Full Opinion

J-S32045-26 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : AMIN A. ALLEN : : Appellant : No. 2886 EDA 2025 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 30, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006843-2023 BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 21, 2026 Amin Allen appeals from the judgment of sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County after the trial court convicted Appellant of criminal trespass, theft by unlawful taking, and criminal mischief. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his criminal trespass conviction. We affirm. After being charged with the aforementioned offenses, Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded to a bench trial held on April 4, 2025. The trial court aptly summarized the background of this case as follows: At trial, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of three victims, Syretta Wilbanks, Bernadette Williams, and Ashid Wilbanks. [Appellant’s] mother, Fatima Thomas, testified on behalf of the defense. … ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S32045-26 Syretta Wilbanks and her mother, Bernadette Williams, were co-owners of a row home on the 800 block of West Wellens St. in Philadelphia. In June of 2023, while the house was undergoing renovations, Ms. Wilbanks typically stayed overnight at the house about twice a week. Around that time, Ms. Williams visited the house on a weekly basis. On June 20, 2023, during one of her visits to the house, Ms. Williams noticed that certain items appeared to be missing from the home, including a microwave and a case of water. Ms. Williams called Ms. Wilbanks to report her concerns. Soon after, Ms. Wilbanks arrived at the home together with her husband, Ashid Wilbanks, and noticed that the television was missing and the house’s back door had been kicked in. Ms. Wilbanks also observed a wire running from outside of the house into an electrical socket in the kitchen. She followed the wire to the house’s back porch, where she observed a bed, clothing, and other items that indicated that someone had been staying there. Ms. Wilbanks then went back inside the home and closed the door behind her. Ms. Wilbanks and her husband walked upstairs to the second floor, where they discovered that computers, cameras, and studio equipment were missing. While upstairs, they heard Ms. Wilbanks’s mother screaming from downstairs. Ms. Williams had begun screaming because she saw [Appellant] enter the kitchen by forcing open the closed door that led to the back porch. Mr. and Mrs. Wilbanks quickly ran downstairs and found [Appellant] standing in the kitchen. Ms. Wilbanks was familiar with [Appellant] because [Appellant] had lived next door to the house as a child. [Appellant] told Ms. Wilbanks that [Appellant’s] mother had recently moved out of the house next door, that he had nowhere to go, and that he was using electricity from Ms. Wilbanks’s house. Ms. Wilbanks testified that [Appellant] did not have permission to be in her home or to use her home’s electricity. Mr. Wilbanks asked [Appellant] about items that were missing from the home. At first, [Appellant] responded by just shaking his head. Later, [Appellant] told Mr. Wilbanks that the computer monitors were in the back. Mr. Wilbanks went outside and saw two monitors on the back porch, resting on top of a third monitor that had been destroyed. Mr. Wilbanks also asked [Appellant] about the missing camera and studio equipment, but -2- J-S32045-26 [Appellant] became quiet and repeated that he put the monitors in the back. At some point while Mr. Wilbanks was asking [Appellant] about the other missing items, [Appellant] responded, “My bad.” Mr. Wilbanks had seen the missing items inside the home earlier that same week. Mr. Wilbanks also had secured the house before leaving it several days before the incident on June 20, 2023. Mr. Wilbanks estimated the value of the two missing computers to have been $3,000 to $4,000 each and the value of a missing recording machine for digital audio tapes to have been $5,000 to $6,000. Ms. Wilbanks estimated that the value of the missing TV, microwave and the computers to have been around $5,000. Trial Court Opinion (T.C.O.), 1/5/26, at 2-3 (citations omitted). We also note that the defense presented the testimony of Fatima Thomas, Appellant’s mother, who claimed the home in question was abandoned as she had observed squatters moving in and out of the house for several years. Thomas explained that the garage of the residence was in a state of disrepair, which allowed easy access to the house. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), Trial, 4/4/25, at 84-85. