J-S41039-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHAD ELLIS STEELE :
:
Appellant : No. 914 MDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 13, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-22-CR-0001215-2021
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED JULY 13, 2023
Chad Ellis Steele appeals from the April 13, 2022 judgment of sentence
of 2½ to 5 years’ imprisonment imposed after a jury found him guilty of
strangulation.1 After careful review, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
The trial court summarized the relevant facts of this case as follows:
On January 23, 2021, Natalie Marie Diaz (hereinafter,
“Ms. Diaz”), the victim’s stepmother, received a
message from the victim over Facebook Messenger.
The victim, Yashira Pacheco (hereinafter, “Ms.
Pacheco”), messaged Ms. Diaz that she would send
her a thumbs-up emoji through Messenger if she
needed help because she was having an argument
with the Appellant. Ms. Pacheco then called Ms. Diaz
screaming. Ms. Diaz could hear Ms. Pacheco and the
Appellant arguing over the phone. Ms. Diaz walked to
the Appellant’s home. She went to the side of the
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2718(a)(1).
J-S41039-22
home where she knew the Appellant’s bedroom was
located. She could hear Ms. Pacheco and the
Appellant screaming and yelling. She yelled to Ms.
Pacheco that she was there. Ms. Diaz could hear Ms.
Pacheco yelling at the Appellant to let her out of the
home. Ms. Diaz described that she could hear Ms.
Pacheco screaming then suddenly not screaming, as
if someone covered her mouth. She could hear
guttural utterances. Ms. Diaz told them that she was
going to call the police. The Appellant told her that
Ms. Pacheco was fine. No one would come to the door,
so Ms. Diaz called the police.
While on the phone with the police, Ms. Diaz saw Ms.
Pacheco run out of the home trying to catch her
breath. Ms. Diaz observed Ms. Pacheco hunched over
while gasping for air. Ms. Diaz took Ms. Pacheco to
her home for a few weeks after this incident. Ms. Diaz
described that Ms. Pacheco’s voice was very raspy and
it was difficult to understand what she was saying.
She had to wear turtlenecks to hide the bruises on her
neck from her 7-year-old daughter. After this
incident, Ms. Diaz heard the Appellant telling Ms.
Pacheco over the phone that she did not have to show
up to court in this matter.
On January 23, 2021, Officer Anthony Cummings
(hereinafter, “Officer Cummings”) responded to this
incident as a patrol forensics officer. Officer
Cummings received a briefing on the incident from the
responding officers. Officer Cummings photographed
the injuries to Ms. Pacheco. Officer Cummings
testified that Ms. Pacheco was very upset and
distraught. Officers were attempting to calm her
down. Once she was calm, Officer Cummings was
able to take her aside to photograph her injuries.
Officer Cummings photographed discoloration on Ms.
Pacheco’s neck near her trachea area. On the left side
of her neck, Officer Cummings photographed
discoloration near her hairline towards her jaw.
Officer Cummings also photographed injuries on the
Appellant that include minor scratches to his cheeks
and a scratch on the bridge of his nose. Officer
-2-
J-S41039-22
Cummings also photographed a bruise on the
Appellant’s sternum area.
Ms. Pacheco testified that she was with the Appellant
in his bedroom when they got into an argument with
each other. Ms. Pacheco called her parents to come
get her. During the argument, the Appellant became
angry with her and gripped her neck. Ms. Pacheco put
his hands around her throat. The Appellant placed his
hand around her throat a second time and held her
down on the bed. Ms. Pacheco kicked him off her. Ms.
Pacheco testified that the Appellant squeezed his hand
around her neck so that her breathing was affected
for a few seconds. The marks on her neck remained
for a few days. The Appellant sent Ms. Pacheco
several text messages following the incident. The first
message stated, “Do not sit with the district attorney,
bitch, only with my attorney, the public defender.”
Another message from May 13, 2021, stated, “I don’t
control karma. It is a law of reality. Karma is balance.
I’m sorry, but you just have to be patient and earn my
trust back. That’s all I wanted. But, like I said, you
lack discipline, and patience is part of discipline. They
are really going to try to fuck me over with this
situation. I just need you to retract your statement. I
will pay your fine. Just, please, listen.
Patricia Carey (hereinafter, “Ms. Carey”), the
Appellant’s grandmother, testified that this incident
took place in her home. On the night of the incident,
she heard the Appellant yelling, “Stop it.” She went
to his bedroom and observed the Appellant holding
Ms. Pacheco down on the bed by her wrists while
yelling at her. She testified that she did not see his
hands around her neck. She testified that she heard
Ms. Pacheco yell, “Mommy.”
Trial court opinion, 5/11/23 at 2-4 (citations to notes of testimony omitted).
On January 18, 2022, Appellant proceeded to a jury trial in connection
with this incident and was subsequently found guilty of one count of
strangulation. As noted, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 2½ to 5 years’
-3-
J-S41039-22
imprisonment on April 13, 2022. On April 22, 2022, Appellant filed a timely
post-sentence motion that was ultimately denied by the trial court on June 15,
2022. This timely appeal followed on June 22, 2022.2
On July 5, 2022, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal in accordance with Rule 1925(b),
within 21 days. Appellant, who is represented by counsel,3 attached a concise
statement to his appellate brief which was timed-stamped as filed with the
Superior Court Middle District on July 19, 2022. See Appellant’s brief at
Exhibit A. However, our review of the certified docket in this matter reveals
that Appellant’s counsel failed to properly file a concise statement with the
Dauphin Country Clerk of Courts.
