Opinion
J-A28041-15 No. 2849 EDA 2014
12-14-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. JESSICA M. OAKES, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 5, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006574-2013 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, and SHOGAN, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.:
Appellant, Jessica M. Oakes, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on June 5, 2014. We affirm.
Following a physical altercation with another woman on June 13, 2012, Appellant was charged with, inter alia, aggravated assault and possession of an instrument of crime. A jury trial was held on March 27-28, 2014 where Appellant was found guilty of the above-referenced charges. A presentence investigation report was ordered. Appellant was sentenced on June 5, 2014, to two and one-half to five years of incarceration at a state correctional institution. Additionally, Appellant was ordered to pay court costs and to complete a graduate equivalency degree ("GED").
Appellant filed a post-sentence motion on June 5, 2014, which was denied by operation of law on October 6, 2014. On October 8, 2014, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant was directed to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Appellant complied and the trial court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
Appellant presents the following issues for our review, which we reproduce here verbatim:
We note that the issues raised in Appellant's brief are identical to the issues raised in her Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
1. Whether a new trial must be ordered because the court - contrary to the well-established law of Pennsylvania - abused its discretion by precluding Ms. Oakes from offering evidence of the alleged victim's tumultuous character (specifically evidence of an additional fight at a Chinese restaurant and a social media profile wherein the complaining witness described herself as "sweet as candy but hard as ice") during trial for the purpose of proving that the victim was the first aggressor and for the purpose of impeaching the complaining witness, all of which violated Ms. Oakes' rights to confrontation and to present a complete defense.
2. Whether a new trial must be ordered because the court abused its discretion when it denied counsel's reasonable request for a very brief continuance because his character witness' child had a medical emergency and unexpectedly became unavailable to offer character evidence.
3. Whether a new trial must be ordered because the Court abused its discretion by denying counsel's request for a jury instruction on the law of inconsistent statements (i.e., that the jury may consider an inconsistent statement for the truth of the matter asserted) where the inconsistent statement at issue concerned a material element of the justification defense.
4. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence because there was uncontradicted testimony that the complaining witness pulled Jessica Oakes from her bike and began attacking her, the foreman of the jury stated that the jury did not believe that Ms. Oakes meant to harm the victim, and the Commonwealth failed to sustain its burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.Appellant's Brief at 11-12.
5. Whether the evidence was insufficient to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt because there was uncontradicted testimony that the complaining witness pulled Jessica Oakes from her bike and began attacking her, the foreman of the jury stated that the jury did not believe that Ms. Oakes meant to harm the victim, and in any event the Commonwealth's witnesses were so incredible and contradictory that no probability of fact can be reasonably drawn from their testimony.
Upon review of the issues raised, the credibility determinations made by the trial court, the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable legal authority, we conclude that the trial court's thorough and well-crafted opinion entered on March 12, 2015, comprehensively and correctly disposes of Appellant's issues. Accordingly, we affirm Appellant's judgment of sentence, and we do so based on the trial court's opinion. The parties are directed to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of further proceedings in this matter.
We note some discrepancy in the trial court's opinion regarding the date of the incident at issue in this case. Several times in its opinion the trial court references the date of the incident as June 5, 2012. As the testimony at trial reveals, however, the altercation took place on June 13, 2012. N.T., 3/27/14, at 29, 69, 120.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judge Panella joins the memorandum.
P.J. Gantman concurs in the result. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/14/2015
Image materials not available for display.