Victim sustained injuries to her chee k, nasal bridge , chest, left shoulder, and hands. After Ms. Walker called 911, the Victim was transportedJ

- S54039

- 19

- 3

-

to the Lewisburg Hospital. Due to the severity of her injuries, a helicopter transported the Victim to the Altoona Trauma Emergency Room, where medical staff used surgical staples and suture s to treat her lacerations

. Appellant was arreste d and charged with the above crimes. A two

- day jury trial commenced on January 15, 2019, in which the Commonwealth presented testimony from the Victim, Mr. Jones, Ms. Walker, and Megan Morris, a n expert witness physician assistant who treated the Victim. On January 16, 2019, Appellant was convicted of the above crimes. The court ordered a pre

- sentence investigation (“PSI”) report, and subsequently,

o n March 22, 2019, sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 21 to 42 years of imprisonment. 3 Appellant did not file a post

- sentence motion. Appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal. Thereafter, counsel filed a Statement of Intent to File an Anders Brief

. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4). Accordingly, the trial court did not file a Rule 1925(a) Opinion. Appellant’s counsel filed two Anders Briefs and a Petition to Withdraw as Counsel with this Court. However, following this Court’s review of counsel’s Anders briefs, we concluded that counsel failed to comply with Anders and denied counsel’s Petition to Wi thdraw. Commonwealth v. Febres , No. 601 MDA 2019, unpublished memorandum (Pa. Super. filed Nov. 31 , 2019). We

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 3 For sentencing purposes, the trial court merged one count REAP, Aggravated Assault, Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Terroristic Threats, and Simple Assault convictions with the Criminal Attempt

- Criminal Homicide conviction.J

- S54039

- 19

- 4

-

instructed counsel to file either a compliant Anders brief or an advocate’s brief, and afforded the Commonwealth and Appellant 14 days to respond. Appellant’s counsel filed an Amended Anders Brief challenging the sufficiency of evidence and Appellant’s sentence, a nd raising a claim of newly discovered evidence. Amended Anders Br. at 4

- 9 (unpaginated). The Commonwealth and Appellant have not filed a response. As a prelimi nary matter, we address counsel’ s request to w ithdraw as counsel . “When presented with an Anders B rief , this Court may not review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to withdraw.” Commonwealth v. Daniels , 999 A.2d 590, 593 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted). In order for counsel to withdraw from an appeal pursuant to Anders , our Supreme Court has determined that counsel must
meet the following requirements: (1) provide a summary of the procedural his tory 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 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).J

- S54039

- 19

- 5

-

Counsel has complied with the mandated procedure for withdrawing as counsel. Additionally, counsel confirms that he sent Appellant a copy of the Anders Brief and Petition to Withdraw , as well as a letter explaining to Appellant that he has the right to ret ain new counsel , proceed pro se , or to raise any additional points

. See Commonwealth v. Millisock , 873 A.2d 748, 751 (Pa. Super. 2005) (describing notice requirements).
B ecause counsel has satisfied the above requirements, we will first address the substantive issue s raised in the Anders Brief. Subsequently , we must “make a full examination of the proceedings and make an independent judgment as to whether the appeal is in fact wholly frivolous.” Santiago , 978 A.2d at 355 n.5 (citation omitted). See a lso Commonwealth v. Yorgey , 188 A.3d 1190, 1197 (Pa. Super. 2018) ( en banc ) (noting Anders requires the reviewing court to “review ‘the case’ as presented in the entire record with consideration fi rst of issues raised by counsel ”). Issue 1: Sufficiency of the Evidence In his first issue, Appellant challenge s the sufficiency of evidence supporting all seven of his convictions

— one count of Criminal Attempt

Criminal Homicide, Aggravated Assault, Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Terroristic Threats, and Simple Assault, and two counts of REAP. See Amended Anders Br. at 4

- 7 (unpaginated). “A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law.” Commonwealth v. Widmer , 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000)

