Com. v. Ramos, J.

Opinion

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA

:

v. :

:

:

JOEL X. RAMOS :

:

Appellant : No. 1682 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 17, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002646-2024

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J. MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED AUGUST 25, 2026 Joel Ramos appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his convictions for simple assault and possessing an instrument of crime. 1 Ramos challenges the weight of the evidence. We affirm.

On January 23, 2024, Ramos and his next-door neighbors, Suleika Mateo and her 17-year-old brother, were arguing outside on their connected porches. N.T., 1/2/25, at 9-12. Mateo observed Ramos remove the Ring doorbell camera from his front door and enter a black pickup truck that was double-parked in front of his house. Id. at 11. After a few minutes, Ramos returned and began arguing with Mateo and her brother as they stood on their gated front porch. Id. at 12. Mateo’s mother, Wanda Rodriguez, was also present and stood on the porch steps. Id. at 12-13. When Ramos reached his

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a) and 907(a), respectively.

own porch steps, he hit Rodriguez with an empty plastic bucket in the back of the neck. Id. at 13. Ramos went inside his own house and came back outside with his two leashed pit bulls, then proceeded to bring the dogs inside the gated area of Mateo’s porch. Id. at 13, 16. Rodriguez’s boyfriend deployed pepper stray when Ramos moved to release the dogs, and then Ramos returned to his own house while Mateo called the police. Id. at 16. Ramos was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, criminal trespass, terroristic threats, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, and possession of an instrument of crime. 2 On January 2, 2025, a waiver trial was held. The Commonwealth called only Mateo and Rodriguez to testify as witnesses. Rodriguez testified that she went to a hospital following the incident when she returned to her residence in New York, but she did not have any medical records or photos of her injury, and she could not remember the name of the hospital where she sought treatment. Id. at 42-45. Rodriguez also testified that she continued to have discomfort from being hit by the bucket a year later. Id. at 43. On cross- examination, both women admitted that each had been convicted of retail theft; Mateo in 2017 and 2018, and Rodriguez in 2014. Id. at 25-26, 45. Mateo also acknowledged that on January 22, 2024, the day before the incident, Ramos got into an argument with the father of Mateo’s child, Hector

Arroyo-Medina, over a parking spot. Id. at 26-28. The altercation escalated

____________________________________________

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1), 3503(a)(1)(i), 2706(a)(1), 2701(a), and 907(a), respectively.

3

to where Arroyo-Medina pointed a gun at Ramos. Id. at 27. Mateo agreed that Arroyo-Medina was arrested and charged for pointing a gun at Ramos. Id. at 27-28. Mateo testified that the case against Arroyo-Medina was still an open case. Id. at 27.

The trial court granted Ramos’ motion for judgment of acquittal for aggravated assault. Id. at 51-53. The court found Ramos guilty of simple assault and possessing an instrument of crime, and not guilty of all other charges. Id. at 60.

On March 17, 2025, the court sentenced Ramos to one year of probation for each conviction to be served concurrently, along with a stay away order from Mateo and her family. Ramos filed a timely post-sentence motion and a supplemental post-sentence motion, which were denied. This appeal followed.

Ramos raises a single issue: “Where the Commonwealth’s witnesses were not credible and had a clear motive to fabricate their testimony at trial, did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Joel Ramos a new trial because the verdict was so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice?” Ramos’ Br. at 3.

Ramos’ issue challenges the weight of the evidence. Ramos asserts that the “verdict was so contrary to the evidence admitted that it shocks the conscience because the trial court convicted Ramos solely on the untrustworthy word of two witnesses who had a motive to fabricate their testimony and who had previously been convicted of crimen falsi.” Id. at 6. He argues that the two witnesses, Mateo and Rodriguez, had clear reason to

4

fabricate a story to get Ramos arrested because of the matter involving himself and Arroyo-Medina, the father of Mateo’s children. Id. at 10. Ramos points out that he was a complainant in an open case against Arroyo-Medina, and his “arrest and a potential conviction certainly would be helpful to Arroyo- Medina’s defense.” Id. Ramos further adds that the two witnesses had previously been convicted of crimen falsi and that these convictions revealed the witnesses’ character to fabricate testimony. Id. Ramos concludes that the trial court overlooked the witnesses’ reasons to fabricate testimony and their crimen falsi convictions, and therefore it shocks the conscience to allow these verdicts to stand. Id. at 11.

“We review a trial court’s order denying a weight challenge for an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Fallon, 275 A.3d 1099, 1107 (Pa.Super. 2022). Because the trial court heard the testimony firsthand, we must “give the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial court’s determination that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” Id. (citation omitted). A weight claim requires the defendant to first convince the trial court that “the evidence is so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the court.” Commonwealth v. Windslowe, 158 A.3d 698, 712 (Pa.Super. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This Court then reviews the trial court’s decision in this regard for an abuse of discretion. Id. Further, “[t]he weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of

5

the witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa. 2003) (citation omitted). “When the challenge to the weight of the evidence is predicated on the credibility of trial testimony, our review of the trial court’s decision is extremely limited.” Commonwealth v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254, 1262 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citation omitted). Further, previous crimen falsi convictions do not require that the fact-finder discredit a witness’s testimony. See Commonwealth v. Dunkins, 229 A.3d 622, 634 (Pa.Super. 2020) (holding the trial court properly exercised discretion in finding defendant’s conviction for robbery was not against the weight of the evidence, despite a witness’s admission of previously lying under oath).

Here, the trial court found that the verdicts were not against the weight of the evidence and that both Mateo and Rodriquez testified credibly. The court explained:

There was nothing “tenuous, vague, [or] uncertain,” . . .

about the evidence that [Ramos] assaulted Rodriguez and possessed an instrument of crime. Two witnesses, Mateo and Rodriguez, testified that [Ramos] swung a large bucket at Rodriguez and landed a hard blow on the back of her neck. This [c]ourt believed them. Both women gave detailed, specific accounts of what led up to the incident, where each person was standing, how [Ramos] swung at Rodriguez, and what he did afterwards. Each of them described the incident the same way throughout her time on the stand, whether she was being questioned by the Assistant District Attorney, defense counsel, or this [c]ourt.

Their accounts were consistent with each other. There was nothing rehearsed or practiced about their testimony;

indeed, each witness seemed prone to rambling and going off topic. If they had been lying about what happened, this [c]ourt believes they would not have been able to sustain that lie throughout their testimony.

6

Trial Court Opinion, filed 9/30/25, at 5 (citation omitted).

After reviewing the record, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in finding the verdicts did not shock the conscience. The court, as fact-finder, was free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented in judging the credibility of the witnesses and credited Mateo’s and Rodriquez’s testimony. Champney, 832 A.2d at 408. The record belies Ramos’ contention that the trial court failed to consider the witnesses’ reasons to fabricate testimony and their crimen falsi convictions. The court was clearly aware of those considerations and weighed them accordingly. No relief is due.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 8/25/2026