J
- A22043

- 22

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

v.

CHRISTOPHER DUANE LINK

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1072 WDA 2021 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 22, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 42

- CR

- 0000355

- 2020

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CHRISTOPHER DUAN N E LINK

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1073 WDA 2021 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 22, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 42

- CR

- 0000482

- 2020

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and COLINS, J. * MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 22, 2022 Appellant, Christopher Link , appeals from the judgment of sentence of 10 to 20 years ’ incarceration and 1 year of probation imposed on him after h e

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J
- A22043

- 22

- 2

-

was convict ed by a jury of aggravated assault, simple assault, and reckless endangerment. 1 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. Appellant was charged in this case, CP

- 42

- CR

- 0000355

- 2020 (CR

- 355

- 202 0 ) , with four counts of aggravated assault, three counts of simple assault, two counts of reckless endangerment and two counts of possession of an instrument of crime for beating and stabbing his girlfriend (Victim) on July 25, 26, and 28, 2020 . These cha rges were tried to jury from June 21 to June 25 , 2021, together with another case , CP

- 42

- CR

- 0000482

- 2020 (CR

- 482

- 2020) , in which Appellant was charged with flight to avoid apprehension

. On June 25 , 2 021 , the jury convicted Appellant of one count of aggrav ated assault for assaulting Victim and causing permanent d isfigurement of her ear , one count of simple assault, and one count of reckless endangerment in CR

- 355

- 2020 and convicted Appellant of flight to avoid apprehension in CR

- 482

- 2020. N.T. Trial, 6/25/21, at 1104

- 09; CR

- 355

- 2020 Verdict Sheet; CR

- 482

- 2020 Verdict Sheet. The jury acquitted Appellant in CR

- 355

- 2020 of the other aggravated assault and simple assault c ount s , which concern ed stab wounds and other knife wounds that Victim suffered, and acquitted him of the other reckless endangerment count and both possession of an instrument of crime charge s . N.T. Trial, 6/25/21, at 1104

- 09; CR

- 355

- 2020 Verdict Sheet.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702(a)(1), 2701 (a)(1) , and 2705, respectively.J
- A22043

- 22

- 3

-

On July 2 2 , 2021, the trial court sentenced Appellant in CR

- 355

- 2020 , CR

- 482

- 2020 , and a third case in which Appellant had pled guilty to two charges

. N.T. Sentencing at 2, 9, 15
- 16 ; Sentencing Order. In CR

- 355

- 2020 , the trial court sentenced Appellant to 10 to 20 years ’ incarceration f o r the aggravated assault conviction plus 1 year of probation pursua n t to 61 Pa.C.S. § 6137.2 , imposed a concurrent sentence of 1 to 2 years’ incarceration for reckless endangerment, and ruled that the simple ass ault conviction merged with the aggravated assault conviction . N.T. Sentencing at 15
- 16 ; Sentencing Order at 1

. 2 In CR

- 482

- 2020 , the trial court sentenced Appellant to 1 to 2 years’ incarceration to run consecutively to his sentence in CR

- 355

- 2020 . N.T
. Sentencing at 15
- 16 ; Sentencing Order at 1. Appellant filed a timely post sentence motion in which he raised challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence in CR

- 355

- 2020 and sought modif ication of his sentence with respect to the amount of credit for time served. On August 9, 2021, t he trial
court granted the modification of sentence with respect to credit for time served and denied the post sentence motion in all other respects. Trial Court Order, 8/9/21. Appellant timely filed appea ls from the judgments of sentence in both CR

- 355

- 2020 and CR

- 482

- 2020 , which this Court consolidated sua sponte . In

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2 The sentence of 10 to 20 years for Appellant’s aggravated assault conviction was a mandatory minimum sentence that the trial court was r equired to impose under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714 (a)(1) because Appellant had a prior aggravated assault conviction. N.T. Sentencing at 4

- 5.J
- A22043

- 22

- 4
-

his brief, however, Appellant has challenged only his convictions in CR

- 355

- 2020 , the assault case. Appellant presents the following single issue for our review: Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant of Aggravated Assault, Simple Assault and Recklessly Endangering Another Person when there was substantial and credible evidence presented at trial that the Defendant str uck the victim one time to thwart a suicide attempt? Appellant’s Brief at 5. Our standard of review in a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is well

- settled : When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, were sufficient to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. “[T]he facts and circumstances esta blished by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence.” It is within the province of the fact

- finder to determine the weight to accord to each witness ’ s testimony and to believe all, part or none of the evidence. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. As an appellate court, we may not re

