J-S46037-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
ANTHONY ALEXANDER, :
:
Appellant : No. 645 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 15, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007265-2012
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JULY 26, 2016
Anthony Alexander (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered following his convictions for simple assault and recklessly
endangering another person (REAP). Upon review, we affirm.
Appellant was convicted of the aforementioned crimes following a jury
trial on September 11, 2013, based on his involvement in an altercation
among Appellant, his girlfriend, and several other women. He was
sentenced to an aggregate term of four years of probation. Appellant timely
filed a notice of appeal to this Court, wherein he raises the following issue:
“Whether the verdict was insufficient as a matter of law to convict …
Appellant of simple assault where the complaints [sic] antagonized and
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S46037-16
attacked … Appellant and he acted in self-defense and in the defense of
others?” Appellant’s Brief at 5 (unnecessary capitalization omitted). 1
Our standard when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is
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. We may
not weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the
fact-finder. Additionally, the evidence at trial need not preclude
every possibility of innocence, and the fact-finder is free to
resolve any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt unless the
evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no
probability of fact may be drawn from the combined
circumstances. When evaluating the credibility and weight of the
evidence, the fact-finder is free to believe all, part or none of the
evidence. For purposes of our review under these principles, we
must review the entire record and consider all of the evidence
introduced.
Commonwealth v. Trinidad, 96 A.3d 1031, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(citation omitted).
Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his
simple assault conviction because “the evidence indicated that [he] was
acting in his defense and in the defense of his girlfriend.” Appellant’s Brief
at 10. Appellant presents the following in further support of his argument:
In the instant matter, … Appellant’s girlfriend testified that
they were attacked by the four women when they were walking
back from a bar and only acted to protect themselves. The
women on the other hand, lied about drinking, were under age
drinking, confused major details about the crime and refused
medical treatment. Only one of the wom[e]n had visible injuries
and there was great contradiction about how that injury was
1
We observe that the trial transcripts are missing from the certified record.
However, given the nature of Appellant’s claim as discussed below, their
absence does not hamper our review.
-2-
J-S46037-16
sustained. There was insufficient evidence to convict …
Appellant of simple assault as a matter of law and the conviction
should be overturned.
Id. at 11 (citation omitted).
Although Appellant purports to challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence, a review of his argument reveals that he is merely challenging the
credibility and weight determinations made by the jury. It is well settled,
however, that “it is the province of the trier of fact to pass upon the
credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded the evidence, and the
factfinder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence.”
Commonwealth v. Koehler, 914 A.2d 427, 436 (Pa. Super. 2006). “As an
appellate court, we do not assess credibility nor do we assign weight to any
of the testimony of record.” Commonwealth v. Trippett, 932 A.2d 188,
194 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted). Thus, no relief is due on this
basis. See Trippett, 932 A.2d at 194 (“As our Court cannot assess the
credibility of witnesses and Trippett does not provide any other argument to
support his assertion, we find no merit in his sufficiency claim ….”);
Koehler, 914 A.2d at 437 (explaining that “the jury clearly disbelieved [the
appellant’s] defense theories … and there exists no reason to disturb the
jury’s determination on appeal”).
Appellant has failed to establish that the evidence was insufficient to
support his conviction for simple assault. Accordingly, we affirm his
judgment of sentence.
-3-
J-S46037-16
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
P.J.E. Bender joins.
Judge Ott concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/26/2016
-4-