Court Opinion

ID: 9893816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-30 17:09:25.693372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:50.939102
License: Public Domain

J-S35008-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  ANDRES O. JONES                              :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1430 MDA 2022

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 18, 2022
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0000327-2021

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                   FILED: OCTOBER 30, 2023

       Andres Jones appeals his judgment of sentence for criminal trespass,

resisting arrest and public drunkenness. He claims the evidence was

insufficient to support each of his three convictions and that the verdict was

against the weight of the evidence. Based largely on the well-reasoned trial

court opinion, we affirm.

       We borrow liberally from the trial court’s recitation of the facts, which is

supported by the record. Jones and his fiancé at the time, Kelsey Hoxsie, lived

together with their son and Jones’s daughter from a previous relationship. On

November 22, 202, Jones and Hoxsie went to a party at the apartment of their

neighbor, Jamie Stare. Stare’s brother, Jay Deininger, and Jacob Crablo also

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S35008-23

attended the party, where alcohol was being served. Jones and Hoxsie left the

party late in the evening and went to their apartment next door. At

approximately 3:30 a.m., Jones and Hoxsie got into an argument. Hoxsie

grabbed her son, and the two went to Stare’s apartment and hid in the

bathroom.

      Jones followed Hoxsie next door. He knocked loudly on the door.

Deininger answered the door, and while there is some dispute as to how Jones

gained entry, it is undisputed that he entered the apartment. Deininger and

Crablo subsequently scuffled with Jones, but they were eventually able to

force Jones from the apartment and onto the front porch shared by the two

apartments.

      Shortly thereafter, Officer Michael McGrath of the Wilkes-Barre City

Police Department arrived at the scene and found Jones’s body halfway

through the front porch window to Stare’s residence. Officer James Fisher also

responded to the scene.

      While Jones disputes what happened next, we note that Officer McGrath

testified that he climbed the front porch stairs, at which point Jones assumed

a fighting stance and said “Let’s go bro.” N.T., 4/29/2022, at 66. According to

Officer McGrath, Jones smelled of alcohol and showed signs of intoxication.

Officer McGrath spoke to the people inside Stare’s apartment and then

informed Jones he was under arrest. When Officer McGrath attempted to

handcuff Jones, Jones pulled away and refused to put his hands behind his

                                     -2-
J-S35008-23

back. Officer Fisher then pulled out his taser device and told Jones to comply.

Jones responded that he wasn’t scared as he had “been tased before.” Id. at

45.

      Officer Fisher called for additional officers, and two other officers arrived

on the scene. The officers were able to take Jones to the ground, and although

Jones continued to resist, the officers were ultimately able to place him into

custody. Officer McGrath noted that the incident created substantial noise in

an otherwise quiet residential neighborhood, and neighbors turned on their

lights in response to the disturbance.

      Jones was charged with criminal trespass, simple assault, disorderly

conduct, resisting arrest and public drunkenness. The matter proceeded to a

jury trial, at which Hoxsie, Officer McGrath, Officer Fisher, Deininger and

Crablo all testified for the Commonwealth. Jones testified in his own defense.

Nonetheless, the jury convicted Jones of criminal trespass and resisting arrest.

The trial court, meanwhile, found Jones guilty of the summary offense of public

drunkenness. The court sentenced Jones to an aggregate probationary term

of 15 months in the county intermediate punishment program, with the first

30 days to be served in prison followed by three months under house arrest.

      Jones filed post-sentence motions, which the court denied. He then filed

a timely notice of appeal and complied with the court’s directive to file a

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. In the

statement, Jones complained there was insufficient evidence to support any

                                      -3-
J-S35008-23

of the three convictions and that the convictions were against the weight of

the evidence.

      The trial court issued a responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion, in which it

thoroughly addressed each of Jones’s claims. The court initially recounted the

standard of review applicable to sufficiency claims, see Trial Court Opinion,

1/5/2023, at 5, and then individually reviewed the evidence supporting each

of Jones’s three convictions.

      First, the court outlined what the Commonwealth was required to prove

in order to sustain a criminal trespass conviction, which a person is guilty of

“if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he … breaks into

any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion

thereof.” Id. at 6 (quoting 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3503(a)(1)(ii)). The court then

explained how the evidence that Jones forced himself into the residence and

then began climbing through the front porch’s window was sufficient to sustain

such a conviction here. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/25/2023, at 6-8. It

specifically rejected Jones’s arguments that he had permission to enter Stare’s

residence and that he had not broken into Stare’s apartment. See id. at 7-8.

      The court then noted what the Commonwealth needed to prove in order

to sustain Jones’s conviction for resisting arrest, which a person commits “if,

with the intent of preventing a public servant from effecting a lawful arrest or

discharging any other duty, the person creates a substantial risk of bodily

injury to the public servant or anyone else, or employs means justifying or

                                     -4-
J-S35008-23

requiring substantial force to overcome the resistance.” Id. at 8-9 (quoting

18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5104). The court “did not hesitate to conclude” the evidence

was sufficient to support a conviction here, explaining:

      Officer McGrath of the Wilkes-Barre City police department
      testified that as he responded to a 4 AM 911 call for a disorderly
      male[,] he observed him hanging inside an open window. The
      Officer approached [Jones] who turned toward him, squared up in
      a fighting stance and said “Let’s go bro.” He ignored the threat of
      a taser and refused to comply with lawful commands. Ultimately
      it took Officer McGrath, Officer Fisher and two other responding
      officers to wrestle him into handcuffs.