. “[ O ] ur standardJ

- S54039

- 19

- 6

-

of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. ” Commonwealth v. Hutchinson , 164 A.3d 494, 497 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted)

. In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, we determine “ whether the evidence at trial, and all reasonable inferences derived therefrom , when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, are sufficient to establish all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. ” Commonwealth v. May , 887 A.2d 750, 753 (Pa. 2005). “ Further, a conviction may be sustained w holly 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.” Commonwealth v. Miller , 172 A.3d 632, 640 (Pa. Super. 2017). “In conducting this review , the appellate court may not weigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the fact

- finder.” Id. Criminal Attempt

- Criminal Homicide , Aggravated Assault, Simple Assault Pursuant to the Crimes Code, “[a] person commits attem pt when, with intent to commit a specific crime, he does any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that crime.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 901. Further, “[a] person is guilty of criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2501. “T he use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the human body is sufficient to establish the specific intent to kill.” Commonwealth v. Randolph , 873 A.2d 1277, 1281 ( Pa. 2005). TheJ

- S54039

- 19

- 7

-

ch est is considered a vital part of the body

. Commonwealth v. Hanible , 836 A.2d 36, 39 (Pa. 2003). Thus, w ith respect to the Criminal Attempt

- Criminal Homicide charge, the Commonwealth was required to present evidence to show that Appell ant committed a substantial step toward intentionally causing the death of another h uman being. 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 901, 2501 A person is guilty of Aggravated Assault if he “ attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life[.]” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a). A person 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)

. “D eadly weapon” is defined as “ any . . . device or instrumentality which, in the manner in which it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2301

. “S erious bod ily injury” is defined as “[b]odily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.” Id. Additionally,

“ b odily injury” constitutes “[i]mpairment of physical condition or substantial pain. ” Id. Aggravated Assault and Simple Assault are lesser

- included offense s of Criminal Attempt

- Criminal Homicide when premised on the sameJ

- S54039

- 19

- 8

-

act. Commonwealth v. Hilliard , 172 A.3d 5, 13 (Pa. Super. 2017) ; see Commonwealth v. Brown , 605 A.2d 429, 432 (Pa. Super. 1992) (finding that the elements of simple assault are met by a conviction for aggravated assault ). Thus, evidence sufficient to prove Criminal Attempt

Criminal Homicide is also sufficient to prove Aggravated Assault and Simple Assault. See Hilliard , 172 A.3d at 13 ; Brown , 605 A.2d at 432

. T he Commonwealth presented evidence sufficient to establish every element of Criminal Attempt

- Criminal Homicide. The Victim testified that on February 25, 2018, Appellant stabbed her multiple times with a four

- to
- five inch long kitchen knife in the face, chest, left shoulder, and hands while yelling “bitch, I’m gonna kill you.” N.T. Trial at 42, 50. She testified th at she was bleeding heavily from her wounds and was admitted to Altoona Hospital to treat her injuries. Id. at 43. She indicated that she had scars on her chest, shoulder, face, and hands from the attack. Id. at 47

- 49. Ms. Morris testified that she assiste d in treating the Victim’s face, chest, shoulder, and hand wounds at Altoona Hospital with surgical staples and sutures. Id. at 139. She opined that the Victim’s chest wound was approximately 3 to 4 centimeters long and her facial laceration was approximately 7 centimeters long

. Id. at 139

- 40. The evidence elicited at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth demonstrates that Appellant stabbed the V ictim in her chest , a vital part of her bo dy, with a knife while threatening to kill her

.J

- S54039

- 19

- 9

-

Additionally, the attack caused the Victim serious bodily injury

— lacerations requiring the need for surgical sutures and staples and resulting in scarring. Thus, the Commonwealth present ed evidence to show that Appell ant committed a substantial step toward intentionally causing the death of another h uman being. T he evidence was , therefore, sufficient to sustain Appellant's
conviction s for Cri minal Attempt

