J-S40020-18

____________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellant

v.

CHRISTOPHER VINSON

 Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 3961 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered October 23, 2017

in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County 

Criminal Division at No.: CP-23-CR-0004806-2017

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and PLATT*, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PLATT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2018

The Commonwealth appeals1from the order granting a habeas corpus

“motion for discharge” as to aggravated assault and simple assault. Appellee, 

Christopher Vinson,

2 struck a nurse, and fled. The Commonwealth contends 

it presented a prima facie case that Appellee caused bodily injury under 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(3). We conclude that the trial court, in granting the 

____________________________________________

1

In the notice of appeal, the Commonwealth certified under Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) 

that the order will terminate or substantially handicap the prosecution. (See

Notice of Appeal, 11/22/17). 

2 Appellee Vinson identifies as a female and prefers the use of female 

pronouns. (See Appellee’s Brief, at 4 n.1). 
J-S40020-18

- 2 -

habeas motion, erroneously viewed the evidence in the light most favorable 

to Appellee Vinson. Accordingly, we reverse and remand. 

The facts are not in substantial dispute.3 On February 2, 2017, at about 

6:10 a.m., Amy Botta, a registered nurse, was working in the emergency room 

at Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. She informed 

Appellee, as instructed, (and as “multiple” other staff had done before her for 

half an hour), that Appellee had been discharged and the hospital needed the 

bed. This time, Appellee sat up in the bed, swung her arm at Nurse Botta, 

and struck her in the face, causing redness and soreness for several days. 

Appellee immediately fled the hospital. 

Another nurse witnessed the incident from the hallway. Hospital staff 

called the police, who charged Appellee with aggravated assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 2702(a)(3); simple assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701; and harassment, 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 2709. 

After a preliminary hearing, Appellee filed the habeas motion, which the 

trial court granted. The Commonwealth filed this appeal after the trial court 

denied its motion for reconsideration. Both the Commonwealth and the court 

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. The trial court opinion concluded that the 

Commonwealth failed to establish a prima facie case of aggravated and simple 

assault. (See Trial Court Opinion, 1/10/18, at 2, 5). 

____________________________________________

3 Ms. Botta was the only witness who testified at the preliminary hearing. 
J-S40020-18

- 3 -

The Commonwealth raises one question on appeal, which we summarize

as follows: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, did the Commonwealth present a prima facie case that 

Appellee attempted to cause or knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly caused 

bodily injury to the nurse? (See Commonwealth’s Brief, at 1). 

The Commonwealth’s issue implicates the grant of the habeas motion. 

Our scope and standard of review is well-settled:

We review a trial court’s grant [or denial] of a pre-trial 

habeas corpus motion de novo and our scope of review is plenary. 

See Commonwealth v. Dantzler, 135 A.3d 1109, 1112 (Pa. 

Super. 2016) (en banc).

As this Court explained in Dantzler:

A pre-trial habeas corpus motion is the proper means for 

testing whether the Commonwealth has sufficient evidence 

to establish a prima facie case. To demonstrate that a prima 

facie case exists, the Commonwealth must produce 

evidence of every material element of the charged 

offense(s) as well as the defendant’s complicity therein. To 

meet its burden, the Commonwealth may utilize the 

evidence presented at the preliminary hearing and also may

submit additional proof. 

Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Commonwealth v. Carper, 172 A.3d 613, 620 (Pa. Super. 2017), appeal 

denied, 184 A.3d 540 (Pa. 2018).

In reviewing a trial court’s order granting [or denying] a 

defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, we “must generally 

consider whether the record supports the trial court’s findings, and 

whether the inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those 

findings are free from error.” . . . Notably, the Commonwealth 

does not have to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Further, the evidence must be considered in 
J-S40020-18

- 4 -

the light most favorable to the Commonwealth so that 

inferences that would support a guilty verdict are given 

effect.

Commonwealth v. Santos, 876 A.2d 360, 363 (Pa. 2005) (citations omitted)

(emphasis added).

Here, on independent review, we conclude that the Commonwealth 

presented evidence at the preliminary hearing which, viewed in the light most 

favorable to it, was plainly sufficient to establish a prima facie case. 

The Commonwealth’s evidence showed that Appellee struck Ms. Botta, 

who as a registered nurse is a specially protected member of an enumerated 

class, emergency medical services personnel, who was engaged in the 

performance of duty, and working within the scope of her employment. See

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(c)(21), (d). Nurse Botta was indisputably injured. Under 

section 2702(a)(3), the Commonwealth was not required to prove that she 

was seriously injured. Compare section 2702(a)(1) and (2) with 2702(a)(3). 

The trial court’s suggestion that Appellee may have been sleeping and 

rolled over, (see Trial Ct. Op., at 4-5), is belied by the record and in any event 

fails to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth. See Santos, supra at 363. We are constrained to conclude 

that the trial court erred in reviewing the record and granting habeas corpus. 

Order reversed and remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished. 
J-S40020-18

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/18/18