J-S81035-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

GABRIEL ISHAM PITTMAN,

Appellant No. 958 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 24, 2017

in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-54-CR-0000718-2016

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., STABILE, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED MARCH 08, 2018

Appellant, Gabriel Isham Pittman, appeals pro se,

1

from the judgment 

of sentence imposed following his jury conviction of aggravated assault 

against a police officer and simple assault.

2

 We affirm.

We take our factual and procedural history in this matter from our 

review of the certified record. On November 10, 2015, Appellant, an inmate 

at State Correctional Institute (SCI) Mahanoy, punched Lieutenant Jeffrey 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 On January 31, 2017, after an extensive colloquy, the trial court granted 

Appellant’s request to proceed pro se and appointed standby counsel for 

Appellant’s jury selection and trial only. (See Order, 1/31/17; Waiver of Right 

to Counsel, 1/31/17).

2 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(2) and 2701(a)(1) respectively. At the 

conclusion of trial, the court found Appellant guilty of summary harassment. 

See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1). 
J-S81035-17

- 2 -

Banks, a corrections officer at SCI Mahanoy, after Lieutenant Banks asked him 

to leave the prison dining hall. (See N.T. Trial, 4/04/17, at 24-27). On April 

28, 2016, the Commonwealth filed an information charging Appellant with 

aggravated assault of a correctional officer, simple assault, and summary 

harassment. Appellant did not file a request for a bill of particulars, or a 

request to quash the information. After a jury trial was conducted on April 4, 

2017, Appellant was convicted on all counts. 

On May 24, 2017, the trial court sentenced Appellant to not less than 

six nor more than twelve years of incarceration for aggravated assault and a 

concurrent sentence of not less than forty-five nor more than ninety days of 

incarceration for summary harassment.3 This timely appeal followed.4

Appellant presents one question on appeal:

1. Was the trial court devoid of subject matter jurisdiction where 

the Commonwealth filed a fatally defective bill of information 

which failed to formally and specifically charge facts of alleged 

misconduct constituting the charged statutory offenses, 

thereby depriving [Appellant] of rights under the Sixth and 

Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution?

(Appellant’s Brief, at 2) (most capitalization omitted).

In his sole issue on appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court lacked 

subject matter jurisdiction over him because the criminal information in this 

____________________________________________

3 The court properly found that the simple assault merged with the aggravated 

assault for sentencing.

4 Appellant filed his statement of errors complained of on appeal, together 

with his notice of appeal, on June 14, 2017. The trial court entered its opinion 

on August 24, 2017. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
J-S81035-17

- 3 -

matter was insufficient. (See id. at 6-11). Specifically, he argues that the 

information was insufficient because it “merely charges all counts in language 

tracking the statutory definitions of each statutory offense” and did not include 

facts alleging the particulars of the incident. (Id. at 6; see id. at 6-7). 

Therefore, he claims he did not have notice of the nature and cause of the 

accusation against him, and the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We 

disagree. 5

Appellant’s challenge to the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction 

presents a question of law over which our standard of review is de novo. See 

Commonwealth v. Seiders, 11 A.3d 495, 496–97 (Pa. Super. 2010) 

(“Jurisdiction is purely a question of law; the appellate standard of review is 

de novo and the scope of review plenary.”) (citation omitted).

“[T]he Pennsylvania Supreme Court [has] held that subject matter 

jurisdiction require[s] both that the court be competent to hear the case and 

that the defendant be provided with a formal and specific accusation of the 

crimes charged.” Commonwealth v. Hatchin, 709 A.2d 405, 408 (Pa. 

____________________________________________

5 The trial court in this matter found that Appellant waived his challenge to 

the sufficiency of the criminal information by failing to request that the 

information be quashed via an omnibus pre-trial motion. (See Trial Court 

Opinion, 8/24/17, at 2-4). Although we agree that a challenge to an 

information must be raised in an omnibus pre-trial motion, see 

Commonwealth v. Martin, 694 A.2d 343, 344 (Pa. Super. 1997), Appellant 

is claiming that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over him. 

