Court Opinion

ID: 9393249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-09 18:07:30.446794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:51.966600
License: Public Domain

J-S13038-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    JANEENE S. SHAVERS                         :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2880 EDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 6, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-23-CR-0003151-2021

BEFORE:      NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                              FILED MAY 9, 2023

        Appellant, Janeene S. Shavers, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County following her

conviction at a non-jury bench trial on one count of harassment, 18 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 2709(a)(1). After a careful review, we affirm.

        The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: On December

14, 2020, Police Officer Robert T. Jones of the Chester Housing Police

Department in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, filed a criminal complaint

charging Appellant, who lived at *** Jeffrey’s Street in Chester, Pennsylvania,

with crimes in connection with incidents occurring on or about December 12,

2020, at *** Mosley Court in Chester, Pennsylvania. In the affidavit of

____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S13038-23

probable cause, Officer Jones noted the victim, Iyanna Stokes, reported

Appellant had repeatedly sent her text messages threatening to hurt her and

indicating she was going to destroy the victim’s vehicle. On September 29,

2022, Appellant, who was represented by counsel, proceeded to a bench trial.1

       At trial, Iyanna Stokes testified she was in a romantic relationship with

Appellant for a few months until the relationship became “toxic.”          N.T.,

9/29/22, at 7. Ms. Stokes testified she ended the relationship after an incident

where Appellant, who had loaned Ms. Stokes her car, called Ms. Stokes, cursed

at her, and demanded she immediately return the car. Id. at 8-9. When Ms.

Stokes returned to her house with Appellant’s vehicle, Appellant and she “got

into an argument and an altercation[, which] was the last straw.” Id. at 9.

       Thereafter, Appellant began texting Ms. Stokes, so Ms. Stokes blocked

Appellant’s telephone number. Id. Appellant then began texting from text

free apps, but Ms. Stokes never responded because she “was scared.” Id.

Screenshots of Appellant’s text messages were submitted into evidence as

Commonwealth exhibits.

       Commonwealth Exhibit 4 revealed a text message, which Appellant sent

to Ms. Stokes on December 11, 2020, at 7:25 p.m., indicating she was going

to “smoke” Ms. Stokes, and she should have “smoked” her when she had the

____________________________________________

1 Although the criminal complaint charged Appellant with harassment, 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 2709, and stalking, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709.1, the Commonwealth
indicated at trial that it was not proceeding on the stalking charge. N.T.,
9/29/22, at 5.

                                           -2-
J-S13038-23

chance. See Commonwealth Exhibit 4. Ms. Stokes testified she understood

“smoke” to mean “kill.” N.T., 9/29/22, at 11. The text message also indicated

that Appellant had observed Ms. Stokes’ car in front of Ms. Stokes’ residence.

See Commonwealth Exhibit 4. Appellant “thanked” Ms. Stokes for putting the

“car back in front of [her] crib” so Appellant could “damage” it such that Ms.

Stokes would “never be able to drive that” vehicle again. See Commonwealth

Exhibit 4. In the text message, Appellant informed Ms. Stokes she “hates”

her. See id.

         Commonwealth Exhibit 3 revealed a text message, which Appellant sent

to Ms. Stokes on December 12, 2020, at 1:17 a.m. The text message included

a self-photo of Appellant holding a set of keys. See Commonwealth Exhibit

3. Ms. Stokes testified the keys were a set of spare keys to her apartment.

N.T. 9/29/22, at 10.

         Ms. Stokes testified that, after she received the text message on

December 12, 2020, Appellant arrived at her apartment, banged on the door,

and broke her screen door. Id. at 13-15. Ms. Stokes did not let Appellant

inside of the residence.    Id. After Appellant retreated from her door, Ms.

Stokes left her residence for a brief time on December 12, 2020, and when

she returned, her apartment “was messed up.” Id. at 16. Ms. Stokes testified

she telephoned the police on December 12, 2020, to report the incidents. Id.

at 15.