- Criminal Homicide. Accordingly, the evidence was also sufficient to prove Aggravated Assault and Simple Assault. See Hilliard , 172 A.3d at 13 ; Brown , 605 A.2d at 432

. Appellant’s challenges to these convictions , therefore, have no merit. Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon A person is guilty of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon if he

“ attempts to cause or intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon [.] ” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a) (4)

. 4
T he Commonwealth presented evidence sufficient to establish each element of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon

. As discussed above,
t he Victim testified that on February 25, 2018, Appellant stabbed her multiple times with a kitchen knife in the face, chest, left shoulder, and hands while

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 4 Aggravated Assault under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(4) is not a lesser

- included offense of Criminal Attempt

- Criminal Homicide because Subsection (a)(4) requires the Commonwealth to demonstrate the use of a deadly weapon, whereas the elements of Criminal Attempt

- Criminal Homicide do not. See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 901( a), 2502(a). ). Here, however, the Commonwealth proved Criminal Attempt

- Criminal Homicide by demonstrating Appellant used a deadly weapon on a vital part of the Victim’s body. See Randolph , 873 A.2d at 1281.J

- S54039

- 19

- 10

-

threatening to kill h er. N.T. Trial at 38

- 39, 42, 50. She explained that she was bleeding heavily from her stab wounds, which required treatment with staples and sutures. Id. at 44. She testified that as a result of the attack, she suffers from damaged nerves, pain, and limited use of her hand. Id. at 44

- 45. The evidence elicited at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth demonstrates that Appellant intentionally caused bodily injury to the Victim with a deadly weapon

. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Appellant’s challenge to this conviction is meritless. Terroristic Threats
A person commits the crime of Terroristic Threats “ if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to [ ] commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another

. . . . ” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2706(a)(1). To convict a defendant of Terroristic Threats , “the Commonwealth must prove that 1) the defendant made a threat to commit a crime of violence, and 2) th e threat was communicated with the intent to terrorize another or with reckless disregard for the risk of causing terror.” Commonwealth v. Beasley , 138 A.3d 39, 46 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citations omitted).
T he Official C omment to Section 2706 explains that “ [t[ he purpose of th[is] section is to impose criminal liability on persons who make threats which seriously impair personal security. . . . It is not intended by this section to penalize mere spur

- of

- the

- moment threats which result from anger.” 18J

- S54039

- 19

- 11

-

Pa.C.S. § 2706 cmt. T his Court has held that “being angry does not render a person incapable of forming the intent to terrorize. In re J.H. , 797 A.2d 260, 263 (Pa. Super. 2002)(citation omitted) . Rather, “this Court must consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the threat was a result of a heated verbal exchange or confrontation .” Id.
T he Commonwealth presented evidence sufficient to establish each element of Terroristic Threats

. The Victim testified that on February 25, 2018, Appellant pun ched her and then stabbed her multiple times with a kitchen knife in the face, chest, left shoulder, and hands while threatening to kill her. N.T. Trial at 38

- 39, 42, 50. The evidence elicited at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Common wealth , demonstrates that Appellant made a threat to commit a crime of violence with the intent to terrorize the Victim and did, in fact, attempt to commit the crime of violence he threate ne d to commit. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to establish Terroristic Threats and Appellant’s challenge to this conviction is meritless.
REAP Appellant was convicted of two counts of REAP, one for recklessly endangering the Victim’s three

- year old child and one for recklessly endangering Ms. Walker. “A person co mmits [ REAP ] if he recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another person in danger of death or serious bodilyJ

- S54039

- 19

- 12

-

injury.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2705. REAP “is a crime directed against reckless conduct entailing a serious risk to life or limb out of pr oportion to any utility the conduct might have.” Commonwealth v. Vogelsong , 90 A.3d 717, 719 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). “A person acts in a reckless manner when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk.” Id. (citing 18 Pa.C.S. § 302(b)(3)). The Commonwealth presented evidence sufficient to establish REAP

. The Victim testified that when Appellant stabbed her on February 25, 2018, she was sitting on a chair next to her three