Trial Court Opinion, 1/5/2023, at 9.

      The trial court then turned to Jones’s claim that the evidence had been

insufficient to support his conviction for public drunkenness, which a person

is guilty of “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.” Id. at

10 (quoting 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5505). In finding the Commonwealth had

presented sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction here, the trial court

specifically rejected Jones’s claim that the shared front porch was not a “public

place” and he therefore could not be convicted of public drunkenness. See

Trial Court Opinion, 1/5/2023, at 11-13 (citing Commonwealth v.

Whritenour, 751 A.2d 687, 688 (Pa. Super. 2000) (holding limited access

road in private community was a “public place”)).

      Lastly, the trial court rejected Jones’s challenges to the weight of the

evidence based on his assertions of witness bias and conflicting testimony.

                                       -5-
J-S35008-23

The trial court summarized the evidence at trial and found the evidence was

not so contrary to the verdict as to “shock [its] sense of justice,” as a court is

required to find before ruling that the verdict was against the weight of the

evidence. See id. at 14-15 (citing Commonwealth v. Cousar, 928 A.2d

1025, 1036 (Pa. 2007)). The court also noted that it is the province of the

fact-finder to assess the credibility of witnesses. See Trial Court Opinion,

1/5/2023, at 14 (citing Commonwealth v. Bruce, 916 A.2d 657, 661 (Pa.

Super. 2007)).

      In his appellate brief, Jones’s first three issues focus on the sufficiency

of the evidence underlying his three convictions. However, we detect no error

in the trial court’s conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to sustain each

of Jones’s convictions. Jones does not convince us otherwise. With one notable

exception, Jones essentially renews arguments on appeal that he raised in his

Rule 1925(b) statement and which the trial court found to be without merit.

We agree with the trial court that these arguments are without merit and

adopt its analysis on the sufficiency claims as our own. See Trial Court

Opinion, 1/5/2023, at 5-13.

      The one notable exception referenced above is Jones’s argument

regarding the sufficiency of his resisting arrest conviction. In his Rule 1925(b)

statement, Jones specifically argued only that his actions “did not create a

situation where a substantial risk of bodily injury to the public servant or

anyone existed or that his actions required substantial force to overcome the

                                      -6-
J-S35008-23

resistance.” Statement of Matters Complained of On Appeal, 11/23/2022, at

1 (unpaginated). He abandons that argument on appeal, instead raising the

distinct argument that there was no lawful arrest for him to resist. This claim

is waived. See Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998)

(holding that any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement are deemed

waived).

      In his final claim, Jones challenges the trial court’s conclusion that the

verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Our review of such a claim,

as Jones recognizes, is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its

discretion in denying the weight claim. See Commonwealth v. Martin, 297

A.3d 424, 436 (Pa. Super. 2023). As noted above, the trial court recounted

the evidence at trial and found the verdict was not against the weight of this

evidence:

      First, [Jones] challenges the [jury’s] conclusion that he was
      without privilege to enter the residence at [Stare’s residence]. He
      represented that his presence was permissive. This claim is
      meritless. [Jones] was physically removed from the residence
      after a fight with other guests there. Soon after he opened a
      window at [Stare’s residence] and was observed hanging through
      that window. Two unrelated witnesses, one from outside and
      another from the inside the residence, saw him do this. [Jones’s]
      testimony that another party opened the window does not change
      the fact that he sought to enter another’s residence through an
      opening not designed for human access in circumstances which
      demonstrate that he was not privileged to do so. Welcome guests
      do not usually enter by the window. …

            Next, [Jones] complains in two related issues that the
      verdict is against the weight of the evidence because of conflicting
      testimony, and bias of the witnesses. … The police and lay
      witnesses testified to facts which taken together seemed logical

                                     -7-
J-S35008-23

      and credible. The jury was aware that, with the exception of
      [Jones’s] girlfriend who was running away from him, [] all the
      witnesses, including the police, did physically fight with [Jones] on
      the night of his arrest. We do not doubt that this caused him to
      suspect that these witnesses are not likely to offer testimony
      favorable to him. The [jury’s] resolution of that credibility issue
      does not shock our sense of justice.

Trial Court Opinion, 1/5/2023, at 14-15. Although Jones continues to argue

the Commonwealth’s witnesses were either biased or not credible, it is, as the

trial court noted, the province of the fact-finder to assess the credibility of the

witnesses. See Bruce, 916 A.2d at 661. Jones has simply not shown any

palpable abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.

      Based on the above, we find that Jones’s sufficiency and weight claims

are without merit, and we therefore affirm his judgment of sentence. Because

of our reliance on the trial court’s January 5, 2023 opinion, we have attached

a copy of the opinion to this memorandum. The parties are instructed to attach

the same to all future filings.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 10/30/2023

                                       -8-
                                                                       Circulated 10/19/2023 10:05 AM

                   11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                   1{I

     COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                        OF LUZERNE COUNTY

                       V.
                                                         CRIMINAL
                                                         CRIMINAL DIVISION
 ANDRES 0.
        O. JONES
                       Defendant /I Appellant
                       Defendant

                                                              No.
                                                              No. 327
                                                                  327 of
                                                                      of 2021
                                                                         2021 .

