J

- S43034

- 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. RONALD P. MORENCY, JR. Appellant No. 3041 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 11 , 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 09

- CR

- 0002533

- 2014

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and OLSON, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JULY 21, 2015 Appellant, Ronald P. Morency, Jr., appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial convictions for resisting arrest or other la w enforcement and disorderly conduct and his bench trial conviction for the summary offense of harassment. 1 We affirm. In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Appellant raises two issues for our review:

____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5104, 5503, 2709, respectively.J

- S43034

- 15

- 2

- WAS PASSIVE FORCE EMPLOYED BY APPELLANT SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT APPELLANT OF RESISTING ARREST?
WAS THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION FOR MISDEMEANOR DISORDERLY C ONDUCT PURSUANT TO 18 PA.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(1), FOR ENGAGING IN FIGHTING OR THREATENING, OR IN VIOLENT, TUMULTUOUS BEHAVIOR WHEN THE ONLY WARNING TO DESIST WAS GIVEN AFTER THE ALTERCATION WAS OVER AND THE EVIDENCE, AT MOST, CONSTITUTES A SUMMARY OFFENSE? (Appellant’s Brief at 4). When examining a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our standard of review is:

[W]hether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact

- finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying [the above] test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact

- finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances establ ished by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any 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 d rawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be eval uated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, 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. Commonwealth v. Hansley , 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied , 613 Pa. 642, 32 A.3d 1275 (2011) (quoting Commonwealth v.J

- S43034

- 15

- 3

-

Jones , 874 A.2d 108, 120

- 21 (Pa.Super. 2005)). Section 5104 of the Crimes Code defines the offense of resisting arrest or other law enfo rcement as follows:

§ 5104. Resisting arrest or other law enforcement A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, with the intent of preventing a public servant from effecting a lawful arrest or discharging any other duty, the person creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to the public servant or anyone else, or employs means justifying or requiring substantial force to overcome the resistance. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5104. Additionally, a person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with inten t to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: “engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior....” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(1). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well

- reasoned opinion of the Honorable C. Theodore Fritsch, Jr., we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed December 8, 2014, at 5

- 9) (finding: 1) although Appellant did not create substantial risk of bodily injury to arresting officers, his conduct required officers to use substantial force to effectuate arrest; when Officer Law head informed Appellant he was under arrest, Appellant assumed fighting stance and challenged officer; Appellant continually refused to place his arms behind his back; further, Appellant’s physical resistance caused Officer Lawhead to seek assistance from hisJ

- S43034

- 15

- 4

-

partner to effectuate arrest; 2) Appellant engaged in tumultuous behavior, which persisted after Appellant received reasonable warnings to desist; Appellant’s conduct occurred outside market, within earshot of patrons; Appellant threatened Victim, utte red profanities, and pushed Victim to ground; Appellant continued his unruly behavior, even after Victim and Officer Lawhead repeatedly asked Appellant to stop). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion. Judgment of sentence affir med. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 7/21/2015Circulated 07/09/2015 01:31 PMCirculated 07/09/2015 01:31 PMCirculated 07/09/2015 01:31 PMCirculated 07/09/2015 01:31 PMCirculated 07/09/2015 01:31 PMCirculated 07/09/2015 01:31 PMCirculated 07/09/2015 01:31 PMCirculated 07/09/2015 01:31 PMCirculated 07/09/2015 01:31 PMCirculated 07/09/2015 01:31 PM