On August 17, 2022, the trial court issued a “Statement in Lieu of
Opinion” requesting that this matter be remanded in accordance with Rule
1925(c)(3), and indicating it would not be filing a responsive opinion until
directed to do so by this Court. Trial court opinion, 8/17/22 at 1. On January
12, 2023, this Court remanded this case back for the filing of a Rule 1925(b)
____________________________________________
2 Although Appellant purports to appeal “from the Judgment of Sentence
imposed on June 15, 2022,” and counsel attached the June 15, 2022 order
denying Appellant’s post-sentence motion to the docketing statement, the
record clearly indicates that the sentence was imposed on April 13, 2022. We
remind counsel that “[i]n a criminal action, appeal properly lies from the
judgment of sentence made final by the denial of post-sentence motions.”
See Commonwealth v. Shamberger, 788 A.2d 408, 410 n.2 (Pa.Super.
2001) (en banc), appeal denied, 800 A.2d 932 (Pa. 2002).
3 Sarah Lockwood, Esq.
-4-
J-S41039-22
statement and a responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion. That same day, Appellant’s
counsel filed a timely Rule 1925(b) concise statement on his behalf. On May
11, 2023, the trial court filed its responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion.
Appellant now raises the following issues for our review:
1. [Whether t]he evidence presented by the
Commonwealth was insufficient to sustain the
weight of a verdict of guilty on the strangulation
charge[?]
....
2. [Whether t]he Commonwealth violated Brady
v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v.
United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) by
withholding that the alleged victim had a
material witness bail placed on her four days
prior to the trial[?]
Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement, 1/12/23 at 1 (conclusionary sentences
omitted).
Appellant first argues that the jury’s verdict was not supported by the
weight of the evidence. Specifically, Appellant contends:
a. The testimony of Commonwealth witness
Yashira Pacheco, who appeared reluctant
to testify, did not outweigh the testimony
of [Appellant’s] grandmother who stated
that she heard yelling and when she
entered the bedroom, she did not see
[Appellant] with his hands around Ms.
Pacheco’s neck.
b. Ms. Pacheco’s testimony in general was
uncredible, as she was reluctant.
-5-
J-S41039-22
c. Moreover, Ms. Pacheco provided
conflicting information at trial from her
previous statement to police.
Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement, 1/12/23 at 1; see also Appellant’s brief
at 12.
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
-6-
J-S41039-22
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
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, 5/11/23 at 5-6. “[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 multiple Commonwealth witnesses
regarding Appellant’s strangulation of the victim, including the responding
-7-
J-S41039-22
forensics officer, Officer Anthony Cummings, and Pacheco herself.
Specifically, Pacheco testified that on the day in question, Appellant held her
down on the bed, placed a hand on her neck, and squeezed so hard that her
breathing was affected. Notes of testimony, 1/18/22 at 51-57. Officer
Cummings, in turn, testified that he photographed the discoloration on
Pacheco’s neck after the incident. Id. at 38-39. The jury clearly found the
testimony of the Commonwealth’s witnesses credible and elected not to
believe the subsequent version of the events presented by Appellant’s
grandmother, Patricia Carey. See id. at 84-89. 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.
Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in failing to conclude that
the Commonwealth violated Brady and Giglio by withholding that Pacheco
had a material witness warrant placed on her four days prior to trial.
Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement, 1/12/23 at 1; see also Appellant’s brief
at 9-11. For the foregoing reasons, we disagree.
Our Supreme Court has recognized that “[t]he crux of the Brady rule is
that due process is offended when the prosecution withholds material evidence
favorable to the accused.” Commonwealth v. Reid, 259 A.3d 395, 420 (Pa.
2021) (citation omitted). A violation of Brady or Giglio requires that the
Commonwealth “intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence which was
-8-
J-S41039-22
material to the issues to be tried or evidence which materially undermines the
credibility of a key prosecution witness.” Commonwealth v. Mulholland,
702 A.2d 1027, 1033 (Pa. 1997). Thus, to establish a violation under Brady
and its progeny, a defendant must prove that:
(1) the evidence at issue was favorable to the
accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it
impeaches; (2) the prosecution has suppressed the
evidence, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) the
evidence was material, meaning that prejudice must
have ensued.
Commonwealth v. Bagnall, 235 A.3d 1075, 086 (Pa. 2020) (citation
omitted).
Upon review, we discern no error on the part of the trial court in
concluding that Appellant has failed to establish a violation under Brady or
Giglio. Instantly, the record reflects that prior to the commencement of
Appellant’s jury trial, the Commonwealth had a material witness warrant
placed on Pacheco based upon her reluctance to testify against Appellant. The
existence of this material witness warrant was not in any way suppressed by
the Commonwealth and was freely available to the parties on the Unified
Judicial System of Pennsylvania web portal. Nor did the existence of a
material witness warrant affect the credibility of Pacheco’s first-hand account
of Appellant’s violent strangulation of her on the day in question. Accordingly,
Appellant has failed to establish a violation of Brady or Giglio and his claim
of error is without merit.
-9-
J-S41039-22
For all the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Appellant’s April 13, 2022
judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 07/13/2023
- 10 -