                                        OPINION

BY:     THE HONORABLE DAVID W. LUPAS                                         CLERY.OF COURTS CRIMIPIRL
                                                                             CLERK OF CURTS  CRIMDL
                                                                                LUZ CNTY JRNSTSP0:13
                                                                                         JANE/23e13
,.
I.      FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

        This matter comes before the Court pursuant
                                           pursuant to a
                                                       a Criminal Information

filed on April
         April 23,
               23, 2021,
                   2021, against
                         against the above-named Appellant
                                                 Appellant by the District

Attorney
Attorney of Luzerne County. The Information
            Luzerne County.     Information charged
                                            charged the
                                                    the Appellant
                                                        Appellant with
                                                                  with

criminal   trespass,
           trespass,        18   Pa.C,S.A. §3503(A)(1)(ii),
                                 Pa.C,S.A. §3503(A)(1)(ii),     simple
                                                                slmple    assault,       18

Pa.C.S.A.§ 2701(A)(1), disorderly conduct,
Pa.C.S.A$                                              18     Pa.C.S.A.§5503(A)(1),
                                                              Pa.C.S.A.,55503(4)(1)

resisting arrest, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §5104,
resisting                      $5104, and public drunkenness, 18 Pa.C.S.A.
                                                                 Pa.C.S.A

§5505.

        At trial, evidence was presented that on November 22, 2020, the

Appellant was
Appellant     aguest
          was a       at "friends'
                guest at           giving" party
                         "friends' giving" party at
                                                 at 96
                                                    96 Vilest Chestnut Street
                                                       West Chestnut   Street in
                                                                              in
                       .
Wilkes-Barre. At that time, he resided next door at 94 West Chestnut Street
                                                                     street

with his daughter,
         daughter, his girlfriend,
                       girlfriend, Kelsey Hoxsie, their son.
                                                        son. ((N.T.
                                                               N.T. pg. 27) The ·

                                            I
holiday
holiday party
        party at 96 West Chestnut Street featured alcohol.
                                                  alcohol. (N.T.
                                                           (N.T. pg. 34) late
                                                                         Late

in
in the
   the evening,
       evening, sometime after 3AM,
                sometime after 3AM, the
                                    the Appellant and Ms.
                                        Appellant and Ms. Hoxsie,
                                                          Hoxsie, began
                                                                  began to
                                                                        to

argue. He pulled
          pulled the blanket from her bed as she tried to sleep, called her

names and pulled
names and pulled off
                 off her
                     her engagement
                         engagement ring
                                    ring and
                                         and threw it across
                                             threw it across the room.
                                                             the room.

(N.T. pg. 30) Ms. Hoxsie and her son then left
                                           left the residence at 94 West

Chestnut and went next door to 96 West Chestnut Street where she was

apparently admitted to enter. ((ld.)
apparently                      Id.) Appellant followed her next door. He

knocked
knocked loudly
        loudly on
               on the door which
                           which was
                                 was answered
                                     answered by Jay Deininger who
                                                               who

Appellant
Appellant hip checked out of the way before he entered the residence.
                                                           residence. (N.T.
                                                                      (N.T.

pg. 31,
pg.     67) Appellant
    31, 67) Appellant was
                      was ordered
                          ordered to
                                  to leave the residence, but he
                                                              he refused.
                                                                 refused.

(N.T.
(N.T. pg. 58) Ms.
      pg. 58) Ms. Hoxsie
                  Hoxsie and
                         and Appellant's daughter took
                             Appellant's daughter took shelter
                                                       shelter from
                                                               from him in
                                                                    him in

the bathroom of 96 West Chestnut Street. Two guests
                                             guests at that residence, Jay

Deininger
Deininger and Jacob Crablo, briefly
                            briefly fought
                                    fought with the Appellant and ultimately,

he was removed from the residence. (N.T. pg. 68-69) The Appellant
                                   (N.T. pg.

persisted. He opened
persisted.    opened a
                     awindow accessible from the front porch outside and

began to crawl through
began          through the window.
                           window. ((Id.)
                                     Id.) It was at this time that police arrived

who
who observed
    observed his body halfway through the open window.
             his body                          window. ((N.T.
                                                         N.T. trial
                                                              trial pg. 80-
                                                                        80-

81)

      Officers James Fisher and Michael McGrath both of the Wilkes-Barre
                                                            Wilkes-Barre

City
City Police Department
            Department responded to a
                                    a 911 call to 96 West Chestnut Street.
                                                                   Street. ,

                                        2
                                        2
•

    (N.T.
    (N.T. pg. 41-42)
              41-42) Upon arriving,
                          arriving, Officer McGrath
                                            McGrath observed
                                                    observed the
                                                             the Appellant
                                                                 Appellant

    hanging
    hanging through the front
                        front window
                              window of
                                     of 96 West
                                           West Chestnut.
                                                Chestnut. Office
                                                          Office McGrath
                                                                 McGrath

    ascended the front porch stairs where he was greeted by the Appellant who

    squared
    squared up in a
                  a fighting stance to face him saying,
                                                saying, ""Let's
                                                          Let's go bro."
                                                                   bro." ((N.T.
                                                                           N.T. pg.

    82). Officer McGrath who is experienced in observing persons under the

    influence of drugs and alcohol noted that the Appellant smelled of alcohol

    and appeared to be intoxicated.
                       intoxicated. ((N.T.
                                      N.T. pg. 83). Officer Fisher attempted to

    handcuff the Appellant
                 Appellant but he refused to comply
                                             comply and he pulled away.
                                                                  away. ((N.T.
                                                                          N.T.

    pg. 86)
        86) Officer Fisher renewed his demand that the Appellant comply with

    officers' directions pointing a
                                  a taser device at him. Appellant advised that he

    wasn't "scared"
    wasn't                      had "been
           "scared" and that he had "been tased before."
                                                before." (N.T.
                                                         (N.T. pg. 87, see also

    pg. 45-46). Appellant continued to resist and itit took Officers Fisher, McGrath

    and two other officers to take him to the ground where he continued to
                                                           he continued to resist.
                                                                           resist.