- weigh the evidence and substitute o ur judgment for that of the fact

- finder. Commonwealth v. Steele , 234 A.3d 840, 845 (Pa. Super. 20 20 ) (quoting Commonwealth v. Colon - Plaza , 136 A.3d 521 (Pa. Super. 2016) ) (citations omitted, brackets in original). The only element of the offenses of aggrav ated assault, simple assault, and reckless endangerment that Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove is the mens rea element of the se offenses. T he mens reaJ
- A22043

- 22

- 5
-

required to support Appellant’s aggravated assault conviction c an be sati s fie d by proof that Appellant intentional ly caused Victim serious bodily injury or by proof that he acted with malice, defined as reckless inflicti on of serious bodily injury under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life. 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1) ( “[a] person 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 circumst ances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life” ) ; Interest of N.A.D. , 205 A.3d 1237 , 1240 (Pa. Super. 2019) ; Commonwealth v. Bruce , 916 A.2d 657, 661 , 6 6 4 (Pa. Super. 2007)

. The offense of simple assault of which Appellant was convict ed requires that the defendant intentionally, knowingly , or recklessly cause d bodily injury

. 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1) ; Commonwealth v. Rahman , 75 A.3d 497, 50 1 (Pa. Super. 2013)

. The of fense of reckless endangerment requires proof that the defendant recklessly engage d in conduct which place d or may have place d another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury . 18 Pa.C.S. § 2705 ; Steele , 234 A.3d at 847

. The

mens rea of r ecklessness for simple assault and reckless endanger ment requires that the defendant conscious ly disregard ed a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct w ould cause the harm in question

. 18 Pa.C.S. § 302(b)(3)

. Appellant argues that the Commonwealth did not show that he intentionally caused serious bodily injury or any injury to Victim or that heJ
- A22043

- 22

- 6

-

acted with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to human life or conscious disregard of a risk of serious bodily injury or any injury because he struck Victim on ly once to stop her from committing suicide . Appellant’s contention, ho wever, misstates the evidence at trial. Although Victim ’s testimony at trial and the testimony of Appellant and his cousin supported this version of events , th ere was also evidence be fore the jury that Appellant violently assaulted Victim in the head multiple times unconnected to any prevention of a suicide attempt
. We judge the sufficiency of the evidence by whether the re was evidence supporting the Commonwealth’s case sufficient if believed by the jury to prove the elements of the offense, not based on Appellant’s disputed version of facts, which the jury rejected. Commonwealth v. James , 268 A.3d 461, 46 9 (Pa. Super. 2021) ; Commonwealth v. Antidormi , 84 A.3d 736 , 757 (Pa. Super. 2014)

. Victim made statements to a police officer when she was being transported to the hospital on July 28, 2020 that were recorded on the officer’s body camera and this recording was admitted in e vidence and played to the jury

. Commonwealth Ex. 16; N.T. Trial, 6/23/21, at 553

- 54
. In t hese recorded statements, which were admissible for their truth, Pa.R.E. 803.1(1) (C) ; Commonwealth v. Brown , 52 A.3d 1139 , 1171 (Pa. 2012) , Victim stated that her ear was damaged when Appellan t beat her in the head a few days earlier both in their room and when they were together in a car at a Sheetz station and that he beat her because she couldn’t answer a questionJ
- A22043

- 22

- 7
-

that he asked her and he “snapped” on her. Commonwealth Ex . 16. Victim’s recorded statements w ere corroborated by a n eyewitness who was parked
next to Appellant ’ s and Victim ’s car at Sheetz station . Th at eyewitness testified that he saw Appellant repeatedly slam Victim ’s head hard into the dashboar d and steering wheel of their car. N.T. Trial , 6/22/21 at 39 6

- 401 , 410

- 11. M edical evidence was also introduced that showed not onl y that Victim suffered a permanent serious d isfigurement of her ear , but that she suffered

a br oken facial bone and broken ribs in these attacks

. N.T. Trial, 6/22/21 at 369

- 73 , 387

. In addition, the Commonwealth introduced in evidence and played to the jury telephone calls between Appellant and Victim after Appellant was arrested in which Appellant refer red to “the things that I did to you , ” said

“ I ’m sorry for shattering your face ,” and urged Victim to help get the charges dropped and say that she was mental ly ill, on a drug binge , and angry at Appellant when she spoke to the police

. Commonwealth Ex. 19; N.T. Trial, 6/23/21, at 580

- 86. This evidence was sufficient to prove the mens rea element of all of the offenses of which Appellant was convicted