                                      -3-
J-S13038-23

       On cross-examination, Ms. Stokes testified she never gave Appellant a

key to her home. Id. at 19. She testified she called the police after Appellant

sent her threatening text messages, as well as came to her home uninvited,

banged on the door, and broke her screen door on December 12, 2020. Id.

at 21-23. Defense counsel asked Ms. Stokes whether the police ever

generated a report in response to her phone call, and Ms. Stokes testified the

police generated a report. Id. at 22-23. She noted Appellant was obviously

charged with crimes by the police or she would not be testifying in court. Id.

       At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court indicated it would

take the matter under consideration and provide a verdict in open court on

October 6, 2022. On that date, the trial court found Appellant guilty of one

count of summary harassment and imposed a fine of $100.00.

       Appellant filed a timely counseled motion for reconsideration, which the

trial court denied on October 21, 2022. This timely appeal followed, and the

trial court directed Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. 2   Appellant

timely complied, and the trial court filed a responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion.

       On appeal, Appellant presents the following sole issue in her “Statement

of the Questions Involved” (verbatim):

       Whether the conviction and judgment of sentence for harassment
       must be vacated since the prosecution failed to establish the
____________________________________________

2We note that, pertaining to the contents of the trial court’s order, the order
complies in all respects with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3). Moreover, the certified
docket entries contain a notation indicating the order was properly served on
Appellant on November 21, 2022.

                                           -4-
J-S13038-23

       jurisdiction of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas to
       adjudicate this matter where it never proved at trial that any
       alleged conduct supporting the offense occurred within
       Pennsylvania’s borders?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

       Appellant’s claim is a challenge to the trial court’s subject matter

jurisdiction, which presents a question of law “for which our standard of review

is de novo.” Commonwealth v. Maldonado-Vallespil, 225 A.3d 159, 161

(Pa.Super. 2019). Our scope of review is plenary. Id. This Court may affirm

a judgment or verdict for any reason appearing of record. Commonwealth

v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 19 (Pa.Super. 2014).

       Relevantly, this Court has held:

       Section 102 of the Crimes Code provides in pertinent part:
              § 102. Territorial applicability
              (a) General rule.—Except as otherwise provided in this
              section, a person may be convicted under the law of
              this Commonwealth of an offense committed by [her]
              own conduct or the conduct of another for which [s]he
              is legally accountable if either:
              (1) the conduct which is an element of the offense or
              the result which is such an element occurs within this
              Commonwealth[.]
       18 Pa.C.S.A. § 102(a)(1).[3]
                                           ***
____________________________________________

3 “Although, by its terms, the statute refers to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania for purposes of applying territorially the [criminal laws], the
same considerations are applicable to determine in which county a [criminal]
case is to be tried.” Commonwealth v. Bradfield, 508 A.2d 568, 571
(Pa.Super. 1986).

                                           -5-
J-S13038-23

             For a county to exercise jurisdiction over a criminal case, an
      overt act involved in the crime must have occurred within that
      county. Commonwealth v. Bradfield, 508 A.2d 568, 571
      (Pa.Super. 1986)[(citation omitted)]. “While the Commonwealth
      bears the burden of proving facts sufficient to establish
      jurisdiction, it may rely upon circumstantial evidence to meet its
      burden.” [Id.]

Commonwealth v. Passmore, 857 A.2d 697, 709 (Pa.Super. 2004) (citation

omitted) (bold in original) (footnote added).

      Appellant’s sole argument is the Commonwealth failed to prove the

instant crime    of   harassment   occurred within Pennsylvania’s borders.

Appellant's Brief at 10. In support, she cites Maldonado-Vallespil, supra,

in which this Court held the record was silent regarding the location where the

theft of tools stored in a vehicle occurred, and, thus, the Commonwealth failed

to establish that any element of the crime of receiving stolen property

occurred in Pennsylvania. Id. at 162. Indeed, the Commonwealth conceded

as much in Maldonado-Vallespil.

      Appellant posits that, similar to Maldonado-Vallespil, the instant

record is devoid of evidence establishing that she committed the crime of

harassment against Ms. Stokes         within the    borders of Pennsylvania.

Appellant's Brief at 13.   Accordingly, she posits “[a]ny conclusion that the

Delaware County Court of Common Pleas had jurisdiction over [Appellant’s]

case would improperly rest on ‘conjecture and speculation.’” Id.

