J-S02018-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

DARRELL BELL,

Appellant No. 8 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 16, 2011

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009879-2010

BEFORE: MUNDY, OLSON and WECHT, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MARCH 11, 2015

Appellant, Darrell Bell, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

on June 16, 2011 in the Criminal Division of the Court of Common Pleas of 

Philadelphia County. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the relevant facts as follows:

On June 8, 2010, Police Officer Jason Shensky was in full 

uniform on routine patrol on a bicycle on the 3100 block of West 

Berks Street. While on patrol, Officer Shensky observed 

[Appellant] holding a pink Cobra .380 semi-automatic handgun 

in his right hand. A male standing next to [Appellant] said 

something to [Appellant], and [Appellant] then looked toward 

Officer Shensky. Upon observing Officer Shensky, [Appellant] 

threw the handgun into a nearby trashcan and began to walk 

away from [the officer].

Officer Shensky rode his bicycle toward [Appellant] to stop him 

for an investigation. As [Officer Shensky] approached 

[Appellant], [the officer] ordered [Appellant] to put his hands 

against a wall and grabbed [Appellant’s] wrist in an attempt to 

handcuff him. As soon as Officer Shensky grabbed [Appellant’s] 
J-S02018-15

- 2 -

left wrist, [Appellant] spun around and punched Officer Shensky 

in the face with a closed fist. [Appellant] attempted to flee, but 

Officer Shensky was able to hold onto [Appellant] by his shirt. 

[Appellant] continued to resist the arrest by overpowering the 

officer and pushing the officer’s head toward [Appellant’s] knee. 

Eventually Officer Shensky forced [Appellant] to the ground and 

ordered him to remain there.

[Appellant] refused to follow the order and tried to stand up. 

When [Appellant] attempted to stand up, Officer Shensky 

[deployed] his taser, and [Appellant] fell to the ground. When 

[Appellant] attempted to stand up again, Officer Shensky 

threatened to use the taser a second time. [Appellant] finally 

complied with the officer’s order to remain on the ground. At 

this point, a large crowd had gathered to observe [Appellant’s] 

arrest. As Officer Shensky handcuffed [Appellant], he began 

yelling, “This is how cops get killed,” and told Officer Shensky he 

was going to “get him for that.”

Following a non-jury trial, [Appellant] was convicted of 

aggravated assault, terroristic threats, simple assault, recklessly 

endangering another person, and resisting arrest.[1] The trial 

court sentenced [Appellant] to a guideline sentence of 40 to 80 

months of incarceration for the aggravated assault conviction 

and a consecutive 18 to 36 months of incarceration for the 

terroristic threats conviction. [Appellant] filed a timely appeal[.]

Trial Court Opinion, 6/19/14, at 1-2.

Appellant’s brief raises the following questions for our review:

Was the evidence [sufficient] to support the verdict of guilty of 

terroristic threats?

Appellant’s Brief at 7.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702, 2706, 2701, 2705, and 5104.
J-S02018-15

- 3 -

Appellant’s sole issue challenges the sufficiency of the evidence offered 

in support of his conviction for terroristic threats.2 Our scope and standard 

of review over such claims is well established.

A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of 

law, subject to plenary review. When reviewing a sufficiency of 

the evidence claim, the appellate court must review all of the 

evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the 

light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the verdict 

winner. Evidence will be deemed to support the verdict when it 

establishes each element of the crime charged and the 

commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of 

innocence or establish the defendant's guilt to a mathematical 

certainty. 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. Levy, 83 A.3d 457 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted). 

____________________________________________

2 The Crimes Code defines the offense of terroristic threats as follows:

§ 2706. Terroristic threats

(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of terroristic 

threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly,

a threat to:

(1) commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize 

another;

(2) cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or 

facility of public transportation; or

(3) otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or cause 

terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless 

disregard of the risk of causing such terror or 

inconvenience.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2706(a)(1)-(3).
J-S02018-15

- 4 -

Appellant advances three arguments in support of his contention that 

the evidence was insufficient to convict him of terroristic threats. First, he 

claims that his statements to Officer Shensky did not include a threat to 

commit a crime of violence. Next, Appellant claims that he lacked the 

requisite intent to terrorize another. Finally, Appellant asserts that his 

statements constituted a momentary threat that resulted from anger.

We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties, the 

certified record, and the opinion of the trial court. Based upon our review, 

we conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief for the reasons expressed 

by the learned trial court in its opinion issued pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). 

Because the trial court adequately and accurately assessed the claims raised 

by Appellant in this appeal, we adopt its opinion as our own. Therefore, we 

direct the parties to include a copy of the trial court’s opinion with all future 

filings concerning our disposition in this appeal.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/11/2015