. In tent to cause serious bodily injury , malice, and conscious disregard of a risk of death or serious bodily injury ma y be prove n by circumstantial evidence

. Interest of N.A.D. , 205 A.3d at 1240 ; Commonwealth v. Smith , 956 A.2d 1029 , 10 36

- 38 (Pa. Super. 2008) ; Bruce , 916 A.2d at 661, 664

. A jury is free to conclude thatJ
- A22043

- 22

- 8

-

the defendant intended the natural and probable consequences of his actions

. Commonwealth v. Faulk , 928 A.2d 1061, 1070 (Pa. Super. 2007) ; Commonwealth v. Lewis , 911 A.2d 55 8, 564 (Pa. Super. 2006)

. Here, the jury could find from Victim’s recorded statements, the eyewitness testimony concerning the attack at the Sheetz station, and the medical testimony that Appellant beat Victim in the head and slammed Victim’s head repeat edly against hard objects because he was angry at her and that the force that Appellant applied to Victim’s head was sufficient to break a bone in her face and deform her ear. Evidence that the defendant struck the victim in the head multiple times with substantial force or slammed the victim’s head into a hard object multiple times is sufficient to prove both intent to cause serious bodily injury and recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to human life

. Com monwealth v. Kinney , 157 A.3d 968, 973 (Pa. Super. 2017) ; Faulk , 928 A.2d at 10 70

- 71 ; Bruce , 916 A.2d at 661

- 6 5 ; Lewis , 911 A.2d at 561

- 62, 5 65 ; Commonwealth v. Frisbie , 889 A.2d 1271, 1273

- 75 (Pa. Super. 2005) ; Commonwealth v. Dailey , 828 A.2d 356, 3 60

- 61 (Pa. Super. 2003)

. A fortiori , it is also sufficient to prove intent to injure and conscious disregard of a substantial risk of serious bodily injury. Appellant argues that under Commonwealth v. Packer , 168 A.3d 161 (Pa. 2017) and Commonwealth v. O’Hanlon , 653 A.2d 616 ( Pa. 1995) , aggravated assault require s the same mens rea as third

- degree murder. That contention, however, is incorrect

. Packer and O’Hanlon held that the maliceJ
- A22043

- 22

- 9

-

that can support an aggravated assault convicti on is the same extreme indifference to human life that must be shown to prove third

- degree murder

. Packer , 168 A.3d at 168 ; O’Hanlon , 653 A.2d at 618

. Malice, however, is only one of the states of mind that is sufficient to prove aggravated assault. Proof that the defend ant i nten ded to cause serious bodily injury is also

su f ficient to support a convic tion , regardless of whether malice is shown

. 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1); Bruce , 916 A.2d at 661

. Th is alternative mens rea of intent to cause serious bodily in jury was not at issue in either Packer or O’Hanlon because the death and injur ies in both of those cases occurred in car accident s and not as a result of an intentional assault

. In any event, even if proof of malice w ere required, the Commonwealth satisfied that burden here. A s noted above , the evidence that Appellant beat Victim violently in the head multiple times with sufficient force to break a bone and deform her ear is sufficient to prove recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to human life

. Faulk , 928 A.2d at 10 70

- 71; Bruce , 916 A.2d at 664

- 65 ; Frisbie , 889 A.2d at 127 3

- 75
. Appellant also argues that his aggravated assault conviction cannot stand because a single unarmed blow to the head is in sufficient to show the

mens rea required for aggravated assault under Commonwealth v. Alexander , 383 A.2d 887 ( Pa. 1978) and Commonwealth v. Roche , 783 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2001) . That, however, is beside the point, as there was evidence at trial that Appellant repeatedly beat Victim in the head. N eitherJ
- A22043

- 22

- 10

-

Alexander nor Roche 3 n or any of the other cases cited by Appellant holds that evidence that the defendant struck the victim i n the head multiple times is insuffi ci ent to prove the mens rea element of the offense of aggr avated assault. Because the re was evidence admitted at trial from which the jury could find that Appellant repeatedly beat Victim in the head with substantial force causing permanent disfigurement of her ear , the evidence w as sufficient to prove the mens rea required by the offense s of aggravated assault, simple assault , and reckless endangerment

. Ap pellant’s sole issue in this appeal is therefore without merit. Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of
sentence. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 12/22/2022

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 3 Indeed, Roche is no longer good law, as this Court overruled Roche in Commonwealth v. Burton , 2 A.3d 598 (Pa. Super. 2011) ( en banc ) and held that under some circumstances , a single unarmed blow to the head may be sufficient to su pport an aggravated assault conviction. 2 A.3d 604

- 05.