J-S47015-15

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ISAAC LUIS MORRIS, 

Appellant No. 59 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered December 9, 2014,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County,

Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-22-CR-0001738-2014

BEFORE: ALLEN, OTT, and STRASSBURGER*, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED JULY 28, 2015

Isaac Luis Morris (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed after the trial court found him guilty of, inter alia, the summary 

offense of public drunkenness. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505. We affirm.

On appeal, Appellant presents us with a single issue:

I. Whether the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient 

evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction for public drunkenness 

where the Commonwealth failed to prove that Appellant was 

manifestly under the influence of alcohol to the degree that he 

could have endangered himself or other persons or annoyed 

persons in his vicinity?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

We initially note: 

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 
J-S47015-15

- 2 -

establish all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. 

We may not weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for 

that of the fact-finder. Additionally, the evidence at trial need 

not preclude every possibility of innocence, and the fact-finder is 

free to resolve any doubts 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. When evaluating the credibility and weight of 

the evidence, the fact-finder is free to believe all, part, or none 

of the evidence. For purposes of our review under these 

principles, we must review the entire record and consider all of 

the evidence introduced.

Commonwealth v. Emler, 903 A.2d 1273, 1276-1277 (Pa. Super. 2006) 

(citation omitted).

The public drunkenness statute states:

A person is guilty of a summary offense if he appears in any 

public place manifestly under the influence of alcohol or a 

controlled substance . . . to the degree that he may endanger 

himself or other persons or property, or annoy persons in his 

vicinity.

18 Pa.C.S. § 5505.

Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his 

conviction for public drunkenness because “the evidence failed to establish 

that he was intoxicated, and as the only people in Appellant’s vicinity to 

annoy were police officers, his conviction cannot stand.” Appellant’s Brief at 

7. The record does not support Appellant’s argument.

At his trial, Appellant did not present any witnesses. The 

Commonwealth presented two witnesses: Harrisburg Police Officer Colin 

Kerns, and Harrisburg Police Officer Thomas McGarrity. 
J-S47015-15

- 3 -

On the afternoon of March 8, 2014, Officer Kerns received a report of a 

fight at North 18th Street and Park Street. N.T., 12/9/14, at 41-42. There 

was no “active fight” when Officer Kerns arrived, but he remained in the 

area for approximately 45 minutes. Id. at 42. Around 3:00 p.m., Appellant 

approached the driver’s side of Officer Kerns’ patrol vehicle, smelling “of an 

odor of alcoholic beverage”, and “yelling about the fight.” Id. at 43. 

Addressing Officer Kerns, Appellant asked, “Why the fuck can’t you dumbass cops stop these punk-ass kids from fighting?” Id. Appellant then 

walked away, screaming back at Officer Kerns that he was a “pussy-ass 

cop.” Id. at 44, 70. Officer Kerns encountered Appellant again later that 

evening, when he saw Appellant on Market Street “stumbling from side to 

side on the sidewalk.” Id. at 46. Officer Kerns testified:

[Appellant] cut across Market Street. The way he was 

stumbling, I assumed he was still intoxicated, or possibly 

intoxicated like from the first encounter I had with him, so that’s 

why I decided I wanted to stop him.

Id. at 69.

Officer Kerns approached Appellant on suspicion of public 

drunkenness, and Appellant fled. Id. at 77-87. During his flight, Appellant 

“ran directly into” Officer McGarrity. Id. at 87. Officer McGarrity testified 

that he and Appellant “ended up kind of rolling around on the sidewalk, kind 

of fighting for control.” Id. Officer McGarrity described Appellant: 

Screaming, cursing at us, at one point he started calling us 

“crackers” and he made a reference that he was a ranger, I 
J-S47015-15

- 4 -

assume like an Army Ranger. He said he was gonna whip my 

ass, quote, whip my ass. 

Id. at 89. 

Given the foregoing, there existed sufficient evidence to support 

Appellant’s arrest for public drunkenness, see Thomas v. City of Erie, 236 

Fed.Appx. 772, 2007 WL 1666585 (police officers had probable cause to 

arrest for public intoxication where arrestee was staggering, had bloodshot 

eyes, and the smell of alcohol on his breath). Moreover, viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence was 

sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that Appellant was guilty of 

public drunkenness. Although the Commonwealth’s evidence was 

circumstantial, it was unrefuted. In addition, the public drunkenness 

statute, which provides that a person is guilty if he “appears in any public 

place manifestly under the influence of alcohol . . . to the degree that he 

may . . . annoy persons in his vicinity”, does not exempt police officers from 

being “persons in the vicinity” who “may be annoyed.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5505. 

Further, although Officer Kerns testified that as a police officer, he is “cursed

out all the time” and it does not bother him “at all”, N.T., 12/9/14, at 63-64, 

the language of the statute specifies that the behavior of the actor be such 

that it “may” annoy, and does not require that the actor under the influence 

of alcohol shall or actually annoy with his drunken behavior. 

Instantly, after hearing the testimony of the police officers, the trial 

court acted within its province as fact-finder in convicting Appellant of the 
J-S47015-15

- 5 -

summary offense of public drunkenness. We therefore affirm the judgment 

of sentence. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/28/2015
J-S47015-15

- 6 -