J

- S24008

- 20

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

STEVEN MUTZ

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2783 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 6, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 39

- CR

- 0000204

- 2019

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. *

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JULY 08, 2020

Appellant, Steven Mutz, appeals from the judgment of sentence of time

served to 90 days ’ incarceration, imposed after he was convicted of disorderly

conduct under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(2)

. Appellant solely challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the facts of Appellant’s case, as follows:

On January 7, 2019, around 8:30 to 8:45 AM, Rebecca Holder, Director o f Operations for Billy ’ s Downtown Diner, was heading to the diner ’ s Allentown location at 840 West Hamilton Street, Allentown, when she received a phone call from one of the servers, Yesica Hernandez. Ms. Hernandez advised Ms. Holder that [Appellant had] entered the restaurant, handed her a bag of books and stated it would only stop ticking if he made it stop ticking. [Appellant] then left the restaurant.

Ms. Holde r subsequently arrived at the restaurant around 9:45 to 10:00 AM. She observed [Appellant] walking down Hamilton Street in front of the restaurant, and told the host to call

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S24008

- 20

- 2

-

the police. Ms. Holde r then saw [Appellant] approaching the front door. At this time, she went to the door and told [Appellant] he could not enter the restaurant. [Appel lant] said he was coming in and he wanted his books back. Both parties were speaking in a normal tone at this point. Ms. Holde r advised [Appellant] that she called the police, and that he could get his books when they arrived. [Appellant] became agitate d, got very close to her and was screaming about wanting to get his books. Ms. Holde r admittedly yelled back at [Appellant]

. The interaction lasted about 2

- 3 minutes [,] during which time guests of the restaurant were waiting to enter and exit, but were u nable to do so. Guests din ing inside the restaurant were standing at the windows looking outside at what was going on. Additionally, some guests asked Ms. Holde r if she needed “ back up. ” The police arrived and took [Appellant] to the side of the restaur ant. Thereafter, police charged [Appellant]

. Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 11/27/19, at 1

- 2 (footnotes omitted).

After a jury trial on September 6, 2019, the court found Appellant guilty

of disorderly conduct. He was immediately sentenced as set forth supr a

. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and he also timely complied with the

court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The court filed its Rule

1925(a) opinion on November 27, 2019. Herein, Appellant raises a single

issue for our review : “Whether the evidence was sufficient to s ustain

[Appellant’s] conviction[] for disorderly conduct

- noise[?]” Appellant’s Brief

at 7.

To begin, we note our standard of review of a challenge to the sufficiency

of the evidence:

In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, as well as all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, are sufficient to support all

e lements of the offense. Commonwealth v. Moreno
, 14 A.3d 133 (Pa. Super. 2011). Additionally, we may not reweigh theJ

- S24008

- 20

- 3

-

evidence or substitute our own judgment for that of the fact finder. Commonwealth v. Hartzell
, 988 A.2d 141 (Pa. Super. 2009). The evide nce may be entirely circumstantial as long as it links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreno, supra at 136.

Commonwealth v. Koch , 39 A.3d 996, 1001 (Pa. Super. 2011).

Appellant was convicted of disorderly conduct under section 5503(a )(2),

which states: “ A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause

public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or reckles sly creating a risk

thereof, he ... makes unreasonable noise[.]” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(2).

According to Appellant, the Commonwealth failed to prove the mens rea of

this offense. He insists that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate

that he was acting with the purpose of causing a public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. Rather, as his statements made clear, he was yelling at the manager to get her to give him the books that he had left at the business establishment. The fact that he may have yelled and raised his voice, while annoying, was not sufficient to sustain the criminal charge.
Appellant’s Brief at 9.

Appellant’s argument is unconvincing. As the trial court stressed:

There was evidence that [Appellant’s] volume was inappropriate for the place where it occurred: outside a packed restaurant during its busy time. There was evidence that the public heard him to the point where diners got up and stood at the window to see what was goin g on. His volume was such that other diners asked M[s.] Holde r if she needed assistance. Finally, it is clear that [Appellant] caused public inconvenience[,] as the incident prevented diners from exiting and entering the establishment.

TCO at 3. Ms. Holder’s testimony supports the trial court’s conclusion that

Appellant intentionally caused

— or at least recklessly disregarded the risk of

causing

— public in convenience, anno yance, or alarm by screaming at Ms.J

- S24008

- 20

- 4

-

Holder in the entranceway of the busy restaurant. See N.T. Trial, 9/6/19, at

12, 15

- 16. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to sustain his con v iction for

disorderly conduct. See Commonwealth v. Troy , 832 A.2d 1089, 1094 (Pa.

Super. 2003) ( “ The specific intent requirement of [the disorderly conduct]

statute ‘ may be met by a showing of a reckless disregard of th e risk of public

inconvenience,’ annoyance, or alarm, even if the appellant’ s intent was to

send a message t o a certain individual, rather than to cause public

inco nvenience, annoyance, or alarm.”) (citation omitted).

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 7/8/2020