    (N.T. pg. 46).
    (N.T. pg. 46). With great effort, and at some personal risk to themselves,

    police
    police took Appellant into
           took Appellant into custody. Officer'McGrath
                               custody. Officer McGrath noted
                                                        noted that
                                                              that .some
                                                                    some other
                                                                         other

    residences, in the neighborhood
    residences         neighborhood.turned
                                    turned their lights on in response to the

    disturbance
    disturbance created
                created     by
                            by Appellant's
                               Appellant's conduct and
                                                   and the
                                                       the necessary
                                                           necessary law
                                                                     law

    enforcement response
                response thereto.
                         thereto. ((N.T.
                                    N.T. pg. 89)
                                             89) He also agreed that the fracas

                 by the Appellant
    necessitated by     Appellant resulted in substantial noise which at an hour

                                           3
                                           3
•

    between three and four AM*
                           AM was unusual for the quiet residential

    neighborhood. (N.T.
    neighborhood.       pg. 79)
                  (N.T. pg. 79)

            A jury
            A jury trial commenced on
                   trial commenced    April ,19,
                                   on April  19, 2022,
                                                 2022, and
                                                       and the
                                                           the jury
                                                               jury returned
                                                                    returned their
                                                                             their

    verdict on
    verdict on April 20t,
                     20th. The
                           The Appellant
                               Appellant was
                                         was found
                                             found guilty
                                                   guilty of
                                                          of counts
                                                             counts 1,
                                                                    1, 4 and 5,
                                                                       4 and 5, and
                                                                                and

    not guilty
        guilty of counts 2
                         2and 3. A
                                 A presentence investigation
                                               investigation (PSI)
                                                             (PSI) was Ordered

    to be
       be completed by the Luzerne County Adult Probation and Parole

    Department prior
    Department prior to
                     to sentencing.
                        sentencing. On
                                    On July 25, 2022,
                                       July 25, 2022, the
                                                      the Defendant
                                                          Defendant appeared
                                                                    appeared

    before this Court for imposition of sentence. Upon a
                                                       a review of the
                                                                   the.PSI, and

    the arguments
        arguments of counsel we imposed
                                imposed sentences within the standard range

    of the sentencing
           sentencing guidelines.
                      guidelines. On July
                                     July 28,
                                          28, 2022,
                                              2022, Appellant's
                                                    Appellant's counsel filed a
                                                                              a

    post sentence
    post sentence motion
                  motion which vaguely
                               vaguely raised weight
                                              weight and
                                                     and sufficiency claims.
                                                                     claims.

    We denied his motion by
                         by Order dated September
                                        September 13, 2022. Thereafter, on

            10, 2022,
    October 10,       Appellant field a
                2022, Appelant        a counseled notice of appeal. We ordered

    the Appellant to file
    the Appellant    file his
                          his concise
                              concise statement pursuant
                                                pursuant to
                                                         to Pa.
                                                            Pa. R.A.P.
                                                                R.A.P. 1925(b).
                                                                       1925(b)

    After
    After we granted Appellant's
          we granted             request for
                     Appellant's request for an
                                             an additional
                                                additional 20 days to file
                                                           20 days    file his
                                                                           his

    concise statement we received his filed allegations
                                            allegations of error on November 23,

    2022.
    2022.

            For the reasons set forth below, the Appellant's appeal should be

    denied and the verdicts and judgments
                                judgments of sentence affirmed.

                                           4
                                           4
11.
II.   LAW AND DISCUSSION:

      The Appellant's Concise
      The Appellant's Concise Statement
                              Statement of Matters Complained of
                                           Matters Complained of on
                                                                 on

Appeal alleges insufficient
Appeal alleges insufficient evidence
                            evidence to support his
                                     to support     convictions for
                                                his convictions for criminal
                                                                    criminal

trespass,
trespass, resisting arrest
                    arrest and public drunkenness.
                                      drunkenness. We
                                                   We disagree.

      When reviewing
           reviewing a
                     a sufficiency
                       sufficiency of the evidence claim, we view the

evidence and
         and all
             all reasonable
                 reasonable inferences
                            inferences to
                                       to be drawn from the evidence in the
                                                                        the

light
light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner and determine

if
if the
   the evidence,
       evidence, thus viewed,
                      viewed, is
                              is sufficient
                                 sufficient to prove
                                               prove guilt beyond a
                                                                  a reasonable

doubt. A
       A reviewing
         reviewing 'court
                    court may not substitute its judgment for that of the

factfinder. If the record contains support for .the
                                   support for   the verdict, it may not be

disturbed.
disturbed. Moreover,
           Moreover, a
                     a jury may believe all,
                       jury may         all, some
                                             some or none    a party's
                                                     none of a

testimony and the Commonwealth may
testimony                      may sustain its burden by
                                                      by means of wholly

circumstantial
circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth y,
               evidence. Commonwealth v. McFarland,
                                         McFarland, 278
                                                    278 A.3d
                                                        A.3d 369,
                                                             369, 381
                                                                  381

(Pa Super
(Pa Super 2022)
          2022) (citations
                (citations omitted) Only where
                                         where the
                                               the evidence offered to

support
support the verdict is in contradiction to the physical facts, in contravention

         experience and the laws of nature, is it deemed insufficient as a
to human experience                                                      a

matter
matter of
       of law.     Commonwealth
                   Commonwealth v.
                                y,          Robinson,
                                            Robinson, 817 A.2d.
                                                          A.2d. 1153, 1158

                                       55
(Pa- Super. 2003
(Pa.Super.  2003 quoting
                 quoting Commonwealth
                         Commonwealth v.
                                      v, Santana,
                                         Santana, 460
                                                  460 Pa.
                                                      Pa. 482,
                                                          482, 333
                                                               333 A.2d
                                                                   A.2d

876 ((1975)).
876   1975)).

