Court Opinion

ID: 9945865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 17:11:38.658181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:16.469628
License: Public Domain

J-S02042-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  JULIAN ROSEMARIE BAILEY                      :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 190 EDA 2023

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 17, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-39-CR-0003007-2021

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

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                       FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2024

       Julian Rosemarie Bailey appeals from the May 17, 2022 judgment of

sentence of two years’ probation, with six months to be served on house arrest

with electronic monitoring, imposed after a jury found her guilty of simple

assault and the summary offense of harassment.1 After careful review, we

affirm the judgement of sentence.

       The trial court summarized the relevant facts of this case as follows:

              On June 21, 2021, at approximately 1:24 PM, Officer
              Michael Godfrey of the Whitehall Township Police
              Department responded to Fellowship Manor for a
              report of an assault. When Godfrey arrived, he spoke
              with Jorge Cuenca, Vice President of Nursing[.]
              Cuenca advised the officer that one of their residents,
              Alfred Fruhwirth, was assaulted by one of their
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a)(1) and 2709(a)(1), respectively.
J-S02042-24

              Certified Nursing Assistants (“CAN”). The CNA was
              identified as [Appellant].

              Officer Godfrey spoke with a witness, Audrey Davis,
              who indicated she and [Appellant] were attempting to
              change Mr. Fruhwirth’s catheter when Fruhwirth
              became combative.        She stated she was near
              Fruhwirth’s leg area changing the catheter, and
              [Appellant] was attempting to hold Fruhwirth down.
              Davis stated that while she was changing the catheter,
              she observed [Appellant] strike Fruhwirth in the head
              twice with her foot.

              At [Appellant’s] trial, Ms. Davis testified unequivocally
              that she saw [Appellant] kick Mr. Fruhwirth in the
              head twice. [Appellant] denied the allegations.

Trial court opinion, 4/13/23 at 2

       Appellant proceeded to a jury trial before the Honorable James T.

Anthony on April 12, 2022. Following a two-day trial, Appellant was found

guilty of simple assault and the summary offense of harassment. As noted,

Appellant was sentenced to two years’ probation, with six months to be served

on house arrest with electronic monitoring, on May 17, 2022. Appellant filed

a post-sentence motion which was denied by the trial court on December 13,

2022. This timely appeal followed on January 12, 2023.2

       Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

              [I.]   Whether the verdict was against the weight of
                     the evidence when the Commonwealth
                     presented evidence that was so seriously
                     lacking any creditability to shock one’s sense of
                     justice[?]

____________________________________________

2 Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

                                           -2-
J-S02042-24

Appellant’s brief at 4.

      This Court has recognized that “a true weight of the evidence challenge

concedes that sufficient evidence exists to sustain the verdict but questions

which evidence is to be believed.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 172 A.3d 632,

643 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 183 A.3d 970 (Pa.

2018). “An allegation that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is

addressed to the discretion of the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Galvin,

985 A.2d 783, 793 (Pa. 2009) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1051

(2010).

            [W]here the trial court has ruled on the weight claim
            below, an appellate court’s role is not to consider the
            underlying question of whether the verdict is against
            the weight of the evidence. Rather, appellate review
            is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused
            its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.

Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 40 A.3d 1250, 1253 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citation

omitted).

            Because the trial judge has 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 judge when
            reviewing a trial court’s determination that the verdict
            is against the weight of the evidence. One of the least
            assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial
            is the lower 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.

            This does not mean that the exercise of discretion by
            the trial court in granting or denying a motion for a
            new trial based on a challenge to the weight of the
            evidence is unfettered. In describing the limits of a

                                     -3-
J-S02042-24

            trial court’s discretion, we have explained[,] [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 judge. Discretion must be exercised on the
            foundation of reason, as opposed to prejudice,
            personal motivations, caprice or arbitrary actions.
            Discretion is abused 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.

Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (citations and

emphasis omitted).

      Upon review, we find that the trial court properly exercised its discretion

in concluding that the jury’s verdict was not against the weight of the

evidence. See trial court opinion, 4/13/23 at 2-3. “[T]he trier of fact while

passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence

produced,   is   free   to   believe   all,   part   or   none   of   the   evidence.”

Commonwealth v. Andrulewicz, 911 A.2d 162, 165 (Pa.Super. 2006)

(citation omitted), appeal denied, 926 A.2d 972 (Pa. 2007).

      Here, the jury heard testimony from eyewitness Davis that Appellant

kicked the elderly victim in the forehead multiple times, resulting in an injury

that was plainly observable by Officer Godfrey upon his response to the scene.

See notes of testimony, 4/13/22 at 27, 128-130. The jury clearly found the

testimony presented by the Commonwealth credible and elected not to believe

Appellant’s version of the events. Appellant essentially asks us to reassess

                                        -4-
J-S02042-24

the factfinder’s credibility determinations. We are precluded from reweighing

the evidence and substituting our judgment for that of the factfinder. Clay,

64 A.3d at 1055. Accordingly, Appellant’s weight claim must fail.

     Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 2/28/2024

                                    -5-