J-S34011-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
TERRANCE L. BROWN :
:
Appellant : No. 1267 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 24, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-22-CR-0003627-2018
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 15, 2020
Terrance L. Brown appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on
June 24, 2019, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County. A jury
convicted him of strangulation and simple assault,1 but acquitted him of
attempted murder, aggravated assault, and terroristic threats.2 The trial court
sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 3 to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Contemporaneous with this appeal, Appellant’s counsel has filed a
petition to withdraw from representation and an Anders brief.3 See Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2718(a)(1) and 2701(a)(1), respectively.
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901, 2702(a), and 2706, respectively.
3On March 11, 2020, the Commonwealth informed this Court it would not file
a brief in this matter.
J-S34011-20
A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981). The two issues addressed in the Anders brief are
challenges to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. After a thorough
review of the submissions by the parties, relevant law, and the certified
record, we affirm and grant counsel’s application to withdraw.
We take the underlying facts and procedural history in this matter from
the trial court’s October 7, 2019 opinion and our independent review of the
certified record.
The testimony at trial revealed the following facts. [R.H.]
(“victim”) and Terrance Brown (“Appellant”) started a relationship
in 2015. They lived together for a short period of time and had a
sexual relationship together. On June 9, 2018[,] the victim and
the Appellant were drinking and having fun. They decided to
spend the night together at a local hotel, the Red Roof Inn
(“hotel”). While at the hotel, the victim and the Appellant began
to argue and it turned into a physical confrontation. The victim
testified that the Appellant grabbed her neck and [choked] her
while she was sitting on the bed. The victim was knocked off the
bed and into the wall and was [choked], hit, and kicked. At this
point, the victim went into the bathroom and called her mom. The
Appellant went for food, while the victim was in the bathroom, and
when the Appellant returned, he busted through the bathroom
door and started arguing with the victim again. The Appellant
grabbed the victim by her throat and held her underwater. The
victim testified that the Appellant had a foot on her chest and his
hands around her throat. Additionally, the victim testified that the
Appellant told her he was “gonna kill me.”
The victim got out of the bathtub, got dressed, and went back out
to the room where the fighting continued. The Appellant punched
the victim in her eye and her jaw. The victim went back into the
bathroom and got into the tub a second time. During this second
encounter in the bathroom, the Appellant held the victim by the
throat underwater and would not let go. The victim was unable to
breath and blacked out. After this, the victim messaged her
mother to call the police. The victim’s mother called the front
desk and the front desk attendant went and knocked on the room
where the victim and Appellant were. Once the victim answered
-2-
J-S34011-20
the door, she left the hotel and walked to her sister’s place. In
the morning, the victim woke up and called the police. She went
down to the police station and took some pictures. Finally, the
victim testified that she did not want to go to the hospital because
she was embarrassed and had lasting headaches due to her
injuries sustained.
Police Officer Dominic Payne, a patrolman with the Swatara
Township Police Department, was dispatched on June 10, 2018[,]
to [interview] the victim. When Officer Payne first arrived, he
observed injuries to the victim’s face, arm, and neck and back
area. He also took follow up pictures of the incident. The victim’s
mother also briefly testified that she got a text to call the cops and
that her daughter sounded upset. Finally, the Commonwealth
briefly introduced the testimony of the victim’s niece who testified
that she was about to go pick up the victim from the hotel but the
victim was already at her house. She testified that the victim
looked bruised and generally described the injuries that she saw.
The [d]efense offered the testimony of the front desk attendant
at the Red Roof Inn, Shawn Slaughter. Mr. Slaughter testified
that he received a call and went to knock on the door. When he
knocked on the door, Mr. Slaughter testified that the victim told
him that everything was OK and that he could not see any injuries
or tell if the victim was crying. He also testified that she shut the
door and did not leave. On cross-examination, Mr. Slaughter
indicated that he was convicted and found guilty of a prior
burglary. The Appellant also testified on his own behalf. He
described how he and the victim met on Facebook and generally
what he did on the day of the incident. The Appellant testified
that the victim alleges, at some point, that he cheated on her and
an argument ensues and that he planned on ending the
relationship. The Appellant also testified that the victim tried to
grab the mounted television and that he had to hold her back.
Furthermore, the Appellant testified that the victim broke the
dresser and kept hitting herself with the dresser drawer. Next,
the Appellant testified that he broke through the bathroom door
and found the victim sitting in the tub with the toilet lid on her
lap. The Appellant testified that when he reached for the toilet lid,
it slipped and hit the victim on the chin.
Trial Court Opinion, 10/07/19, at 2-4 (record citations omitted).
-3-
J-S34011-20
After hearing the evidence, the jury convicted Appellant of the charges.
On June 24, 2019, following receipt of a pre-sentence investigation report, the
trial court sentenced Appellant. On July 5, 2019, Appellant filed a post-
sentence motion to modify his sentence. The trial court denied the motion on
July 22, 2019. The instant timely appeal followed.4
Preliminarily, we note when counsel files a petition to withdraw and
accompanying Anders brief, we must first examine the request to withdraw
before addressing any of the substantive issues raised on appeal. See
Commonwealth v. Bennett, 124 A.3d 327, 330 (Pa. Super. 2015). Here,
our review of the record reveals counsel has substantially complied with the
requirements for withdrawal outlined in Anders and its progeny.
