J. S03013/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

SHABORN WINSTON, : No. 751 EDA 2015

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, February 17, 2015,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County

Criminal Division at No. CP-39-CR-0004560-2014

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OTT AND JENKINS, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 03, 2016

Shaborn Winston appeals from the judgment of sentence of 

February 17, 2015, following his conviction of the summary offenses of 

harassment and disorderly conduct. We affirm.

The trial court, sitting as finder-of-fact in this summary case, made the 

following findings:

1. Sergeant Kyle Hough, a seventeen-year 

veteran of the Allentown Police Department, 

and Officer Michael Lovett, a two-year veteran 

of the department, were on duty in the 

evening hours of April 10, 2014. Both officers 

were wearing Allentown Police uniforms. They 

responded in separate police cars to 618 North 

Eleventh Street in Allentown, Lehigh County, 

based upon a call by a neighbor that a woman 

was screaming at that address.

2. When the officers arrived, they heard from 

their positions outside 618 North Eleventh 
J. S03013/16

- 2 -

Street a woman’s loud and shrill screams from 

inside the building. Based upon their belief 

that this woman needed urgent help, they 

entered the Eleventh Street address. This was 

half of a duplex with a closed apartment door 

on the first floor and a closed apartment door 

on the second floor at the top of a staircase. 

When they entered the building, 

Sergeant Hough believed that the screaming 

was coming from the second floor apartment. 

Both officers ran up the stairs. 

Sergeant Hough rapped on the second floor 

door.

3. Appellant, Shaborn Winston, answered 

Sergeant Hough’s knocking and attempted to 

convince the officers that everything was fine. 

As this was happening, the officers continued 

to hear the woman screaming and they 

realized that the screaming was coming from 

the first floor apartment. They rushed down 

the stairs with the appellant following 

immediately behind them.

4. Officer Lovett knocked on the first floor 

apartment door which was answered by 

appellant’s father, Kovet Winston. 

Officer Lovett entered the first floor apartment. 

As Sergeant Hough attempted to enter the 

apartment, appellant got around him, pushed 

and shoved him several times, and repeatedly 

yelled at him, “Get the f--- out of here.” He 

shouted that the officers had no right to be in 

the apartment. Sergeant Hough attempted to 

explain to appellant the urgency of the 

situation, that he had to assure himself that 

the female was safe and that, as soon as the 

officers completed that task, they would leave 

the building. Appellant ignored this 

explanation, persisted in shouting profanities, 

and continued to block Hough’s entrance to the 

apartment.
J. S03013/16

- 3 -

5. Appellant did these things to Sergeant Hough 

to annoy him to the point that he would give 

up on entering the apartment to check on the 

woman.

6. By this point other officers had arrived on the 

scene. With their help, appellant was removed 

from the door to the first floor apartment, 

taken into the hallway and placed in handcuffs. 

Police then took appellant outside the building. 

Throughout this time, appellant continued to 

shout foul statements at the police. 

Sergeant Hough assisted with the appellant in 

the hallway and outside the building.

7. When appellant was on the street in front of 

618 North Eleventh Street, he continued to be 

boisterous and profane by yelling, “F--- you,” 

“Get the f--- away from me,” and “Get the f---

off me” to the police. A number of people 

gathered on Eleventh Street watching what 

appellant was doing. Appellant intentionally 

created this disturbance on Eleventh Street 

and he knew bystanders stopped to watch his 

unruly behavior with the police and to hear his 

profane shouting.

8. The police arrested the appellant for disorderly 

conduct and placed him inside the patrol car. 

Once he was placed inside the patrol car, he 

stopped his profane display.

9. On entering the apartment, Officer Lovett 

found a woman that he estimated to be in her 

late twenties standing in what appeared to be 

the family room of the first floor apartment. 

She seemed dazed. Officer Lovett and other 

officers concluded that she was the woman 

who was screaming earlier. The woman had 

no visible injuries. There was no other 

indication that she was in danger but 

Officer Lovett observed that the apartment was 

in disarray with overturned furniture. (The 

court notes, without a finding of fact, that 
J. S03013/16

- 4 -

appellant and his father testified that the 

woman was screaming earlier for the purpose 

of relieving stress.)

Trial court opinion, 4/2/15 at 2-4.

Following a non-jury trial, on January 26, 2015, appellant was found 

guilty of one count each of disorderly conduct and harassment, both 

summary offenses.1 On February 17, 2015, appellant was sentenced to 7 to 

90 days in the county jail on Count 2, harassment, followed by 90 days of 

probation on Count 1, disorderly conduct. Appellant was to be paroled at 

the expiration of the 7-day minimum sentence, assuming good behavior. 

This timely appeal followed on March 16, 2015. Appellant complied 

with Pa.R.A.P., Rule 1925(b), 42 Pa.C.S.A., and the trial court has filed a 

Rule 1925(a) opinion. 

On appeal, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to 

sustain his convictions. No relief is due.

