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 Ter roristic T hreats 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, t he 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 d irected toward

SCI staff and sent them to the superintendent of the institution. 2
Scott proceeded to a bench trial in Janua ry 2018. The trial court found him guilty of the above

- ment ioned offenses and sentenced him to an aggregate term of not less than one nor more than two years of incarceration.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

2 T he request slips read:

I’ a m [sic] not playing. I told s ecurity about my problems with T he Bloods, a gang. I told them it’s a life and death situation. I told th em its either me or them, “the Bloods” B ut somebody is going to get hurt. Yeah I owe them money, so I saw PRC. They said that t hey was going to release me to regular population, so now I’am [sic] telling you i f they let me out I’am [sic] going to serious ly hurt some B ody th e same night they release me. a nd I’m thinking about doing something to one of the nurse ’ s and a sexual way, I will do anything to saf e my Life from B eing out there i n population, I don’t want to H urt no nurse ’ s or inmate ’ s. ( Commonwealth’s Exhibit 1 ).

We got up until thirty days to F igure this out s o 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 con sider H elping the situation instead of taking it as a joke, my last i nstitution didn’t take my threats serious , and look what happened!! I sexually assaulted staf f. I’m just looking out for ya ll [sic] B enefits!!! Take my last statements I made previous to this request serious. P lease 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 ev idence 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 int ent 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

administrati ve 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 w ith 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 sufficien cy 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 inference s therefrom in the Commonwealth’ s favor. ” Id. (citation omitted). “ Through this lens, we must ascertain whether the Commonwealth proved a ll of the elements of the crime at i ssue beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citation omitted). This is a q uestion of law and o ur scope of review is plenary. See id.J

- A06034

- 19

- 4

-

communicated with the intent to terro rize another or with reckless disregard

f or 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 foll ows from an invasion of another’ s sense of pe rsonal security.” Id. (citation omitted). “A person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass,

annoy o r alarm another, the person: . . . (4) communicates to or about such other person any lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, l angua ge, drawings or caricatures[.]” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(4). “An intent to harass
may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances.” Commonw e alth v.

Cox , 7 2 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 pr esented 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 vio lence against SCI staff members. His notes also state that prior threats at a di fferent institution containing a warning went

unheeded resulting in his sexual assault of a staff member. ( See id. at 5, 9, 30). Alth ough Scott maintained that he wrote the notes because of his fear of gang members, he did not provide police with any name s , nickname s ,J

- A06034

- 19

- 5

-

description s or any other information to determine who these individuals could
be. ( See id. at 30

- 31). V iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

the Comm onwealth 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 int ent 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 evidence 4
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 authore d and delivered by [Scott]. The se notes provide the evidence to the t h reats 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 , 19 4 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 wil l 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 over whelming[.] . . . (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: 0 3/27/20 19