Opinion
J-S79043-17 No. 1923 EDA 2016
12-19-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ELLIOTT QUIJANO Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 19, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012987-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, Elliott Quijano, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial conviction of attempted criminal trespass We affirm.
The docket and other paperwork in this matter erroneously spell Mr. Quijano's surname as "Ouijano."
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3503, 901(a) related.
The trial court opinion fully sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no need to restate them. We add only that Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion on May 26, 2016, which the court denied on June 2, 2016, and Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on June 16, 2016. On June 17, 2016, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), which Appellant filed, after the grant of an extension, on December 23, 2016.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review.
WAS NOT THE EVIDENCE...INSUFFICIENT FOR [APPELLANT'S] CONVICTION FOR ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL TRESPASS, INSOFAR AS THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ANY INTENT TO ACTUALLY ENTER THE BUILDING?(Appellant's Brief at 4).
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, WAS NOT THE DETERMINATION OF GUILT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUCH A DEGREE AS TO SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE?
After a thorough review of the record, the brief of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Mia Roberts Perez, we conclude Appellants issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed February 03, 2017, at 1-6) (finding (1) evidence viewed in light most favorable to Commonwealth showed Appellant lacked permission to enter Mr. King's premises; Mr. King testified credibly that Appellant was not invited into Mr. King's residence on evening in question; Appellant's loud and disruptive attempt to enter Mr. King's home was foiled when Mr. King awoke and shooed Appellant away; testimony regarding Appellant's and Mr. King's prior disputes served only to advance conclusion that Appellant knew he had no license to enter Mr. King's property; court found Appellant's assertion, that he was simply trying to close Mr. King's window so Appellant's exercise on porch would not be disruptive, completely incredible and inconsistent with Mr. King's description of how Appellant's outstretched arms were positioned, palms facing up; Mr. King's account described Appellant's behavior as consistent with attempted entry into his house; (2) court decided as fact-finder to reject Appellant's version of events; verdict was not against weight of evidence).. Accordingly, we affirm based on that opinion.
Subsections (b.1)(1)(iv) and (b.1)(2) of Section 3503 Criminal Trespass, were declared unconstitutional in Leach v. Commonwealth , 636 Pa. 81, 141 A.3d 426 (2016) (holding those subsections violate single subject rule of Article III, Section 3 of Pennsylvania Constitution). The holding in Leach , does not affect our disposition because Appellant was convicted and sentenced under subsection (a)(1)(ii). --------
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/19/2017
Image materials not available for display.