J-S43039-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

DERIACE STONE

Appellant No. 1677 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 3, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0002876-2014

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and JENKINS, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED JULY 15, 2016

Appellant Deriace Stone appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered on August 3, 2015 in the York County Court of Common Pleas 

following his bench trial convictions for aggravated assault (serious bodily 

injury), aggravated assault (with a deadly weapon), robbery, and conspiracy 

to commit robbery.1 We affirm.

The trial court sets forth the following factual and procedural history:

After midnight on March 20, 2014, James Paul Shickley 

(the “victim”) went to the Sheetz convenience store on 

South Queen Street, York County. (N.T. Trial, at 6.) The 

victim was carrying $800 to $900 in cash and paperwork 

from the department of transportation.1 Id. at 15. While 

at the Sheetz store, the victim briefly conversed with 

[Appellant] and his [girlfriend] Jessica Steininger. Id. at 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702(a)(1), 2702(a)(4), 3701(a)(1), and 903(c), 

respectively.
J-S43039-16

- 2 -

78. The victim left the store and went home. Id. at 53. 

Shortly thereafter, a white Honda pulled up to the victim’s 

house and beeped its horn. Id. at 7-8, 54[-55], 82. The 

victim identified the passenger as [Appellant]. Id. at 8[-

9]. The driver of the vehicle was Jessica Steininger. Id.

at 80. The victim exited the house and spoke with 

Steininger. Id. at 9. [Appellant] then exited the vehicle 

and approached the victim. Id. [Appellant] testified that 

he handed the victim a twenty-dollar bill in an effort to buy 

drugs, however, the victim contests that the encounter 

involved drugs. Id. at 15, [146-]147. The victim’s wife, 

Vonnie Shickley, testified that [Appellant] made 

statements indicating he was “going to roll” the victim. 

Id. at 55. [Appellant] then jumped on top of the victim. 

Id. The victim recalled kicking at [Appellant] as 

[Appellant] was cutting the victim’s jeans with a knife.2 

Id. at 10. The victim’s wife attempted to call 9-1-1, but 

was unable to unlock her phone. Id. at 55-56. She then 

ran outside and told [Appellant] that the police were 

responding. Id. at 56. [Appellant] jumped onto the back 

of the vehicle and instructed Steininger to drive away. Id.

While the vehicle drove away, [Appellant] attempted to 

cover the license plate of the vehicle. Id. However, the 

victim’s wife was able to read a portion of the license plate 

and later provided that evidence to police. Id. at 57. 

During an interview the following day, she told police that 

she saw [Appellant] take the victim’s CDL paperwork. Id.

at 75.

1 This paperwork was referred to throughout the trial 

as “CDL paperwork.”

2 Testimony conflicts with regard to the extent to 

which the victim’s jeans were cut or torn during the 

struggle.

Steininger testified at trial that after the attack, she 

observed [Appellant] holding a knife that was about seven 

to seven-and-a-half inches in length. [(N.T. Trial,] at 85-

86. She also testified that [Appellant] discarded the knife 

in a field somewhere between the scene of the incident 

and Windsor [B]orough in York County. Id. at 86. 

Steininger also saw [Appellant] possessing the victim’s 

CDL paperwork. Id.
J-S43039-16

- 3 -

Ultimately, due to some confusion as to the location of the 

incident, police responded to the Sheetz store where they 

met the victim and his wife. Id. at 11, 57-58, 116. 

Officer Laura Wilson, who responded to the scene, 

photographed a stab wound on the victim’s back that was 

about two inches in length. Id. at 117. The wound was 

actively bleeding “rivers of blood.” Id. Officer Wilson 

testified that she noticed the back pocket on the victim’s 

jeans was torn. Id. at 122. The victim was then taken to 

an area hospital to receive treatment. Id. at 11.

Upon arrival at WellSpan York Hospital, the victim was 

presented to hospital staff as a “trauma alert” due to the 

“life threatening complications” of his injury. [(N.T. Trial] 

at 39-40. The victim was treated for a single stab wound 

just below the right scapula measuring about three 

centimeters in length. Id. at 40. The victim was 

diagnosed with a “traumatic hemopneumothorax” or “a 

traumatic hemorrhage within the chest.” Id. at 40, 42. 

Such an injury is caused by injury to the lung “due to a 

tear” in [the] chest cavity. Id. at 40-41. The victim was 

hospitalized and treated over the subsequent 48 to 72 

hours. Id. at 46-47. Possible complications of the victim’s 

injury included hemorrhagic shock, empyema, blood 

clotting, respiratory distress or failure, septic shock, and 

permanent nerve damage. Id. at 44-45. Possible 

complications stemming from treatment include infection, 

additional bleeding, and further damage to the lung. Id.

at 46.

After three days of hospitalization, the victim remained out 

of work for three weeks, and continued to suffer from pain 

caused by the injury. [(N.T. Trial)] at 13-14. 

[Appellant] was arrested and charged with two counts of 

aggravated assault and one count each of robbery and 

criminal conspiracy to commit robbery.

1925(a) Opinion, 12/8/2015, at 1-5 (some internal footnotes omitted).
J-S43039-16

- 4 -

Following a non-jury trial, the trial court found Appellant guilty of the 

aforementioned crimes. On August 3, 2015, the trial court sentenced 

Appellant to an aggregate term of 9 to 18 years’ incarceration.2

On August 13, 2015, Appellant filed post-sentence motions challenging 

the weight of the evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence for his 

aggravated assault (serious bodily injury) conviction and robbery conviction. 

Following a September 3, 2015 hearing, the trial court denied the motion. 

On September 29, 2015, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. 

Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 1925.