      The Appellant
      The Appellant alleges
                    alleges that the there
                            that the there is insufficient evidence
                                           is insufficient evidence to
                                                                    to prove
                                                                       prove

beyond a reasonable
beyond a            doubt that
         reasonable doubt that he broke into
                               he broke into a
                                             a structure.
                                               structure. He alternately
                                                          He alternately

argues that
argues      he was
       that he     invited into
               was invited      the structure
                           into the structure and
                                              and was
                                                  was there
                                                      there permissibly.
                                                            permissibly. The
                                                                         The

evidence presented
         presented at
                   at trial
                      trial belies
                            belies this
                                   this claim.
                                        claim. A
                                               A person
                                                 person commits
                                                        commits the offense
                                                                    offense

of criminal trespass
            trespass ""if,
                       if, knowing
                           knowing that he
                                        he is not licensed
                                                  licensed or
                                                           or privileged
                                                              privileged to
                                                                         to do
                                                                            do so,
                                                                               so,

he breaks
he breaks into
          into any
               any building
                   building or occupied structure
                            or occupied structure or
                                                  or separately
                                                     separately secured or
                                                                secured or

occupied portion
occupied portion thereof."
                 thereof." 18 Pa&3503(a)(1)(ii).
                           18_Pa.53503(a)(1(ii).

      "A
      "A person
         person breaks
                breaks into
                       into a building or
                            a building    occupied structure
                                       or occupied structure ifif he
                                                                  he gains
                                                                     gains entry
                                                                           entry

by force, breaking,
by force, breaking, intimidation,
                    intimidation, unauthorized
                                  unauthorized opening
                                               opening of locks, or through
                                                          locks, or through an
                                                                            an

opening
opening not designed for
        not designed for human access." 18
                         human access." 18 Pa.§
                                           Pa.S 3503(a)(3).
                                                3503(a)(3). Additionally,
                                                            Additionally,

the entry requirement
the entry requirement of
                      of our criminal trespass
                         our criminal trespass statute
                                               statute is
                                                       is satisfied
                                                          satisfied by insertion
                                                                    by insertion

of an instrument
of an instrument which
                 which is held or
                       is held or manipulated
                                  manipulated by
                                              by the
                                                 the defendant,
                                                     defendant, or
                                                                or so
                                                                   so closely
                                                                      closely

associated
associated with
           with his
                his body
                    body that
                         that itit essentially
                                   essentially becomes
                                               becomes an extension thereof."
                                                       an extension thereof."

Commonwealth v.
             y, Furness,
                Furness, 2016 PA Super
                         2016 PA Super 298,
                                       298, 153
                                            153 A.3d
                                                A.3d 397,
                                                     397, 401-02
                                                          401--02

(2016) ((internal
(2016)   internal quotations
                  quotations and citations omitted)
                             and citations omitted)

      Having presided
      Having presided over the trial in this matter, we agree that the evidence

was sufficient to enable the jury
                             jury to find the Appellant
                                              Appellant guilty
                                                        guilty of criminal
                                 •
trespass.
trespass. Jay Deininger testified
          Jay Deininger testified that
                                  that he
                                       he was
                                          was awoken
                                              awoken by
                                                     by loud
                                                        loud knocking
                                                             knocking at the
                                                                         the

                                        6
                                        6
door.
door. (N.T.
      (N.T. pg.     A neighbor,
            pg. 66) A           Kelsey, (Ms.
                      neighbor, Kelsey, (Ms. Hoxsie)
                                             Hoxsie) and
                                                     and her
                                                         her son,
                                                             son, rushed

inside saying that
              that "(Appellant)
                   "(Appellant) was going crazy..." Kelsey then locked herself

in the bathroom. Soon after, Appellant
                             Appellant loudly
                                       loudly knocked at the door. (id.)
                                                                   (ld.) As
                                                                         As

soon as Mr. Denininger opened the door for him, he
                                                he "like
                                                     like hipped it and

pushed it open and came right in." (N.T.
                                   (N.T. trial pg. 67). The witness agreed

that the Appellant forced himself into the residence. ((Id.)
                                                        Id.) Thereafter, Mr.

Deniniger and Jayson Crablo, physically fought with the Appellant and
          l

compelled
compelled him to leave the residence.
                           residence. ((Id.
                                        Id. pg.
                                            pg. 69). Undeterred, the Appellant

opened the front window and began climbing through the window.
                                                       window. ((Id.)
                                                                 Id.)

