Court Opinion

ID: 9400185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 16:09:35.986176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:42.810754
License: Public Domain

J-S17014-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    THEODORE LUKE KRZYWIECKI                   :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1331 WDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 30, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-63-CR-0001445-2020

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OLSON, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                                 FILED: June 7, 2023

        Theodore Luke Krzywiecki appeals from the judgment of sentence,

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, following his

convictions of two counts of aggravated assault1 and three counts of recklessly

endangering another person.2 Upon review, we affirm.

        In light of our disposition, we provide only a brief recitation of the facts.

Late in the evening of June 25, 2020, several minor boys were hanging out

and decided to light some fireworks at a nearby construction site. The boys

climbed a 30-foot high dirt mound, which was approximately 250 feet away

from Krzywiecki’s house.        At some point, the boys began throwing stones

down the hill towards Krzywiecki’s home, Krzywiecki yelled at the boys, and

____________________________________________

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1), (4).

2   Id. at § 2705.
J-S17014-23

the boys stopped and left the area. Nevertheless, Krzywiecki called the police

and filed a report. A short time later, the boys returned and began throwing

stones at the house again. Krzywiecki, now holding his .22 caliber Winchester

long rifle, began taunting the boys calling them “bitches” and saying they

throw like “girls.”    The boys continued to throw approximately 20 stones.

None of the stones hit Krzywiecki or his home.

       During this exchange, Krzywiecki fired four rounds from his Winchester

at the boys; one of the rounds struck one of the boys in the buttocks.

Krzywiecki’s Winchester is a pump-action rifle that needs to be “pumped”

following each shot in order to chamber another round into the rifle. After

Krzywiecki struck one of the boys, the boys left the area and sought medical

attention. During this time, Krzywiecki reloaded his firearm. Police responded

and charged Krzywiecki with, inter alia, the above-mentioned offenses.3

       On April 22, 2022, Krzywiecki proceeded to a non-jury trial, after which

the trial court convicted him of the above-mentioned offenses and acquitted

him of two counts of aggravated assault. The trial court deferred sentencing

and ordered the preparation of a pre-sentence investigation report. On August

30, 2022, the trial court sentenced Krzywiecki to an aggregate term of 18 to

36 months’ incarceration followed by two years of probation.

       On September 9, 2022, Krzywiecki filed a post-sentence motion for

reconsideration of his sentence.          On September 13, 2022, the trial court
____________________________________________

3Krzywiecki was also charged with attempted murder, which was later nolle
prossed.

                                           -2-
J-S17014-23

scheduled a hearing on Krzywiecki’s post-sentence motion. On October 4,

2022, the trial court conducted a post-sentence motion hearing, after which,

on October 12, 2022, the trial court denied Krzywiecki’s post-sentence motion.

       On November 14, 2022, Krzywiecki timely filed a notice of appeal.4 Both

Krzywiecki and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

       Krzywiecki now raises the following claim for our review:

       Whether the evidence was insufficient to convict [Krzywiecki] of
       the two counts of [a]ggravated [a]ssault . . . where [Krzywiecki]
       did not have the requisite mens rea for either charge. Specifically,
       [Krzywiecki] did not act with intent, knowledge[,] or recklessness
       under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the
       value of human life (malice) for the purposes of [subsection]
       (a)(1). [Krzywiecki] did not act with intent or knowledge as to
       [subsection] (a)(4).

Brief for Appellant, at 4.

       Despite the phrasing of his claim above, Krzywiecki’s entire argument

section in his brief claims that the trial court improperly acted as a “ballistics

expert.”    See id. at 10-13.        Krzywiecki asserts that the trial court made

conclusions based on ballistics “that the evidence did not support,” and found

Krzywiecki not credible based upon those conclusions. Id. at 12-13.

____________________________________________

4 Krzywiecki’s notice of appeal was filed after the expiration of the 30-day time
limit. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (notice of appeal “shall be filed within 30 days
after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken”). However, the
30th day, Friday, November 11, 2022, was Veterans Day, a court holiday which
made the final date to appeal Monday, November 14, 2022. See 1 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 1908 (“Whenever the last day of any such period shall fall on . . . any day
made a legal holiday by the laws of this Commonwealth or the United States,
such day shall be omitted from the computation.”). Accordingly, Krzywiecki’s
appeal is timely filed.

                                           -3-
J-S17014-23

       This claim does not sound in sufficiency, and it is unclear how it is related

to the mens rea requirements of sections 2702(a)(1) and (4).             Rather, it

appears that Krzywiecki has abandoned his sufficiency challenge on appeal.

See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009) (“[W]here

an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to

relevant authority[,] or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful

fashion capable of review, that claim is waived.”); id. at 925 (“[i]t is not the

role of this Court to formulate [an a]ppellant’s arguments for him.”).

Moreover, this claim was not preserved in Krzywiecki’s Rule 1925(b)

statement and we would find it waived on that basis as well.5 See Pa.R.A.P.

302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised

for the first time on appeal.”). Accordingly, we are compelled to find this claim

waived.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

       King, J., joins this Memorandum.

       Olson, J., Concurs in the result.

____________________________________________

5 The sole issue raised in Krzywiecki’s Rule 1925(b) statement is identical to
the one raised in his Statement of Questions Involved, quoted supra at 3. See
Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, 12/5/22, at 1.

                                           -4-
J-S17014-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/7/2023

                          -5-