Appellant raises the following issue on appeal:

1. Whether the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient 

evidence to convict Appellant of aggravated assault and 

robbery when the evidence presented at trial failed to 

establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant caused 

or attempted to cause serious bodily injury to the victim.

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

We apply the following standard when reviewing a sufficiency of the 

evidence claim: “[W]hether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the 

light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to 

____________________________________________

2

 The trial court sentenced Appellant to 9-18 years’ incarceration for the 

aggravated assault (serious bodily injury) conviction, 33 to 66 months’ 

incarceration for the aggravated assault (with a deadly weapon) conviction, 

9 to 18 years’ incarceration for the robbery conviction, and 9-18 years’ 

incarceration for the conspiracy to commit robbery conviction. All sentences 

were imposed concurrently.
J-S43039-16

- 5 -

enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Lehman, 820 A.2d 766, 772 

(Pa.Super.2003), affirmed, 870 A.2d 818 (Pa.2005) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574 (Pa.Super.2001)). When we 

apply this standard, “we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our 

judgment for the fact-finder.” Id.

“[T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth 

need not preclude every possibility of innocence.” Lehman, 820 A.2d at 

772 (quoting DiStefano, 782 A.2d at 574). Moreover, “[a]ny 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.” Id. “The 

Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the 

crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial 

evidence.” Id.

In applying the above test, we must evaluate the entire record and we 

must consider all evidence actually received. DiStefano, 782 A.2d at 582. 

Further, “the 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.

A defendant is “guilty of aggravated assault if he: (1) attempts to 

cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury intentionally, 

knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme 
J-S43039-16

- 6 -

indifference to the value of human life.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1). “For 

aggravated assault purposes, an ‘attempt’ is found where the accused, with 

the required specific intent, acts in a manner which constitutes a substantial 

step toward perpetrating a serious bodily injury upon another.” 

Commonwealth v. Martuscelli, 54 A.3d 940, 948 (Pa.Super.2012) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Gruff, 822 A.2d 773, 776 (Pa.Super.2003)). 

“Serious bodily injury” is defined as “[b]odily injury which creates a 

substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, 

or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or 

organ.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2301.

Appellant argues the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient 

evidence that serious bodily injury occurred. Appellant’s Brief at 8. He 

argues there is nothing to indicate the victim suffered a substantial risk of 

death.3 Id. Appellant further claims the victim suffered no serious, 

____________________________________________

3 Appellant claims that Dr. Amy Rushing, a former staff surgeon at WellSpan 

York Hospital, testified that: although the victim presented for trauma alert, 

his blood pressure and heart rate were stable; that the victim suffered a 

single puncture wound that that was 3 centimeters in length and was not 

bleeding at the time of her assessment; that a chest tube was placed to 

assist with breathing, but that it was a stable situation; and that this type of 

injury presents as a stable situation. Appellant’s Brief at 8-9. He claims Dr. 

Rushing testified that there were “really . . . no other organs. It was far 

enough away from the spine where a spinal cord injury was highly unlikely. 

It was underneath the scapula, or the shoulder blade, so it entered a soft 

tissue and multiple layers of muscle.” Id. at 9 (citing N.T., 6/4/2015, at 

43). Appellant further notes that Dr. Rush testified that the type of injury 

was not likely to cause significant harm, life-threatening bleeding or shock 

unless left untreated. Id. 
J-S43039-16

- 7 -

permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of 

any bodily member or organ.4 Id. at 9.

Contrary to Appellant’s contention, the Commonwealth presented 

sufficient evidence that the victim suffered serious bodily injury. The trial 

court concluded:

As a result of the attack, the victim suffered a threecentimeter stab wound to the back near the right scapula, 

or shoulder blade, and was diagnosed with a “traumatic 

hemopneumothorax” injury, or hemorrhaging within the 

chest cavity. Such injury, if left untreated, could lead to 

shock, respiratory distress or failure, sepsis, or organ 

failure. These complications are life-threatening. Thus, 

[the trial c]ourt found beyond a reasonable doubt that 

[Appellant] intentionally caused bodily injury that created 

a substantial risk of death to the victim.

1925(a) Opinion, 12/8/2015, at 9 (internal citations to record omitted). The 

victim received help, and was spared the more serious complications to his 

injury. However, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence from 

which the fact-finder could conclude the injury inflicted “create[d] a 

substantial risk of death.”5

____________________________________________

4 Appellant argues the victim was hospitalized for three days, had no need 

for any breathing treatments once he left the hospital, had two follow-up 

appointments with his physicians, has two small scars, and returned to his 

full-time work as a truck driver three weeks after the incident. Appellant’s 

Brief at 9.

5

Further, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence that Appellant 

intended to cause serious bodily injury. He used a knife during a robbery, 

and inflicted a stab wound. See, e.g., Gruff, 822 A.2d at 780 (finding 

sufficient evidence that appellant attempted to cause serious bodily injury 

where he placed a deadly weapon (loaded rifle with an attached bayonet), 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S43039-16

- 8 -

Moreover, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the 

Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence of robbery. The robbery 

statute provides:

(a) Offense defined.--

(1) A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of 

committing a theft, he:

(i) inflicts serious bodily injury upon another[.]

18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(i). As discussed above, the Commonwealth 

presented sufficient evidence that Appellant inflicted serious bodily injury 

upon another. Further, the Commonwealth presented evidence that 

Appellant and Steininger discussed stealing the victim’s money and that 

Appellant actually took the victim’s CDL paperwork. Opinion, 12/8/2015, at

10. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/15/2016

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

against victim’s throat and said, “I just ought to kill you . . . . Do you want 

to die today or tomorrow?”).