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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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 timeserved 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 of 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. Holder 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. Holder then saw [Appellant] approaching the front 

door. At this time, she went to the door and told [Appellant] he 

could not enter the restaurant. [Appellant] said he was coming in 

and he wanted his books back. Both parties were speaking in a 

normal tone at this point. Ms. Holder advised [Appellant] that she 

called the police, and that he could get his books when they 

arrived. [Appellant] became agitated, got very close to her and 

was screaming about wanting to get his books. Ms. Holder

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 unable to do so. Guests 

dining inside the restaurant were standing at the windows looking 

outside at what was going on. Additionally, some guests asked 

Ms. Holder if she needed “back up.” The police arrived and took 

[Appellant] to the side of the restaurant. 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 supra. 

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 sustain 

[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 

elements of the offense. Commonwealth v. Moreno, 14 A.3d 

133 (Pa. Super. 2011). Additionally, we may not reweigh the 
J-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 evidence 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 recklessly 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 going on. His volume was such that other diners 

asked M[s.] Holder 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 inconvenience, annoyance, 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 conviction 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 the risk of public 

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

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

inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm.”) (citation omitted). 

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/8/2020