Wilkes-Barre City police officer, Michael McGrath arrived at that moment and

witnessed
witnessed the
          the Appellant
              Appellant hanging into the
                                     the residence
                                         residence at
                                                   at 96
                                                      96 West Chestnut
                                                              Chestnut

Street. (Trial
        (Trial N.T. pg. 80-81). While Appellant argued at trial that his

presence, hanging
presence, hanging inside the half open window of 96 West Chestnut Street

was permissive. We disagree.
                   disagree. At least circumstantially, his having been

thrown of the house to be kept
                          kept away from the young
                                             young woman locked in the

bathroom moments before climbing into the window belies this claim.

     The evidence viewed in the light
                                light most favorable to the Commonwealth

was sufficient to prove
                  prove guilt
                        guilt beyond a
                                     a reasonable doubt that the Appellant

broke into the residence. This is especially
                                  especially clear where the credible evidence

proved
proved that his body
                body was halfway
                         halfway through
                                 through the open window which is an

                                      77
opening not designed for human access. Even if the Jury believed

Appellant's testimony
Appellant's testimony that
                      that he
                           he did
                              did not
                                  not open
                                      open the
                                           the window,
                                               window, he
                                                       he was
                                                          was observed
                                                              observed by
                                                                       by

Officer McGrath
Officer McGrath entering
                entering the
                         the opening
                             opening which is not
                                     which is not designed
                                                  designed for
                                                           for human
                                                               human

access. See
access. See 18
            18 Pa.S
               Pa.§ 3503(a(3).
                    3503(x)(3). Accordingly, this Court
                                Accordingly, this Court has
                                                        has no
                                                            no hesitation
                                                               hesitation in
                                                                          in

finding that the evidence presented
finding                   presented at trial was sufficient to demonstrate

beyond a
beyond a reasonable doubt that the Appellant is guilty
                                                guilty of criminal trespass.

      We submit that this conclusion also fairly
                                          fairly addresses the Appellant's
                                                               Appellant's

         paragraph 3
claim at paragraph 3of his concise statement
                                   statement which alleges that we erred in

denying his motion for judgment
denying                judgment of acquittal.
                                   acquittal. Plainly,
                                              Plainly, -a
                                                        a prima facia case

existed where the evidence is sufficient to prove his guilt beyond aa

reasonable doubt.
reasonable doubt.

      Appellant next complains
      Appellant      complains that the evidence was insufficient to prove

beyond a
beyond areasonable doubt that he is guilty of resisting arrest. He specifically

argues that the he did not
argues                 not ""create
                             create a
                                    asituation where a
                                                     asubstantial risk of bodily

injury to the public
injury        public servant or anyone else existed or that his actions required

substantial force to overcome the resistance." This claim likewise fails.

         person commits a
      "A person         amisdemeanor of the               if, with
                                        the second degree if, with the

          preventing a
intent of preventing a. public servant from effecting a
                                                      a lawful arrest or

discharging any
discharging any other duty,
                      duty, the person
                                person creates a
                                               a substantial risk of bodily

injury to the public
injury                          anyone else, or employs means justifying Or
              public servant or anyone                                   or

                                       8s
requiring substantial force to overcome the resistance."
                                            resistance." 18 Pa. C.S.A.§ 5104.
                                                         18Pa.C.SAS5104.

The Superior Court
             Court upheld the
                          the trial court's rejection
                                            rejection of
                                                      of         a
                                                                 a sufficiency
                                                                   sufficiency

challenge llike               Commonwealth v. Clark, 761 A.2d 190,193
           ike Appellant's in Commonwealth                    190, 193 ((Pa.
                                                                         Pa.

Super 2000). After being informed that he was under arrest, (Clark)
                                                            (Clark) refused

to comply
   comply with lawful commands, assumed a
                                        a fighting
                                          fighting stance, verbally

declared his intent to physically fight
                                  fight police,
                                        police, then physically
                                                     physically resisted non-

lethal force and the police had to wrestle him to make the arrest.

Commonwealth v.
             y, Clark, 761 A.2d 190, 193
                                     193 (Pa.
                                         (Pa. Super 2000).

     At the Appellant's
            Appellant's trial, Officer McGrath of the Wilkes-Barre City police

department
department testified that as he responded to a
                                             a 4AM 911 call for a
                                                                a disorderly

male he observed him hanging inside an open
                                       open window.
                                            window. ((N.T.
                                                      N.T. pg. 79-81). The

Officer approached the Appellant
                       Appellant who turned toward him, squared up in a
                                                                      a

fighting
fighting stance and said, ""Let's
                            Let's go bro."
                                     bro." ((N.T.
                                             N.T. pg.
                                                  pg. 82) He ignored the threat

of a
   a taser and refused to comply
                          comply with lawful commands. Ultimately it took

Officer McGrath, Officer Fisher and two other responding officers to wrestle

him into handcuffs.
         handcuffs. ((N.T.
                      N.T. pg.
                           pg. 87-88) This struggle took place on an elevated

porch cluttered with Appellant's
porch                            weights which police
                     Appellant's weights       police accessed by climbing

a
a one
  one story
      story flight
            flight of stairs which
                             which was
                                   was slippery
                                       slippery being
                                                being covered
                                                      covered with
                                                              with destroyed
                                                                   destroyed

pumpkins.
pumpkins. (N.T. pg. 86). We do not hesitate to conclude that the evidence
          (N.T. pg.

was sufficient to prove
                  prove that the Appellant's
                                 Appellant's conduct created a
                                                             a situation where

                                       9
                                       9
•

    aa substantial
       substantial risk
                   risk of
                        of bodily
                           bodily injury
                                  injury to
                                         to the public servant
                                            the public servant existed
                                                               existed and
                                                                       and that
                                                                           that his
                                                                                his

                                                       resistance. ((N.T.
    actions required substantial force to overcome his resistance.   N.T. pg. 46,

           Appellant's sufficiency
    87-88) Appellant's sufficiency claim must fail.

