J-A06034-19

____________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DEJVAN SCOTT 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1384 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 8, 2018

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

No(s): CP-31-CR-0000092-2017

BEFORE: OTT, J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI*, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED: MARCH 27, 2019

Dejvan Scott (Scott) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed 

by the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County (trial court) following his 

bench conviction of two counts of Terroristic Threats and one count of 

Harassment.1 We affirm.

We take the following relevant facts and procedural history from our 

independent review of the certified record. Scott is an inmate at State 

Correctional Institution (SCI) Huntingdon. In October 2016, he was housed 

temporarily in administrative custody, a unit separate from the general prison 

population, because of his claims regarding certain gang members. After an 

investigation, the security office recommended his release back into the 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2706(a)(1) and 2709(a)(4), respectively.
J-A06034-19

- 2 -

general population because his claims could not be substantiated. Scott then 

completed two request slips containing threatening language directed toward 

SCI staff and sent them to the superintendent of the institution.2

Scott proceeded to a bench trial in January 2018. The trial court found 

him guilty of the above-mentioned offenses and sentenced him to an 

aggregate term of not less than one nor more than two years of incarceration. 

____________________________________________

2 The request slips read:

I’am [sic] not playing. I told security about my problems 

with The Bloods, a gang. I told them it’s a life and death situation. 

I told them its either me or them, “the Bloods” But somebody is 

going to get hurt. Yeah I owe them money, so I saw PRC. They 

said that they was going to release me to regular population, so 

now I’am [sic] telling you if they let me out I’am [sic] going to 

seriously hurt some Body the same night they release me. and 

I’m thinking about doing something to one of the nurse’s and a 

sexual way, I will do anything to safe my Life from Being out there 

in population, I don’t want to Hurt no nurse’s or inmate’s.

(Commonwealth’s Exhibit 1). 

We got up until thirty days to Figure this out so you telling 

me your going to jeopardize staff safety? For that matter why did 

you write up a misconduct? All I’m saying is you could consider 

Helping the situation instead of taking it as a joke, my last 

institution didn’t take my threats serious, and look what 

happened!! I sexually assaulted staff. I’m just looking out for yall

[sic] Benefits!!! Take my last statements I made previous to this 

request serious. Please don’t take me as a joke? You might want 

to reconsider your options: Don’t put harm in harm ways!! Please 

don’t jeopardize anyone’s career think before you react,

 Sincerely, Mr Scott

(Commonwealth’s Exhibit 2).
J-A06034-19

- 3 -

This timely appeal followed the trial court’s denial of Scott’s post-sentence 

motion.

On appeal, Scott challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence 

supporting his Terroristic Threats and Harassment convictions. (See Scott’s 

Brief, at 4). We begin by addressing his sufficiency claim in which he disputes 

the elements of intent and communication. (See id. at 8-12).3 Scott claims 

that his intent in writing the notes on the receipt slips was to remain in 

administrative confinement, away from gang members, and was not to 

terrorize or harass anyone. (See id.). He also argues that the notes were 

never communicated to the nurses or other alleged intended victims. (See 

id. at 10-11).

“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[.]” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2706(a)(1). To 

establish this offense, “the Commonwealth must prove that 1) the defendant 

made a threat to commit a crime of violence, and 2) the threat was 

____________________________________________

3 “Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are governed by our familiar 

and well-established standard of review. We consider the evidence presented 

at trial de novo.” Commonwealth v. Chambers, 188 A.3d 400, 409 (Pa. 

2018) (citation omitted). “We are obliged to evaluate that evidence in the 

light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the verdict winner, and we 

draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the Commonwealth’s favor.” Id.

(citation omitted). “Through this lens, we must ascertain whether the 

Commonwealth proved all of the elements of the crime at issue beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” Id. (citation omitted). This is a question of law and our 

scope of review is plenary. See id.
J-A06034-19

- 4 -

communicated with the intent to terrorize another or with reckless disregard 

for the risk of causing terror.” Commonwealth v. Beasley, 138 A.3d 39, 46 

(Pa. Super. 2016), appeal denied, 161 A.3d 791 (Pa. 2016) (citation omitted).

“Neither the ability to carry out the threat, nor a belief by the person 

threatened that the threat will be carried out, is an element of the offense.”

Id. (citation omitted). “Rather, the harm sought to be prevented by the 

statute is the psychological distress that follows from an invasion of another’s 

sense of personal security.” Id. (citation omitted).

“A person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass, 

annoy or alarm another, the person: . . . (4) communicates to or about such 

other person any lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, 

drawings or caricatures[.]” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(4). “An intent to harass 

may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances.” Commonwealth v. 

Cox, 72 A.3d 719, 721 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted).

Here, Captain Kevin Stevens, the SCI security captain, testified that he 

took Scott’s messages to the superintendent seriously because Scott

threatened the staff that presented a security issue for the institution. (See

N.T. Trial, 1/18/18, at 8). The notes themselves, which Scott admitted he 

wrote, plainly contain threats of violence against SCI staff members. His notes 

also state that prior threats at a different institution containing a warning went 

unheeded resulting in his sexual assault of a staff member. (See id. at 5, 9, 

30). Although Scott maintained that he wrote the notes because of his fear 

of gang members, he did not provide police with any names, nicknames, 
J-A06034-19

- 5 -

descriptions or any other information to determine who these individuals could 

be. (See id. at 30-31). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to 

the Commonwealth as verdict winner, and looking at the totality of the 

circumstances, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to establish 

Scott’s communication of a threat of violence to SCI staff, with the intent to 

terrorize and harass them. See Chambers, supra at 409; Cox, supra at 

721.

Scott next argues that the trial court ignored the weight of the evidence4

which showed that he was motivated by fear of gang violence in writing the 

notes.

5

 (See Scott’s Brief, at 12-13).

The trial court, after sitting as fact-finder in Scott’s bench trial, denied 

his weight claim, explaining:

Through credible testimony, the Commonwealth presented 

the request slips that were authored and delivered by [Scott]. 

These notes provide the evidence to the threats to SCI staff. The 

____________________________________________

4 Scott preserved his weight claim by raising it in his post-sentence motion. 

See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A)(3).

5 “A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict is against the 

weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court.” 

Commonwealth v. Thomas, 194 A.3d 159, 167 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation 

omitted). “It has often been stated that a new trial should be awarded when 

the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of 

justice and the award of a new trial is imperative so that right may be given 

another opportunity to prevail.” Id. (citation omitted). “Appellate review of 

a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying 

question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” Id. at 

168 (citation omitted). This Court will give the grave consideration to the 

findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge because the judge had the 

opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented. See id.
J-A06034-19

- 6 -

notes were communicated to SCI staff, and the intent of the 

author was to terrorize SCI staff. The evidence to support the 

convictions is overwhelming[.] . . . 

(Trial Court Opinion, 5/07/18, at 3).

After review of the record and giving grave consideration to the court’s 

findings, we discern no abuse of discretion in its denial of Scott’s weight claim. 

See Thomas, supra at 167.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 03/27/2019