J-A03005-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

HENRY SCOTT BAYNARD

Appellant No. 1273 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 26, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-31-CR-0000418-2013

BEFORE: MUNDY, J., STABILE, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED APRIL 21, 2015

Appellant, Henry Scott Baynard, appeals from the June 26, 2014 

judgment of sentence of 15 to 30 months’ imprisonment imposed after a 

jury found him guilty of one count of aggravated assault of a corrections 

officer.1 After careful review, we affirm.

The trial court has set forth the relevant factual history of this case as 

follows.

On June 23, 2013, Appellant was an inmate at 

the State Correctional Institution of Smithfield 

(SCIS) located in Smithfield Township, Huntingdon 

County, Pennsylvania. He was housed on A wing of 

A block.

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(3).
J-A03005-15

- 2 -

Corrections Officer (CO) Steven Friedenberger 

testified he was working the 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. 

shift on June 23 and was assigned to A wing of A 

block. He reported that at or around 11:00 a.m. he 

and two (2) other officers prepared the inmates to 

go to the chow hall. The procedure at SCIS, he said, 

was for inmates to move in a line to and from 

different locations of the institution. That morning, 

he said, he was in the control bubble where he could 

operate and open doors. After the inmates on A 

wing were lined up, a bell rang and Mr. 

Friedenberger said he opened the door that led from 

the block. That morning, he testified, [Appellant] 

held the door so that the line and the other two (2) 

officers could exit the block. After everyone was 

through the door, the witness said he saw Sgt. 

Guyton say something to [Appellant] who then 

closed the door to the block. Then he said he saw 

[Appellant] turn and punch Sgt. Guyton in the face 

with a closed fist. C.O. Friedenberger [testified] that 

he called the control center at SCIS for assistance.

C.O. Timothy Myers testified that he too was 

assigned to A wing that morning. He corroborated 

that during the process of running chow lines at 

noon, he saw the assault on Sgt. Guyton. He said 

that [Appellant] was holding the door from the block 

open, and that after the line and he and Sgt. Guyton 

went through, he gave [Appellant] two (2) direct 

orders to close the door. [Appellant], he said, did 

not comply. Sgt. Guyton, he said, then ordered the 

door closed and when [Appellant] refused, the 

Sergeant told him to “just take it back in” which was 

an order for [Appellant] to return to his cell. 

[Appellant], he said, slammed the door shut, took 

two (2) or three (3) steps, and then turned and hit 

Mr. Guyton in the head. The witness testified that 

he hooked the left arm of [Appellant] and that he 

and Sgt. Guyton took him down and handcuffed him.

Sgt. Gail Guyton testified in accord with the 

first two (2) witnesses. He however added that 

when ordered to close the door [Appellant] 
J-A03005-15

- 3 -

responded “you’re not burning my cellee from 

eating.” Likewise, he said, when he ordered 

[Appellant] to return to his cell, Mr. Baynard said to 

him “you’re not burning me from eating.” 

[Appellant], he said, struck him in the face with a 

closed fist, and, as C.O. Myers became involved 

struck him again in the area of his eye. Sgt. Guyton 

testified that while he and C.O. Myers were taking 

him down, [Appellant] repeatedly hit him.

Photographs taken by the medical staff at SCIS 

were placed into evidence. The photographs 

depicted injury to Sgt. Guyton’s face.

[Appellant] testified and candidly admitted 

hitting Sgt. Guyton twice on June 23, 2013. 

However, he testified that he did so “out of the belief 

that he would do some harm to me because of his 

demeanor and choice of words.” He explained that 

he was holding the door open after the line had 

passed through for his cellmate who had missed 

breakfast and just gotten out of the shower. He 

repeated that he hit Sgt. Guyton the first time 

because he was afraid, and he hit him again because 

“it didn’t look like it phased him at all.”

The jury deliberated fifteen (15) minutes 

before returning its verdict. [Appellant] was 

sentenced [on] June 26, 2014, to pay the costs and 

to undergo imprisonment in a state correctional 

Institution for not less than fifteen (15) months or 

more than thirty (30), months. The sentence was 

ordered to run consecutively to any sentence or 

sentences that [Appellant] was serving.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/28/14, at 2-4 (internal citations omitted).

Appellant did not file any post-sentence motions. On July 25, 2014, 

Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal. Counsel was appointed, and 

on August 21, 2014, counsel filed a timely concise statement of errors 
J-A03005-15

- 4 -

complained of on appeal in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 1925.2

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for our review.

