J-S43034-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 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 law 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 CONDUCT 

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 

established 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 drawn 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 evaluated 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 enforcement 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 intent 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 Lawhead 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 his 
J-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, uttered 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 affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

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