- year old son and Ms. Walker, who were both sitti ng on a loveseat. N.T. Trial at 57. The Victim recalled that when Appellant was attacking her, she told Ms. Walker to grab her son and get out of the living room. Id. at 66. Mr. Jones testified that the Victim, her son, and Ms. Walker were in th e living ro om during the attack, and he was concerned for the Victim’s son when he realized Appellant was stabbing the Victim “because [her son] was right there.” Id. 76

- 77. The evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth established that Appellant recklessly engaged in conduct

— stabbing the Victim in close proximity to her three

- year old child and Ms. Walker, which placed them in danger of death or serious bodily injury. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to establish both REAP counts , and App ellant’s challenge to these conviction s is meritless.J

- S54039

- 19

- 13

-

Issue 2: Sentencing In his second issue, Appellant challenge s the discretionary aspects of his sentence, asserting that his sentence is “manifestly unreasonable” and “unduly harsh.” Amended Anders Br. at 8 (unpaginated). A challenge to discretionary aspects of a sentence is not reviewable as a matter of right. Commonwealth v. Leatherby , 116 A.3d 73, 83 (Pa. Super. 2015). Rather, an a ppellant must invoke this Court’ s jurisdiction by, inter alia , pre serving a challenge at sentencing or in a post

- sentence motion. Id. “Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or in a motion to modify the sentence imposed.” Commonwealth v. Griffin , 65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa. Super. 2013). Here, Appellant did no t preserve this challenge at his sentencing hearing or thereafter in a Post

- Sentence Motion. Accordingly, he has waived any challenge to discretionary aspects of his sentence. When an ap pellant fails to raise an issue before the trial court and has, thus, waived the issue on direct appeal, the courts consider that issue “frivolous” for purposes of an Anders analysis. Commonwealth v. Tukhi , 149 A.3d 881, 888

- 89 (Pa. Super. 2016); Commonwealth v. Kalichak , 943 A.2d 285, 291 (Pa. Super. 2008). Accordingly, we agree with counsel that Appellant's discretionary aspects of sentencing challenge raised in counsel's Anders Brief is frivolous.J

- S54039

- 19

- 14

-

Issue 3: Newly Discovered Evidence In his third issue, Appellant purports to raise a claim of newly discovered evidence . Amended Anders Br. at 8 (unpaginated)

. Appellant asserts that after trial, his grandmother informed him that the Victim had been fired from her job as a sales person, which contradic ted her testimony that she had quit her job. Id. Therefore, he contends that this evidence would compel a different verdict. Id. at 9. A claim of newly discovered evidence m ay be raised for the first time on appeal. Commonwealth v. Rivera , 939 A.2d 355, 358 (Pa. Super. 2007). To warrant relief, newly discovered evidence must: (1) not have been obtained before the conclusion of the trial by reasonable diligence; (2) not be merely corroborat ive or cumulative; (3) not be used solely for purposes of impeachme nt; and (4) be of such a nature and character that a different outcome is likely. Id. at 359. In his Anders Brief, counsel fails to set forth the newly discovered evidence four

- prong test. See Amended Anders Br. at 8

- 9 (unpaginated). Nevertheless, counsel acknowledges that new evidence used only for the purpose to impeach credibility does not warrant relief as newly discovered evidence. Id. at 9. We agree that Appellant’s claim does not warrant relief because his alleged new evidence would be used solely for the purpose to impeach theJ

- S54039

- 19

- 15

-

Victim’s credibility

. Rivera , supra at 359. Accordingly, this claim has no
merit. Conclusion Additionally, our independent review of the record does not reveal any

non - frivolous arguments available to Ap pellant. Thus, we agree with counsel
t hat this appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s
Petition to Withdraw as Counsel and affirm Appellant’ s Judgment of Sentence. Judgmen t of Sentence affirmed. Counsel’ s Petition to Withdraw as Counsel granted.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 2/26/2020