J-S06007-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JOANILEE MONTANEZ,

Appellant No. 2454 EDA 2013

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 20, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009567-2010

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 09, 2015

Joanilee Montanez (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, imposed June 20, 

2013, following a jury trial resulting in his conviction for first-degree murder 

and related offenses. We affirm.

On October 31, 2009, following a verbal and physical altercation with 

several individuals, Brian Jubilee was shot in the chest and killed while 

outside a bar located at the corner of Rorer and Westmoreland Streets in 

Philadelphia, PA. Eyewitness testimony established that Appellant shot the 

decedent with a silver, “cowboy-style” gun. See, e.g., Notes of Testimony 

(N.T.), 6/18/2013, at 180-91. 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S06007-15

- 2 -

A jury trial commenced in June 2013. Following trial, the jury 

convicted Appellant of first-degree murder, two violations of the Uniform 

Firearms Act, and possessing instruments of crime.1 The trial court 

sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment without parole for the murder and 

three and one-half to seven years’ incarceration for the Uniform Firearms Act 

§ 6106(a)(1) violation. No further sentence was imposed for the remaining 

crimes. Appellant timely filed post-sentence motions, which the trial court 

denied. Appellant timely appealed and filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statement. The trial court filed a responsive opinion.

Appellant raises the following issues:

[1.] Was the evidence insufficient as a matter of law?

[2.] Was the verdict of this case against the weight of the 

evidence?

Appellant’s Brief, at 5.

Appellant purports to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence 

presented at trial. Appellant offers no analysis of any particular elements 

that comprise the charges against him.2 Rather, according to Appellant, 

____________________________________________

1 Respectively, 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(a), 6106(a)(1), 6108, and 907(a). 

2

For example, to prove murder of the first degree, the Commonwealth must 

establish: (1) that a human being has been unlawfully killed; (2) that the 

person accused did the killing; and (3) that the killing was done with malice 

aforethought, as well as with premeditation and deliberation. See 

Commonwealth v. Fox, 619 A.2d 327, 335 (Pa. Super. 1993); 18 Pa.C.S. 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S06007-15

- 3 -

[d]espite the testimony of several witnesses and despite their 

prior statements to detectives inculpating Appellant, the 

pedigree of the witnesses, the contradictions in their testimony, 

the conflicts between their trial testimony and purported 

statements to detectives leaves one less than convinced that the 

evidence was sufficient as a matter of law.

Appellant’s Brief, at 15-16.

We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in the 

following manner:

In determining whether there was sufficient evidentiary support 

for a jury's finding [], the reviewing court inquires whether the 

proofs, considered in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth as verdict winner, are sufficient to enable a 

reasonable jury to find every element of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt. The court bears in mind that: the 

Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of wholly 

circumstantial evidence; the entire trial record should be 

evaluated and all evidence received considered, whether or not 

the trial court's rulings thereon were correct; and the trier of 

fact, while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the 

weight of the evidence, is free to believe all, part, or none of the 

evidence.

Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873, 877 (Pa. 2008) (citations 

omitted).

Though labeled a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence 

presented at trial, Appellant merely attacks the credibility of the witnesses 

who testified. “[A]n attack on witness credibility ... [is] a matter far removed 

from the purview of an appellate court given the remote nature of our 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

§ 2502(a). However, Appellant neither identifies these elements nor argues 

how the evidence presented by the Commonwealth fails to establish them. 
J-S06007-15

- 4 -

review.” Commonwealth v. Barker, 70 A.3d 849, 855 (Pa. Super. 2013) 

(rejecting an attack on witness credibility in the context of a sufficiency 

challenge). No relief is due Appellant on this ground.

Appellant also asserts that the verdict was against the weight of the 

evidence. As with his sufficiency challenge, Appellant attacks the credibility 

of the witnesses against him.3 According to Appellant, 

[i]t can be well said that the fact witnesses were people who well 

[sic] not well acquainted with the truth. No reliable verdict could 

have been based on their testimony.

Appellant’s Brief, at 17.

A motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence concedes 

that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. See 

Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). It is 

“addressed to the discretion of the trial court.” Id. We may reverse the 

lower court’s verdict only “if it is so contrary to the evidence as to shock 

one’s sense of justice.” Commonwealth v. Lewis, 911 A.2d 558, 555 (Pa. 

Super. 2006). 

Here, Appellant’s bald contention that Commonwealth witnesses were 

not credible, perhaps referencing prior inconsistent statements admitted at 

____________________________________________

3

In support, Appellant cites Commonwealth v. Karkaria, 625 A.2d 1167 

(Pa. 1993). However, this case is inapposite. See Karkaria, 625 A.2d at 

1172 (Pa. 1993) (reversing judgment of sentence based on insufficiency of 

the evidence, not weight of the evidence).
J-S06007-15

- 5 -

trial for substantive purposes, does not rise to this level. See Lewis, 911 

A.2d at 566 (“[Q]uestions concerning inconsistent testimony ... go to the 

credibility of witnesses. This Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of 

the jury on issues of credibility.”) (citations omitted). No relief is due 

Appellant.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/9/2015