      The trial court rejected Appellant’s argument and relevantly indicated

the following:

                                      -6-
J-S13038-23

              [J]urisdiction in this matter was established by the record
       as a whole and through circumstantial evidence. The criminal
       complaint, which is part of the official court record, contains
       Appellant’s address, as well as the victim’s address, both of which
       are in Chester, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. See Police
       Criminal Complaint, dated 12/16/20. The [criminal] complaint
       was completed by Officer Robert T. Jones of the Chester Housing
       Police Department alleging Appellant violated the penal laws of
       the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at [***] Mosley Court
       Chester, PA, on December 12, 2020. Th[e] [trial] court can take
       judicial notice that Chester Housing Police Department responds
       to crimes that occur in their jurisdiction. This information,
       combined with Ms. Stokes’ testimony, establishes that the crime
       of harassment occurred in Delaware County. Ms. Stokes testified
       that she received the threatening texts from Appellant, who then
       showed up at her house on December 12, 2020, yelling profanities
       at her and banging on her door. Furthermore, Ms. Stokes testified
       that she called the police after Appellant showed up at her home.
       The agency who issued the summons in this matter was the
       Chester Housing Police Department, which is located in Delaware
       County and has special jurisdiction only in Chester[,
       Pennsylvania]. As such, [the trial] court was satisfied that the
       crime of harassment occurred in Delaware County thereby
       establishing jurisdiction.

Trial Court Opinion, filed 1/3/23, at 6-7.

       We agree with the trial court’s sound reasoning. In the case sub judice,

unlike in Maldonado-Vallespil, supra, the record is not silent concerning

where Appellant’s crime occurred. Here the trial court judge, sitting as the

finder of fact, examined the criminal complaint,4 heard the victim’s testimony,

____________________________________________

4To the extent Appellant suggests the trial court judge was not permitted to
consider the criminal complaint as evidence since it was not admitted as a trial
exhibit, we note Appellant did not present this issue in her court-ordered Rule
1925(b) statement. Thus, the evidentiary issue is waived. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4)(vii).

                                           -7-
J-S13038-23

and reviewed the exhibits. Based thereon, the trial court concluded Appellant,

as well as the victim, reside at separate addresses in Delaware County.

Moreover, the trial court properly concluded the evidence, including the

circumstantial evidence, sufficiently supports the holding that Appellant’s

harassment of Ms. Stokes occurred in Delaware County.

      Relevantly, the victim testified that, in the December 11, 2020, text

message, Appellant indicated she had observed Ms. Stokes’ vehicle in front of

her residence, she was going to damage the vehicle, and she was going to

“smoke” Ms. Stokes. See Commonwealth Exhibit 4. Further, in the December

12, 2020, text message, Appellant included a self-photo of herself holding Ms.

Stokes’ spare apartment keys.     Later that day, Appellant appeared at Ms.

Stokes’ front door, banged on it, and broke the screen door. After Ms. Stokes

left the residence, she returned to a “messed up” home. N.T., 9/29/22, at

16. As indicated supra, the criminal complaint listed the criminal incident as

occurring at *** Mosley Court in Chester, Pennsylvania, and the trial court

was free to conclude this was the victim’s address.

      Ms. Stokes confirmed she telephoned the police on December 12, 2020,

and the criminal complaint reveals Officer Jones of the Chester Housing Police

Department responded. The trial court drew the reasonable inference that

Officer Jones responded to crimes that occurred within his lawful jurisdiction.

See Passmore, supra. See also Commonwealth v. Schestok, No. 179

                                     -8-
J-S13038-23

EDA    2020,     241    A.3d    408     (Pa.Super.   filed   10/9/20)   (unpublished

memorandum).5

       Accordingly, we find no merit to Appellant’s claim, and we affirm the

judgment of sentence.

       Affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/9/2023

____________________________________________

5 We note Pa.R.A.P. 126(b), amended effective, May 1, 2019, provides that
non-precedential decisions of this Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited
for their persuasive value.

                                           -9-