argument is meritless in that it is premised upon her faulty interpretation of the relevant statutes and, in particular, her argument that, as an owner of Bouta, she could not be convicted of conspiracy to commit cruelty to animals since she was permitted to kill Bouta for any reason or no reason. Therefore, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the deadly weapons enhancement to increase Kneller’s sentence. ¶ 17 Affirmed. ¶ 18 CLELAND, J. files a Concurring Opinion. ¶ 19 BOWES, J. joins the Majority and the Concurring Opinion by Judge CLELAND. 1 . To be more specific, Kneller was convicted of conspiracy under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903 to commit cruelty to animals under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5511(a)(2.1)(i)(A). 2 . See Commonwealth v. Lambert, 795 A.2d 1010 (Pa.Super.2002) (<HOLDING>). 3 . In her brief, Kneller continues to argue
holding that a conspiracy is an agreement to commit an illegal act into which the defendant knowingly and voluntary enters and which is manifested by an overt act holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators holding that a prosecution for a criminal conspiracy may be brought in the county where the unlawful combination is formed or in any county where the overt act is committed by any of the conspirators in furtherance of the unlawful confederacy holding criminal conspiracy is sustained where the commonwealth establishes the defendant entered into an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person with a shared criminal intent and an overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy a coconspirator may commit the overt act and conspirators are liable for acts of the coconspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy recognizing requirement that defendant conspired to commit an overt act in state in furtherance of the conspiracy