[W]hether the evidence presented to the jury at trial 

was sufficient to establish each and every element of 

the offense of [a]ggravated [a]ssault[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 3.

Appellant argues that there are “three possible mental states that may 

support [a] conviction of the crime of [a]ggravated [a]ssault.” Id. at 7. 

Specifically, Appellant divides his argument into sections addressing attempt 

to cause injury, intentional injury, and knowing injury. Id. at 7-11. The 

crux of Appellant’s argument is that he never intended to hurt Sergeant 

Guyton, but rather he struck him out of the belief that Sergeant Guyton 

would do some type of harm to Appellant. Id. at 8. 

We begin by noting our well-settled standard of review. “In reviewing 

the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether the evidence presented 

at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light 

most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, support the 

jury’s verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 

91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Patterson v. 

____________________________________________

2 On August 1, 2014, the trial court ordered said Rule 1925(b) statement 

filed within 21 days. On August 28, 2014, the trial court filed its Rule 

1925(a) opinion.
J-A03005-15

- 5 -

Pennsylvania, --- S. Ct. ---, 2015 WL 731963 (2015). “The 

Commonwealth can meet its burden by wholly circumstantial evidence and 

any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is to be resolved by the fact finder 

unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no 

probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.” 

Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108, 113 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted), appeal denied, 95 A.3d 277 

(Pa. 2014). As an appellate court, we must review “the entire record ... and 

all evidence actually received[.]” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). “[T]he trier 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.” Id. (citation omitted). “Because evidentiary sufficiency is

a question of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review 

is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Diamond, 83 A.3d 119, 126 (Pa. 2013) 

(citation omitted), cert. denied, Diamond v. Pennsylvania, 135 S. Ct. 145 

(2014).

Instantly, Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault. A person 

commits aggravated assault if he “attempts to cause or intentionally or 

knowingly causes bodily injury to any of the officers, agents, employees or 

other persons enumerated in subsection (c), in the performance of duty[.]” 

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(3). Subsection (c)(9) includes an “[o]fficer or 

employee of a correctional institution, county jail or prison, juvenile 
J-A03005-15

- 6 -

detention center or any other facility to which the person has been ordered 

by the court....” Id. § 2702(c)(9). 

Additionally, intent is usually proven by inference through 

circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Fortune, 68 A.3d 980, 984 

(Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc), appeal denied, 78 A.3d 1089 (Pa. 2013). “In 

determining whether intent was proven from such circumstances, the fact 

finder is free to conclude the accused intended the natural and probable 

consequences of his actions to result therefrom.” Commonwealth v. 

Bruce, 916 A.2d 657, 661 (Pa. Super. 2007) (quotation marks and citation 

omitted), appeal denied, 932 A.2d 74 (Pa. 2007).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth 

as the verdict-winner, we agree with the trial court that the evidence 

supports Appellant’s conviction for aggravated assault. In its Rule 1925(a) 

opinion, the trial court concluded as follows.

In this case, the burden on the Commonwealth 

was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 

[Appellant] either caused or attempted to cause 

bodily injury to Gail Guyton who was at the time of 

the offense engaged in the performance of duties as 

a corrections officer. Also, it was the burden of the 

Commonwealth to prove that [Appellant] acted 

intentionally or knowingly if he caused bodily injury 

or intentionally if he attempted to cause bodily 

injury.

The testimony of the four (4) trial witnesses 

established beyond a reasonable doubt each of the 

elements of this crime. If there was any doubt about 

[Appellant]’s state of mind, the following testimony 

eliminated that doubt:
J-A03005-15

- 7 -

[A.D.A.]

Q. How many times did you strike Sergeant 

Guyton?

[Appellant]

A. Well I hit him once, and, you know, it didn’t 

look like it phased him at all. As I told you 

before, I didn’t want to get hurt. So I hit him 

again. After that C.O. Myers grabbed me, you 

know, took me to the ground. That was it.

N.T., [5/13/14, at 68-69].

Trial Court Opinion, 8/28/14, at 6-7.

The trial court’s reasoning is supported by the record, and the trial 

court was free to conclude Appellant intended the natural and probable 

consequences of his actions when he purposefully struck Sergeant Guyton. 

Bruce, supra. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s June 26, 2014 

judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/21/2015