“[C]hallenges to subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived.” 

Commonwealth v. Jones, 929 A.2d 205, 210 (Pa. 2007) (citation omitted). 

Nevertheless, we may affirm the decision of the trial court on any grounds. 

See Commonwealth v. Gatlos, 76 A.3d 44, 62 n.14 (Pa. Super. 2013).
J-S81035-17

- 4 -

Super. 1998), appeal denied, 727 A.2d 128 (Pa. 1998) (citation and quotation 

marks omitted). “[A] criminal information satisfies the constitutional 

requirements, under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution 

and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, that a defendant be 

given formal, specific notice of the charged crimes.” Commonwealth v. 

Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 356 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal denied, 936 A.2d 40 

(Pa. 2007) (citation omitted).

The purpose of an Information or an Indictment is to provide 

the accused with sufficient notice to prepare a defense, and to 

ensure that he will not be tried twice for the same act. An 

Indictment or an Information is sufficient if it sets forth the 

elements of the offense intended to be charged with sufficient 

detail that the defendant is apprised of what he must be prepared 

to meet, and may plead double jeopardy in a future prosecution 

based on the same set of events. This may be accomplished 

through use of the words of the statute itself as long as those 

words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any 

uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to 

constitute the offense intended to be punished. 

Commonwealth v. Chambers, 852 A.2d 1197, 1199 (Pa. Super. 2004), 

appeal denied, 871 A.2d 188 (Pa. 2005) (citations and quotation marks 

omitted); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 560(B).

Here, the Information charges that Appellant:

. . . on or about Tuesday, the 10th day of November, 2015, in the 

said County of Schuylkill: 

COUNT 1: AGGRAVATED ASSAULT—POLICE OFFR., ETC. –

(FELONY 1)

did attempt to cause, or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly did 

cause serious bodily injury to Jeffrey Banks, a Lt. at SCI Mahanoy, 

while in the performance of duty, all of which constitutes 

Aggravated Assault—Police Officer, Etc., in violation of Section 
J-S81035-17

- 5 -

2702(a)(2) of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, Act 75(1), eff. 

August 31, 1996, [(]18 Pa.C.S. Section 2702(a)(2)[)].

COUNT 2: SIMPLE ASSAULT – (MIDSEMEANOR 2)

did attempt to cause, or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly did 

cause bodily injury to another, namely, Lt. Jeffrey Banks, all of 

which constitutes Simple Assault, in violation of Section 

2701(a)(1) of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, Act of December 6, 

1972, [(]18 Pa.C.S. Section 2701(a)(1)[)].

COUNT 3: HARASSMENT — (SUMMARY)

with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another, namely Lt. 

Jeffrey Banks, did unlawfully strike, shove, kick, or otherwise 

subject the person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens 

to do the same, all of which constitutes Harassment, in violation 

of Section 2709(a)(1) of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, Act of 

December 6, 1972, as amended, [(]18 Pa.C.S. Section 

2709(a)(1)[)].

* * *

All of which is against the Act of Assembly and the peace 

and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

(Information, 4/28/16). The trial court observed that the information, which 

was signed by the District Attorney, “contains a proper caption, the date of 

the offense, the county where the offense took place, a plain and concise 

statement of the essential elements of each offense, and a proper concluding 

statement. It also contains the citations for each of the statutes violated.” 

(Trial Ct. Op., at 3-4). 

Upon review, we conclude that, through the criminal information, the 

Commonwealth provided Appellant with a formal and specific accusation of 

crimes charged. See Hatchin, supra at 408. The information fully set forth 

the elements of the offenses charged with sufficient detail. See Chambers, 
J-S81035-17

- 6 -

supra at 1199; see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 560(B). Therefore, Appellant’s 

challenge to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction is meritless. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 03/08/2018