Com. v. Bailey (unpublished)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S77002-12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. JONATHAN L. BAILEY, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 3103 EDA 2010 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on October 25, 2010 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, No. CP-51-CR-0015810-2009 BEFORE: MUSMANNO, WECHT and PLATT*, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: Filed: January 24, 2013 Jonathan L. Bailey ( Bailey ) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his convictions of terroristic threats, criminal mischief, and criminal trespass. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2706(a)(1), 3304(a)(5), 3503(a)(1)(ii). We affirm. The trial court set forth the relevant underlying facts: On November 17, 2009, at approximately 1:00 a.m., April Collins [ Collins ] and her three children were asleep in her house at 5823 Crittenden Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Shortly after 1:00 a.m., [] Collins was awakened by her son, Isaiah [Collins], and she ran from her bed down to the second floor of the house. When [] Collins reached the second floor[,] she saw [Bailey] walking up the first floor stairs. [] Collins told [Bailey] to get out of the house, multiple times. [] Collins testified that [Bailey] responded that he just wanted to talk or something, then stated that he was going to burn the house down, you and your kids. Shortly [there]after, Officer [John] Crawford arrived at the house observing damage to the front door[,] which appeared to have *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S77002-12 been kicked in. [] Collins also testified that the screen door to the front entrance reflected damage, as if it were sliced open with a knife to unlock [the door]. Officer Crawford arrested [Bailey] inside [] Collins s house. Isaiah Collins, the son of [] Collins and [Bailey], testified that he was awoken by a banging, he thought to be kicking, on the front door. Isaiah Collins notified his mother and went to investigate, when he saw [Bailey] on the first floor steps. Once [Bailey] walked up the stairs, Isaiah Collins told [Bailey] to get his stuff and get out. [Bailey] had some articles of clothing inside the house. [Bailey] grabbed a shirt and said to Isaiah Collins, don t touch me or I ll poke you. Isaiah [Collins] felt threatened by this statement as he believed [Bailey] would stab him. Isaiah Collins testified that he told [Bailey] to get out about four times. [] Collins testified that [Bailey] had no permission to enter her house. She further testified that he had no key, had made no payments towards the house, and had never entered the house without permission previously. Trial Court Opinion, 4/3/12, at 2-3 (citations omitted). Bailey waived his right to a jury trial and was tried by the Honorable Roxanne E. Covington on October 28, 2010. Judge Covington found Bailey guilty of the above-mentioned crimes. Bailey was sentenced to one and one-half to three years in prison, to be followed by four years of intensive reporting probation under the Mental Health Unit. Bailey filed a timely Notice of appeal. The trial court ordered Bailey to file a Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) concise statement. Bailey filed a timely Concise Statement and the trial court issued an Opinion. On appeal, Bailey raises the following question for our review: Was not the evidence insufficient to sustain [Bailey s] conviction for criminal trespass where the Commonwealth failed to -2- J-S77002-12 establish that [Bailey] knew he was not privileged to be in a house in which he received mail, kept clothing and had been living for eight days prior to the incident? Brief for Appellant at 3.1 The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant s guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the 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. Brown, 23 A.3d 544, 559-60 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted). Bailey contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his criminal trespass conviction because he had been living in the home for eight days prior to the incident in question without any issue. Brief for Appellant at 8, 9, 11-12. Bailey argues that he had never been denied entry into the home and that he had not engaged in any argument with Collins regarding 1 We note that Bailey raised a claim regarding the trial court s denial of his Motion for a mistrial in his Concise Statement. However, Bailey has abandoned this claim on appeal. -3- J-S77002-12 his privileges for entering the home. Id. at 8, 9-10. Bailey concedes that he broke Collins s door, but asserts that this did not demonstrate that he was not privileged to enter the home. Id. at 8-9. Bailey claims that he was suffering from a bipolar disorder and that his frustration with no one answering his knocks on the door culminated with him forcing open the door. Id. at 9.2 Bailey further claims that his behavior upon entering the home, including walking up the steps and informing Collins that he wanted to speak with her, suggests that he was licensed to enter the home. Id. at 9, 12. Bailey contends that he proved the defense to trespass because he reasonably believed that the owner of the home, Collins, licensed him to enter the home. Id. at 9-10. Bailey argues that even if his belief was in error, it was a good faith mistake and is a defense to trespass. Id. at 11. Here, the trial court has addressed Bailey s claims on appeal and determined that they are without merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/3/12, at 4-6. We adopt the sound reasoning of the trial court for the purpose of this appeal. See id.; see also Commonwealth v. Thompson, 778 A.2d 1215, 1219 (Pa. Super. 2001) (concluding that evidence was sufficient to support criminal trespass conviction where credible testimony indicated that defendant entered the premises without permission and did not leave until the police arrived). 2 Bailey concedes that he did not have a key to the front door of the home. Brief for Appellant at 9. -4- J-S77002-12 As an addendum, we note that we are not persuaded by Bailey s argument that he should not have been convicted of criminal trespass since he reasonably believed that Collins provided him license to access the home. While such an affirmative defense exists under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3503(c)(3), we conclude that the trier of fact was free to disbelieve Bailey s version of the events. See Brown, 23 A.3d at 559-60 (stating that this Court must view all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the verdict winner, and that the fact-finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented). Similarly, the fact that Bailey had clothes at the home and that he had some mail delivered there does not undermine the verdict under the relevant standard of review. See id.; see also Commonwealth v. Andrews, 768 A.2d 309, 317 (Pa. 2001) (stating that while some evidence supported the defendant s sufficiency argument, an appellate court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact-finder). Furthermore, Bailey s claims that he did not have notice that he was not allowed in the home and that his entry into the home was a mistake due to his belief that he could enter the home do not demonstrate that the evidence was insufficient. Indeed, the fact that Bailey forced open the door indicates that he did not have license to enter the home. See Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910, 917 (Pa. Super. 2000) (stating that [b]oth license and privilege can be vitiated if induced by force, duress or deception of a kind sought to be prevented by -5- J-S77002-12 the law defining the offense. ); see also 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 311(c)(4). Here, the trial court was free to believe Collins s testimony that Bailey did not have permission to enter the home, that Bailey forced open the front door, that Collins repeatedly told Bailey to leave the home, and that Officer Crawford arrested Bailey inside of the home. See N.T., 7/28/10, at 16-20; see also id. at 33-37 (wherein Isaiah Collins testified that Bailey kicked in the front door, that Bailey did not have permission to enter the home, and that the police made Bailey leave the home). Thus, based upon the foregoing, the evidence was sufficient to support Bailey s criminal trespass conviction. Judgment of sentence affirmed. -6-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
