Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of May 16, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-28-CR-0002386-2012
BEFORE: MUNDY, OLSON AND STABILE, JJ.
Appellant, Holly Marie Schmidt, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on May 16, 2013, as made final by the denial of her post-sentence motion on May 29, 2013. We affirm.
The trial court accurately summarized the factual and procedural background of this case as follows:
On July 21, 2012, a domestic dispute occurred between [Appellant] and her estranged husband Ryan [Schmidt] at his home in Waynesboro. During the altercation, which occurred in the kitchen and living area of the home, [Appellant] punched Ryan [Schmidt] in the head multiple times. After Ryan [Schmidt] backed away from her, she threw miscellaneous kitchen items at him, including a vegetable grinder and a picnic basket. Ryan [Schmidt] swatted the projectiles away to keep them from hitting him. One of the items broke and shattered into pieces. Ryan [Schmidt] finally subdued [Appellant] as she raised a crockpot above her head to launch it at him. [Appellant and Ryan Schmidt's] two-year-old daughter, R.S., was standing near Ryan [Schmidt] during part of the altercation. [Appellant] claimed that the punching and throwing of objects never happened, but she did admit to striking him once in the face as she was attempting to leave the house.
[An information was filed on January 15, 2013 charging Appellant] with simple assault,  recklessly endangering another person ,  theft by unlawful taking,  and misdemeanor harassment. [A] jury found [Appellant] guilty of simple assault . . . . On May 16, 2013, the [trial c]ourt sentenced [Appellant] to 23 months of probation, and on May 2, 2013, [it] denied [Appellant's] written post-sentence motion. This [timely] appeal followed.
Trial Court Opinion, 8/26/13, at 1-2 (footnotes omitted).
Appellant presents two issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erred in denying [Appellant]'s post-sentence motion for judgment of acquittal by finding that the Commonwealth had established beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of simple assault . . . ?
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying [Appellant]'s post-sentence motion for a new trial by finding that the conviction was not against the weight of the evidence . . . ?
Appellant's Brief at 5.
Appellant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. "A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presents a question of law." Commonwealth v. Fortune, 68 A.3d 980, 983 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 78 A.3d 1089 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted). Therefore, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Felder, 75 A.3d 513, 515 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citation omitted). "In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must determine 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 all elements of the offense." Commonwealth v. Cox, 72 A.3d 719, 721 (Pa.Super. 2013), quoting Commonwealth v. Koch, 39 A.3d 996, 1001 (Pa.Super. 2011). "[T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence . . . . [T]he trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the ...