            Appellant next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his

                   public drunkenness. He claims that the
    conviction for public                             the Commonwealth failed

    to establish that he was intoxicated to a
                                            a degree that he may endanger himself

    or others. We were the factfinder for this offense because it is aasummary

                                                    public drunkenness, in
    offense. The Crimes Code defines the offense of public

    relevant part, as follows: "A                     a summary offense if he
                               "A person is guilty of a

                                                                             a
    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,
    persons    property, or annoy persons in his vicinity" 18Pa.CS.A
                                                           18 Pa.C.S.A. S
                                                                        § 5505,
                                                                          5505.

            Reviewing the evidence we heard at trial we note that Officer Fisher
            Reviewing

        training in recognizing
    has training    recognizing -intoxicated persons and is experienced having

    spent 17 years
    spent    years patrolling
                   patrolling the City on the night shift. ((N.T.
                                                             N.T. pg. 44) He testified

             Appellant appeared
    that the Appellant appeared under the influence alcohol.
                                                    alcohol. (N.T.
                                                             (N.T. pg. 43). Officer
        ,
    McGrath, also an experienced
    McGrath,         experienced veteran of the night
                                                nightshift,
                                                      shift, similarly detected

             Appellant was under the influence of alcohol. Appellant's arrest was
    that the Appellant

    preceded by
    preceded by a       party where he -was a
                a house party               a guest which included the

    consumption of alcohol and lasted into the early morning hours. Accordingly,
    consumption

                                            10
there is
there is ample evidence to
         ample evidence    support his
                        to support his intoxication.
                                       intoxication. We
                                                     We submit
                                                        submit that
                                                               that preceding
                                                                    preceding

analysis of
analysis    his resisting
         of his resisting arrest
                          arrest conviction
                                 conviction supports
                                            supports our
                                                     our conclusion
                                                         conclusion that he
                                                                    that he

endangered
endangered himself and
                   and other persons
                             persons and we incorporate
                                            incorporate that
                                                        that analysis
                                                             analysis into
                                                                      into

our resolution
our resolution of
               of this issue.
                  this issue.

      To his
      To  his claim
              claim that
                    that his conduct was
                         his conduct was not
                                         not in
                                             in public
                                                public we turn
                                                          tum to
                                                               to

Commonwealth v.
Commonwealth y, Mever, 431 A.2d
                Mever, 431 A.2d 287
                                287 ((Pa.
                                      Pa. Super.
                                          Super, 1981),
                                                 1981), where
                                                        where the
                                                              the

Superior
Superior Court helpfully observed that
         Court helpfully          that "Section
                                       Section 5505
                                                5505 does
                                                     does not
                                                          not define
                                                              define the
                                                                     the

     'public.' However,
term 'public.' However, [t]he
                        [t]he term
                              term does appear,
                                        appear, however,
                                                however, in
                                                         in two
                                                            two places
                                                                places in
                                                                       in the
                                                                          the

Crimes
Crimes Code:
       Code: in the
                the section
                    section dealing with
                                    with prostitution,
                                         prostitution, section
                                                       section 5902,
                                                               5902, and
                                                                     and in
                                                                         in

the section dealing
            dealing with disorderly conduct, section 5503. Section 5902(f)

defines it as
           as 'any
               'any place
                    place to which the public or any substantial group thereof

has access.'
has acx:ess.' The
              The ordinary meaning of
                  ordinary meaning of ''access'
                                        access' is: 'the
                                                    'the right
                                                         right to
                                                               to enter
                                                                  enter or
                                                                        or make
                                                                           make

    of;' 'the
use of;' 'the state or quality
                       quality of
                               of being
                                  being easy to enter.
                                                enter. Section
                                                       Section 5503(c)
                                                               5503(c) defines
                                                                       defines

public places
public places as, inter alia, ''any
                                any premises
                                    premises which are open to the public."'
                                                                   public."

Mever,
Meyer, 431 A.2d at 289
                   289 (footnotes
                        (footnotes omitted).
                                   omitted). Section 5503(c) provides as

follows: As used in this section the word
follows: "As                         word ''public'
                                            public' means affecting or likely to

       persons in
affect persons    a place
               in a place to
                          to which     public or
                             which the public or a
                                                 a substantial
                                                   substantial group
                                                               group has
                                                                     has

access; among
access; among the
              the places
                  places included
                         included are
                                  are highways,
                                      highways, transport
                                                transport facilities,
                                                          facilities,

schools, prisons, apartment houses,
         prisons, apartment houses, places of
                                           of business
                                              business or
                                                       or amusement,
                                                          amusement, any
                                                                     any

                                       11
                                       II
neighborhood, or any premises
                     premises which are open to
                                             to the public." 18 Pa.C.S.A.§
                                                             18PaC5AS
5503(c).
5503(c)

      We also rely on Commonwealth v. Whritenour, 751 A.2d 687, 688
                                                                688 ((Pa.
                                                                      Pa.

       Ct. 2000), where the Court found that an even limited number of
Super. Ct                                                           of

persons in aa neighborhood located in
                                   in "a private community, which
                                      "a private

necessarily excludes the public" are public areas as defined by Section

5503(c). In concluding that the road in the private community was aapublic

place the Whritenour Court observed that the road where Whritenour was

during the commission of his offense was
                                     was ""accessible
                                           accessible only to residents or

                 permission of a
those present by pennission    aresident.... and was traversed by members

of the community and their invitees or licensees." Commonwealth v.