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court convicted Appellant of criminal trespass, theft by unlawful taking, and criminal mischief. On June 30, 2025, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of three to six months’ incarceration followed by one year of reporting probation. The trial court also ordered Appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $405.52. On July 10, 2025, Appellant filed post-sentence motions which the trial court denied on November 3, 2025. -3- J-S32045-26 On November 5, 2025, Appellant filed a timely appeal. Appellant subsequently complied with the trial court’s direction to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant raises one issue for our review, claiming there was insufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s criminal trespass conviction. Our standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence challenge is well established: 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. ... Finally, the finder 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. Jones, 271 A.3d 452, 457–58 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citations omitted). The standard of review for a sufficiency claim is de novo and the scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Neysmith, 192 A.3d 184, 189 (Pa. Super. 2018). Specifically, Appellant claims that the Commonwealth failed to show he demonstrated the mens rea required for a criminal trespass conviction as there was insufficient evidence to prove Appellant “knew he was not licensed -4- J-S32045-26 or privileged to enter a property he reasonably believed was abandoned[.]” Appellant’s Brief, at 2. Appellant was charged with criminal trespass pursuant to Section 3503(a)(1)(ii) of the Crimes Code which provides that a person commits criminal trespass “if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he …breaks into any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3503(a)(1)(ii). Section 3503(c) provides that it is a defense to a prosecution of a criminal trespass charge to argue that the “building or occupied structure involved in an offense under subsection (a) of this section was abandoned.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3503(c)(1). This Court has clarified that “a building that has been abandoned is one that is wholly forsaken or deserted.” Commonwealth v. Henderson, 419 A.2d 1366, 1367 (Pa. Super. 1980). See also Commonwealth v. Goldsborough, 426 A.2d 126, 127 (Pa. Super. 1981) (finding that a home should not be deemed abandoned until its owner or inhabitant “has been gone from the premises for a sufficiently long period of time so that his intention not to return may be inferred”). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the record contains ample evidence to show that the property in question had not been abandoned. First, Ms. Williams and Ms. Wilbanks testified that they were frequented the home on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Ms. Wilbanks indicated that as the home renovations were limited to the first-floor of the home, she was able to stay in an upstairs bedroom that contained a bed and -5- J-S32045-26 working bathroom facilities. Second, the home was still connected to utilities: electricity, water, and heat; if a property had been abandoned, the utilities would have been disconnected due to lack of payment. Third, the trial court found that Mr. Wilbanks credibly testified that he had secured the house several days before the incident that occurred on June 20, 2023. As such, in order to enter the home, an individual would have to break through a secured door. Lastly, the home contained valuable items that would not be ordinarily left in an abandoned home. We also agree with the trial court’s finding that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to show that Appellant knew he was not licensed or privileged to enter the residence and that Appellant’s “contention that he had a mistaken belief that the property had been abandoned is unreasonable and wholly inconsistent with the evidence presented at trial.” T.C.O. at 4-5. Given that the trial court found the victims had credibly testified that they frequented the property on a weekly basis, Appellant could not show the victims had a prolonged absence from the property showing that they did not intend to return. Appellant knew the property had been secured from outside entry given that Appellant had to break through a door in the home in order to gain access. Ms. Williams testified that she observed Appellant enter the kitchen by forcing open the closed door that led to the back porch. When the victims confronted Appellant about his reasons for being in the home, Appellant did not indicate that he thought the property was abandoned but merely indicated that he had nowhere else to go as his mother had moved out -6- J-S32045-26 of the house next door. Further, Appellant knew that the property still had working electricity as he admitted to using this electricity by running a wire from outside of the house into an electrical socket in the kitchen. We acknowledge that Appellant argues that the trial court should have found that the property was abandoned as Appellant’s mother testified that the house was commonly occupied by squatters and was in a state of disrepair. However, it was the province of the trial court, as the finder of fact, to make credibility determinations and weigh the evidence; the factfinder may believe all, part or none of the evidence. Jones, supra. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support Appellant’s convictions. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Date: 10/21/2026 -7-