Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered June 20, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-46-SA-0000048-2013
BEFORE: ALLEN, JENKINS, and FITZGERALD [*] , JJ.
Andrea George ("Appellant") appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after the trial court found her guilty of harassment. We affirm.
The pertinent facts are as follows: On July 26, 2012, Daniel Michael Collins, who resides at 618 Burton Road, Oreland, Pennsylvania, was in his driveway when Appellant turned her car so that it faced his driveway, pointed a laser light at him, and sounded her horn for approximately fifteen minutes. N.T., 6/20/13, at 5-8. Thereafter, on August 23, 2012, while Mr. Collins was standing at a neighbor's house talking with neighbors, Appellant appeared at a second floor window and screamed that "she was going to get a gun and kill [them] all." Id. at 9-10; Trial Court Opinion, 9/16/13, at 16-17.
Appellant was subsequently arrested and charged with harassment and disorderly conduct. Following a hearing on December 21, 2012 in the magisterial district court, Appellant was found guilty of both offenses. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on January 18, 2013, and the record was transmitted to the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. A bench trial commenced on June 20, 2013, at the conclusion of which the trial court found Appellant guilty of harassment and not guilty of disorderly conduct. The trial court sentenced Appellant to pay a fine of $100 plus costs. This appeal followed. Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant presents one issue for our review:
Did the trial court err when it found the evidence presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn from it, to be sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the crime of Harassment (S) under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(3) with respect to Appellant?
Appellant's Brief at 4.
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we are bound by the following:
We must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Where there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crime has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, the sufficiency of the evidence claim must fail.
The evidence established at trial need not preclude every possibility of innocence and the fact-finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented. It is not within the province of this Court to re-weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. The Commonwealth's burden may be met by wholly circumstantial evidence and any doubt about the defendant's guilt is to be resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is ...