Whritenour, 751 A.2d 687, 688
                          688 ((Pa.
                                Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). We find limited access

road way akin to the shared front porch of the Appellant and neighboring

residence. The Commonwealth did not argue that Appellant was trespassing

when he knocked, however loudly, on the door at 96 West Chestnut Street.
                                                                 Street.

Anyone visiting or making aadelivery to either resident has equal access to

climb the stairs of the double block residence and access the residents at

either address from the shared front porch. We think it Is
                                                        is also important to

               of the Appellant's misconduct occurred on his neighbors'
note that some of

        of the front porch.
portion of
                                  -•
                                       12
         We believe that this fact distinguishes
                                   distinguishes this case from the Superior

                                                Commonwealth v. Cook. In
Court's conclusion in the non-precedential case Commonwealth

Cook, the Superior Court reversed the trial court's conclusion that Ms. Cook

was in public pursuant to Section 5503 when she appeared intoxicated

shouting obscenity from her own front porch. Commonwealth y,Cook,
                                                          v. Cook, No.

234 WDA 2016, 2017 WL 527973,
                      527973, ((Pa.
                                Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 9, 2017). The court

reasoned that her front porch, apparently used by her exclusively, was not aa

public area.
       area. ((Id.
               Id. at pg. 5) The Appellant was not on his own front porch when

he caused a
          a disturbance but instead, he was on
                                            on -his
                                                his neighbors' porch

climbing through their front window. The experienced
                                         experienced prosecutor carefully

built the record with witness testimony to prove that the Appellant's behavior

did annoy persons in his vicinity. Officer McGrath testified that the residential

neighborhood was usually quiet and that he observed neighbors turning on

their llights
       ights in the early morning hours. We believe that this was circumstantial

evidence that persons in the vicinity were in fact annoyed.
                                                   annoyed. ((N.T.
                                                              N.T. 79, 88-89).

Giving every inference to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, we think that

these facts support our conclusion the Appellant was intoxicated in a
                                                                    apublic

place.

      Appellant next makes
                     makes' aa series of challenges to the weight of the

evidence. A
          A trial court is not to grant relief for such claims unless the verdict

                                       13
,

is   so   contrary   to   the   evidence    as   to   shock. one's
                                                      shock·         sense   of

justice. Commonwealth •
justice.              v. Cougar,
                         Cousar, 593 Pa.
                                     Pa. 204, 223, 928
                                         204, 223, 928 A.2d
                                                       A.2d 1025,
                                                            1025, 1036
                                                                  1036

(2007). Appellant raised three challenges to
                                          to the weight of the evidence. First,

'he
he challenges the Jury's conclusion that he was without privilege to enter the

                Vilest Chestnut Street. He represented that his presence was
residence at 96 West

permissive. This claim is meritless. The Appellant
permissive,                              Appellant was physically
                                                       physically removed

from the residence after aafight with other guests there. Soon after he opened

aawindow at 96 West Chestnut and was observed was hanging through that

window. Two unrelated witnesses, one from outside and another from the

inside the residence, saw him do this. (N.T.
                                       (N. T. pg. 58, 82) Appellant's testimony

that another party
             party opened the window does not change the fact that he

sought to enter another's residence through an opening not designed for
sought

human access in circumstances which demonstrate that he was not

privileged to do so.
privileged       so: Welcome guests
                             guests do not usually
                                           usually enter by the window.

Appellant's challenge
Appellant's challenge to the weight of the evidence is without merit.

      Next
      Next Appellant complains in
           Appellant complains in two related issues
                                  two related issues that
                                                     that the
                                                          the verdict
                                                              verdict is
                                                                      is

against the weight of the evidence because of conflicting testimony, and bias
against

of the witnesses. The jury is free to judge the credibility of witnesses and

       only that testimony
credit only      testimony which
                           which they          Commonwealth y,
                                 they believe. Commonwealth v. Bruce, 916

     657, 661
A.2d 657, 661 ((Pa.
                Pa. Super
                    Super 2007). The police and the lay witnesses testified
                          2007). The

                                       14
'. .   .,   .

            to facts which taken together seemed logical and credible. The jury was

            aware that, with the exception to the Appellant's girlfriend who was running

            away from him, that all the witnesses, including the police, did physically fight

            with the Appellant on the night of his arrest
                                                   arrest. We do not doubt that this caused

            him to suspect that these witnesses are not likely to offer testimony favorable

            to him. The Jury's resolution of that credibility issue does not shock our sense

            of justice. The Appellant's weight claims should fail.

                  Finally,
                  Finally, Appellant
                           Appellant claims that we erred by declining to schedule a
                                                                                   a

            hearing on his post
            hearing        post sentence motions. He cites Pa. R. Crim.P 720 which
                                                           Pa. R,            which

            does not require the trial court to schedule a
                                                         ahearing where as here there is

            no need to do so to resolve the issues. Pa. R.
                                                        RR, Crim. P,
                                                                  P. 720(BX2¥b)
                                                                     720(B)(2)(b). Each of

            Appellant's issues were addressed by this court's own observations and
            Appellant's

            review of the trial transcripts. Accordingly, Judgment of sentence in this case

            should be Affirmed.

                                           END OF OPINION

                                                   15