Our standard when reviewing the sufficiency of the 

evidence is “whether the evidence at trial, and all 

reasonable inferences derived therefrom, when 

viewed in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth as verdict winner, are sufficient to 

establish all elements of the offense beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. May, 584 

Pa. 640, 645-47, 887 A.2d 750, 753 (2005) (citation 

omitted). We may not weigh the evidence or 

substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. 

Commonwealth v. Smith, 863 A.2d 1172, 1176 

(Pa.Super.2004). Additionally, the evidence at trial 

need not preclude every possibility of innocence, and 

the fact-finder is free to resolve any doubts 

 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(1), and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1), respectively.
J. S03013/16

- 5 -

regarding a defendant’s guilt “unless the evidence is 

so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no 

probability of fact may be drawn from the combined 

circumstances.” Id. When evaluating the credibility 

and weight of the evidence, the fact-finder is free to 

believe all, part, or none of the evidence. Id. For 

purposes of our review under these principles, we 

must review the entire record and consider all of the 

evidence introduced. Id.

Commonwealth v. Love, 896 A.2d 1276, 1283 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal 

denied, 940 A.2d 363 (Pa. 2007).

Section 5503(a)(1) of the Crimes Code provides: “A 

person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent 

to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, 

or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (1) engages 

in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous 

behavior.” “Tumultuous” is not defined in 

Section 5503 or elsewhere in the Crimes Code. 

Commonly, “tumultuous” is defined as “marked by 

tumult”; “tending or disposed to cause or incite a 

tumult”; or “marked by violent or overwhelming 

turbulence or upheaval.” Merriam Webster’s 

Collegiate Dictionary 1272 (10th ed.1996). “Tumult” 

is relevantly defined as “a disorderly agitation . . . of 

a crowd usu. with uproar and confusion of voices,” or 

“a violent outburst.” Id. at 1271-72.

Id. at 1285 (footnote omitted).

Sergeant Hough testified that outside the residence, appellant was 

yelling and screaming obscenities. (Notes of testimony, 1/20/15 at 15-16.) 

Appellant was yelling, “F you, get the F away from me, get the F off me, that 

kind of behavior up until he was placed in the patrol car.” (Id. at 26.) 

Sergeant Hough testified that the commotion attracted residents out of their 

homes who were on the sidewalk watching. (Id. at 15.) Sergeant Hough 
J. S03013/16

- 6 -

testified that appellant’s behavior continued until he was placed in the back 

of a patrol car:

I remember a husband and a wife, could have been, 

I don’t know -- they were older, and they had some 

smaller family members around them and they were 

standing on the sidewalk just on the east side of the 

patrol car, and they just had this look of amazement 

on their face[s].

Id. at 25.

Clearly, this evidence was sufficient to find appellant guilty of 

summary disorderly conduct under Section 5503(a)(1). As the trial court 

states, “Bystanders watched and listened to appellant’s loud, repeated, 

profane barrages directed at specified individuals, police no less, in this 

public place.” (Trial court opinion, 4/2/15 at 6.) Obviously, the trial court 

did not believe appellant’s testimony that he was not yelling as he was being 

walked in handcuffs to the police car and remained “completely calm.” 

(Notes of testimony, 1/20/15 at 74, 76.) We agree with the trial court that, 

at the very least, appellant recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, 

annoyance, or alarm by engaging in tumultuous behavior. (Trial court 

opinion, 4/2/15 at 6.) There is no merit here.

We now turn to appellant’s conviction of harassment. Section 2709 of 

the Crimes Code provides, in relevant part:

(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the 

crime of harassment when, with intent to 

harass, annoy or alarm another, the person:
J. S03013/16

- 7 -

(1) strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise 

subjects the other person to 

physical contact, or attempts or 

threatens to do the same[.]

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1).

Sergeant Hough testified that before he could enter the first floor 

apartment, appellant began shoving him to prevent his ingress. (Notes of 

testimony, 1/20/15 at 12.) Sergeant Hough testified that he was unable to 

enter the residence because appellant “[was] pushing me and yelling 

profanity at me to get the F out, get the F out over and over again.” (Id. at 

13.) When Sergeant Hough tried to explain that they were there to 

investigate reports of a woman screaming and appellant needed to calm 

down, “He kept yelling I had no f-ing right to be in there. He kept shoving 

me. He kept telling me to f-ing get out, I couldn’t come inside.” (Id. at 

14.)

The trial court’s determination that appellant intended to harass and 

annoy Sergeant Hough by pushing, shoving, and insulting him so that he 

would be dissuaded from checking on the safety of the screaming woman is 

fully supported by the record. (Trial court opinion, 4/2/15 at 5-6.) The 

Commonwealth adduced sufficient evidence to support appellant’s conviction 

for harassment. See Commonwealth v. Blackham, 909 A.2d 315, 319-

320 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 919 A.2d 954 (Pa. 2007) (evidence 

sufficient for summary harassment under Section 2709(a)(1) where the 
J. S03013/16

- 8 -

appellant took eight-year-old D.M. by his arm and the back of his neck, and 

forced him home, leaving bruises on D.M.’s arm).

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/3/2016