Specifically, counsel requested permission to withdraw based upon her
determination the appeal is “wholly frivolous and without merit,” Application
for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel, 3/10/20, at 2, filed an Anders brief
pursuant to the dictates of Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361
(Pa. 2009), furnished a copy of the Anders brief to Appellant and advised him
of his right to retain new counsel or proceed pro se.5 See Commonwealth
v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1032 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc). Moreover,
____________________________________________
4In response to the trial court’s order, and after requesting and receiving an
extension of time, Appellant filed a timely Rule 1925(b) statement on
September 13, 2019. On October 7, 2019, the trial court issued an opinion.
5 See Application for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel, 3/10/20, at 2-3.
-4-
J-S34011-20
our review of the record reveals no correspondence from Appellant responding
to the Anders brief. Accordingly, we will proceed to examine the issues
counsel identified in the Anders brief, and then conduct “a full examination
of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.”
Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1195 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en
banc).6
First, Appellant challenges the weight of the evidence. See Anders
Brief at 18-19. However, as counsel correctly notes, such a claim is wholly
frivolous because Appellant waived it. Id.
[A] challenge to the weight of the evidence must be preserved
either in a post-sentence motion, by a written motion before
sentencing, or orally prior to sentencing. Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A)(1)-
(3). “The purpose of this rule is to make it clear that a challenge
to the weight of the evidence must be raised with the trial judge
or it will be waived.” Comment to Pa.R.Crim.P. 607. If an
appellant never gives the trial court the opportunity to provide
relief, then there is no discretionary act that this Court can review.
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478, 491 (Pa. Super.
2014).
Commonwealth v. Jones, 191 A.3d 830, 834-835 (Pa. Super. 2018)
(footnotes omitted). Further, a party cannot raise an issue for the first time
in a Rule 1925(b) statement. Commonwealth v. Coleman, 19 A.3d 1111,
1118 (Pa. Super. 2011) (issues raised for first time in Rule 1925(b) statement
are waived).
____________________________________________
6 See also Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. 2018)
(en banc).
-5-
J-S34011-20
Here, Appellant did not raise the claim in his post-sentence motion or at
sentencing. See Motion to Modify Sentence, 7/05/19, at 2-3. Rather, he
raised the issue for the first time in his Rule 1925(b) statement. Concise
Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal Pursuant to Appellate Rule of
Procedure 1925(b), 9/13/19, at unnumbered page 2 Accordingly, we conclude
Appellant waived his weight of the evidence claim for failure to raise the issue
with the trial court, and we need not address it further.
Second, Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction for strangulation. See Anders Brief, at 19-25. Specifically, he
claims the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to establish that he
intentionally or knowingly impeded the breathing of the victim. See id., at 22.
Our standard of review of a sufficiency claim is well settled:
Our standard for evaluating sufficiency of the evidence is whether
the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth [as verdict winner], is sufficient to enable a
reasonable [factfinder] to find every element of the crime beyond
a reasonable doubt. [T]he entire trial record must be evaluated
and all evidence actually received must be considered, whether or
not the trial court's rulings thereon were correct. Moreover, [t]he
Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element
of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly
circumstantial evidence. Finally, the trier of fact, while passing
upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be afforded the
evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the
evidence.
Commonwealth v. Shull, 148 A.3d 820, 844 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation
omitted).
-6-
J-S34011-20
Here, as counsel correctly notes in the Anders brief, the offense of
strangulation is a relatively new one, which took effect on December 27, 2016.
Since that date, this Court has addressed the issue of the sufficiency of the
evidence for strangulation in three non-precedential memoranda,
Commonwealth v. Frasier, 1453 MDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Mar. 27, 2020);
Commonwealth v. Heinold, 288 WDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Dec. 12, 2019), and
Commonwealth v. Newfield, 3353 EDA 2018 (Pa. Super. May 10, 2019).
While this dearth of precedent allows for more room to argue the point, we
ultimately agree with counsel that a claim that the evidence in this case was
insufficient is wholly frivolous.
Appellant was guilty of strangulation if he “knowingly or intentionally
impede[d] the breathing or circulation of blood of another person by …
applying pressure to the throat or neck." 18 Pa.C.S.A. 2718. Here, the victim
testified to at least three separate incidents where Appellant applied pressure
to her neck. First, she stated that after Appellant struck her jaw, he grabbed
her neck and “choked” her. See N.T., Jury Trial, 5/6-8, 2019, at 67.
After that struggle ended, the victim took a bath. Appellant broke into
the bathroom, grabbed the victim by her throat again, and held her face
underwater. See id., at 72. As he grabbed her neck, Appellant told the victim
that he would kill her. See id., at 74. Once again, Appellant stopped himself
before killing the victim and walked out of the bathroom.
-7-
J-S34011-20
However, he subsequently returned to the bathroom and grabbed the
victim by her throat again. See id., at 79. And once again, he held her head
under the water. See id. The victim could not breathe. See id. Eventually,
she passed out. See id. When she awoke, Appellant was no longer in the
bathroom. See id.
The Commonwealth presented pictures of the victim's injuries from the
next day. In particular, the Commonwealth presented a picture that showed
bruising of the victim’s neck from her chin to her collarbone. See id., at 94.
If believed, this evidence was certainly sufficient to establish that
Appellant intentionally impeded the victim’s breathing by applying pressure to
her neck. Appellant grabbed her by the neck multiple times, threatened to kill
her, and applied enough pressure to leave her neck severely bruised. The jury
was entitled to infer that Appellant intended the pressure to the victim’s neck
to impede her breathing.
We agree with counsel's determination that the issues presented on
appeal are frivolous. Further, our review of the record reveals no other, non-
frivolous issues that Appellant could raise.
-8-
J-S34011-20
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/15/2020
-9-