Opinion
J-S70003-15 No. 3360 EDA 2014
12-18-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. ALEX MOODY, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 24, 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0006293-2012 BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Alex Moody, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his jury conviction of aggravated assault. Appellant challenges the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence supporting his conviction, and the trial court's jury instruction on reasonable doubt. We affirm.
This case arises from Appellant's beating of his then girlfriend, during which Appellant, who is a bodybuilder, repeatedly punched, slapped, and choked her. In its April 20, 2015 opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the factual and procedural history of this case. ( See Trial Court Opinion, 4/20/15, at 1-7). Therefore, we have no reason to restate them here.
There is a typographical error in the court's opinion, stating that Appellant filed his notice of appeal on December 11, 2014; the docket reflects that Appellant timely filed it on December 2, 2014. ( See Trial Ct. Op., at 1; Criminal Docket, at 17).
On appeal, Appellant raises three issues for our review:
I. Is [Appellant] entitled to an arrest of judgment on the charge of [a]ggravated [a]ssault where the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict?(Appellant's Brief, at 3).
II. Is [Appellant] entitled to a new trial on the charge of [a]ggravated [a]ssault where[,] as here, the verdict was against the greater weight of the evidence?
III. Is [Appellant] entitled to a new trial as the result of the [t]rial [c]ourt's erroneous instruction on reasonable doubt?
In his first issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his aggravated assault conviction. ( See id. at 7-10). In his second issue, he challenges the weight of the evidence, arguing that the jury's verdict shocks one's sense of justice. ( See id. at 11-13). In his third issue, Appellant concedes that the court gave the jury "the appropriate definition of reasonable doubt[,]" ( id. at 13), but asserts that the court's additional instructions explaining the concept of reasonable doubt were inappropriate and confusing. ( See id. at 13-15). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude that Appellant's issues on appeal are meritless. The trial court properly disposes of the three questions presented. ( See Trial Ct. Op., at 7-12, 16-17 (finding: (1) the physical evidence and testimony of the witnesses, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, were sufficient to support Appellant's conviction for aggravated assault; the victim's injuries were consistent with being hit and choked and she had visible scarring and injuries for months after the beating; (2) the jury's verdict was not so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice; and (3) the court did not err in instructing the jury on reasonable doubt where it gave the standard instruction and the charge, read as a whole, adequately and accurately explained the law)). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Appellant preserved his weight claim by raising it in his post-sentence motion. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A)(3); ( see also Post-sentence motion, 10/29/14, at 1). "[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. Boyd , 73 A.3d 1269, 1275 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (citation omitted).
Although the trial court opinion addresses six issues, only the three aforementioned were raised before this Court on appeal.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/18/2015
Image materials not available for display.