Com. v. Jiminez, K. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S26016-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. KRYSTAL JIMINEZ, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1349 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 3, 2012, In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, at Nos. CP-51-CR-0006114-2012; CP-51-CR-0006115-2012. BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN and FITZGERALD*, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED JULY 03, 2014 Appellant, Krystal Jiminez, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on December 3, 2012, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm. unconscious while wearing brass knuckles. Appellant was arrested and charged with burglary, criminal trespass, possessing an instrument of crime, possession of a prohibited offensive weapon, two counts of simple assault, two counts of recklessly endangering another person, and two counts of criminal conspiracy. On August 6, 2012, at the conclusion of a non-jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of all charges. ____________________ *Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S26016-14 On December 3, 2012, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of four years of probation. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion that was denied by operation of law on April 12, 2013. This timely appeal followed. On appeal, Appellant raises two issues: 1. Was not the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to to commit burglary and criminal trespass where the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [Appellant] was licensure or pr the owners of the home and currently reside there, and [Appellant] had previously lived in the house with those individuals? 2. Did not the trial court err as a matter of law and deny [Appellant] a fair trial when it allowed complainant Felicia Anthony to testify, as extrinsic impeachment evidence, about statements made to her by defense witness David Edens, where the Commonwealth did not confront the defense witness with the statements on cross-examination and the defense witness was not given an opportunity to explain or deny the statements, in direct violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 613(b)? evidence. When whether the evidence admitted at trial, as well as all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, are sufficient to support -2- all elements of J-S26016-14 Commonwealth v. Cox, 72 A.3d 719, 721 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Koch, 39 A.3d 996, 1001 (Pa. Super. 2011)). own judgment for that of the fact f When Cox, 72 A.3d at 721 (quoting Koch, 39 A.3d at 1001). The trial court, sitting as the finder of fact, was free to believe some, all, or none of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Hartle, 894 A.2d 800, 804 (Pa. Super. 2006). As noted above, Appellant also presents a challenge to the admissibility of evidence. The admissibility of evidence is within the sound decision concerning admissibility of evidence absent an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Flor, 998 A.2d 606, 623 (Pa. 2011). An abuse of discretion will not be found based on a mere error in judgment, but rather an abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court has reached a conclusion that overrides or misapplies the law, or where the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will. Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1140 (Pa. 2007). Upon review of the issues raised, the briefs of the parties, the certified thorough and well-crafted opinion entered on November 1, 2013 comprehensively outlines the relevant standards and law and correctly -3- J-S26016-14 directed to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of further proceedings in this matter. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/3/2014 -4-
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.
