J-S13011-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOHN LYNCH 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1097 EDA 2020

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 18, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0000182-2017, 

CP-51-CR-0000611-2017

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOHN LYNCH 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1098 EDA 2020

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 18, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0000182-2017, 

CP-51-CR-0000611-2017

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MAY 25, 2021

Appellant, John Lynch, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

on January 28, 2018, as made final by the denial of Appellant’s post-sentence 

motion on May 25, 2018. We affirm.

The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this case:

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S13011-21

- 2 -

The charges docketed under CP-51-CR-0000182-2017, 

stemmed from reports that [Appellant] had continually 

harassed, threatened and subsequently physically attacked

his neighbor, the complainant, Franklin Hay, with a harmful 

chemical spray in his face. Appellant had lived in an 

apartment unit directly below Mr. Hay and his family, in a 

building located [in] Philadelphia, for about a year and a half 

before the cited incidents had occurred. Mr. Hay also 

reported various incidents of harassment by Appellant: 

Appellant had often screamed various obscenities towards 

him personally and toward his girlfriend Evelyn Rivera after 

she rebuffed his unwelcomed advances; Appellant harassed 

these victims over the phone by repeatedly leaving crude 

voice mail messages; Appellant served incessant filings of 

meritless claims in civil proceedings upon both Mr. Hay and

Ms. Rivera; Appellant often screamed that Mr. Hay was 

cheating on Ms. Rivera loudly enough for all their neighbors 

to hear; and Mr. Hay reported smelling foul odors indicative 

of Appellant and another male "smoking crack" in Appellant's 

apartment.

After a period of what had been euphemistically described as 

a turbulent relationship during the duration of their time as 

neighbors, matters escalated when Appellant attached wired

connecting Halloween decorations to Mr. Hay's balcony in July 

2016. Mr. Hay had asked [Appellant] to remove the 

decorations "five or six times," before complaining to the 

police department on September 23, 2016. On September 

23, 2016, when police had arrived, Appellant had openly

threatened Mr. Hay in the presence of the officers, saying 

that "if he touches my Halloween decorations, I will spray him 

like a bug and kill him." 

Three days later, on September 26, 2016 around 9:00 p.m., 

Mr. Hay's twelve-year-old daughter was cleaning his 

apartment windows that led to the balcony. Mr. Hay was 

outside on the balcony and reached over to remove 

Appellant's offending Halloween decorations from Mr. Hay's

balcony. [Appellant] responded by spraying a large amount 

of a harsh, burning, caustic chemical, which was later 

identified to be a form of mace normally employed to blind 

and disable large animals, up towards Mr. Hay's balcony. The 

chemical permeated through the open window, causing Mr. 
J-S13011-21

- 3 -

Hay's daughter to cough uncontrollably. Mr. Hay 

subsequently went downstairs to ask Appellant what he had 

sprayed; as he approached the outside area near Appellant's 

ground unit, Appellant lunged at him from behind a hiding 

place and sprayed Mr. Hay directly into his face, which caused 

severe burning to his eyes and swollen inflamed redness to 

his face and neck. Both Mr. Hay and his minor daughter were 

rushed to a local hospital where they received emergency 

treatment that included repeated rinsing of the caustic 

chemicals from their systems. All of Appellant's violent 

behavior was recorded on video feed from the apartment

complex cameras.

The charges docketed under CP-51-CR-0000611-2017 

stemmed from Appellant's conduct following Mr. Hay's 

responsive court appearance and testimony following 

Appellant's arrest for charges related to that initial chemical 

spraying attack. Mr. Hay duly appeared pursuant to

subpoenas issued by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

along with his eyewitness family members, and testified 

against [Appellant] at a preliminary hearing on November 22, 

2016[.] Appellant subsequently threatened Mr. Hay with an 

illegally possessed firearm on November 28, 2016 and 

barricaded himself in his apartment.

Specifically, Mr. Hay reported that on November 28, 2016 

around 4:00 p.m., he had arrived home to his apartment 

after picking his daughter up from school and saw that trash 

had been dumped all over his property. As Mr. Hay was 

cleaning up the trash that Appellant had admittedly dumped 

on his lawn, Appellant angrily confronted him, and the two 

exchanged heated words. As part of his effort to avoid further 

confrontation, Mr. Hay retreated toward the inside of his

apartment. As he retreated, Mr. Hay looked out the window 

and saw [Appellant] sitting in a chair with a gun in his hands. 

Appellant looked directly at Mr. Hay and stated, "Ha ha . . . I 

didn't get you last time. This time I'll kill you." Mr. Hay 

immediately called 911 to seek help.

Uniformed Philadelphia police officers responded to the 

premises and told Mr. Hay's fiancé and daughter to get in 

their car and drive away from the area while they escorted 

Mr. Hay into another marked police vehicle to obtain his 

information. Multiple uniformed police officers knocked 
J-S13011-21

- 4 -

repeatedly on [Appellant’s] front door. Appellant refused to 

respond, exit or even acknowledge law enforcement's 

presence. Rather he barricaded himself inside his apartment 

and continually ignored direct commands emanating from law 

enforcement loudspeakers and blow horns.

Given the increased potential danger to the entire 

neighborhood including the strip mall of stores located 

directly across the street, supervising Sergeant William 

McNamee deemed the situation as a barricade, and notified 

SWAT enforcement. Additional law enforcement and fire

department inkling paramedics, and a police helicopter 

arrived on scene to assist evacuation and lock down or shelter 

in place measures. Law enforcement officials continued to 

knock on Appellant's door using a baton. Appellant at one 

point called the private telephone number for the Northeast 

Detective Division located at Harbison & Levick Street, which 

was a good twenty minutes away, raving and demanding 

contact with his mother. Finally, around 7:30 p.m., the SWAT 

team forcibly entered Appellant's apartment and escorted 

him from the premises. 

Trial Court Opinion, 11/4/20, at 2-4 (citations omitted).

A jury found Appellant guilty of two counts of simple assault, one count 

of retaliation against a witness, and one count of terroristic threats.1 On 

January 18, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve an aggregate 

term of eight to 16 years in prison for his convictions. See N.T. Sentencing, 

1/18/18, at 32-34. Following the denial of Appellant’s post-sentence motion

and the reinstatement of Appellant’s direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc, 

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant raises the following claims 

to this Court:

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a), 4953(a), and 2706(a)(1), respectively.
J-S13011-21

- 5 -

1. Did the trial court err, abuse its discretion, and/or make a 

mistake of law when it entered the guilty verdict, the 

sentencing order, and denying the post-sentence order, due 

to insufficient evidence to find guilt and the jury’s verdict 

going against the weight of the evidence?

2. The trial court made a mistake of law and/or abused its 

discretion by denying [Appellant’s] motion for a mistrial.

Appellant’s Brief at 2 (some capitalization omitted).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified 

record, the notes of testimony, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, 

the Honorable Anne Marie B. Coyle. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled 

to relief in this case, for the reasons expressed in Judge Coyle’s November 4, 

2020 opinion. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Coyle’s thorough 

opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filing with this or any other 

court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge 

Coyle’s November 4, 2020 opinion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/25/2021