Court Opinion

ID: 9392600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-05 16:08:36.049616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:46.784128
License: Public Domain

J-S07009-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :      IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                 :           PENNSYLVANIA
                                                 :
                v.                               :
                                                 :
                                                 :
    MICHAEL JENNINGS                             :
                                                 :
                       Appellant                 :      No. 1686 EDA 2020

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 25, 2020
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-51-CR-0006863-2018

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                                           FILED MAY 5, 2023

        Appellant, Michael Jennings, appeals from the August 25, 2020

judgment of sentence entered by the Philadelphia County Court of Common

Pleas following his convictions of Simple Assault and False Identification to

Law     Enforcement     Authorities    (“False       ID”).1   Appellant   challenges   the

sufficiency of the evidence for both convictions. After careful review, we affirm

the    udgmentt of sentence for Simple Assault and reverse the conviction for

False ID.

        The relevant facts as found by the trial court are as follows. On

September 8, 2018, Thomas Custis (“Victim”) boarded a bus around 1:00 AM,

after finishing his shift at the Philadelphia International Airport. He noticed

that Appellant, his grandson, was also on the bus. When asked, Appellant told

____________________________________________

1   18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2701(a)(1) and 4914(a).
J-S07009-23

Victim that he was going to Victim’s apartment. Victim responded that

Appellant was not welcome in his apartment and sat elsewhere on the bus.

        After a forty-five-minute ride, Victim exited the bus. When Appellant

followed him off the bus, Victim again informed Appellant that he could not

come to his apartment, but Appellant continued to follow him. Victim repeated

his refusal a third time when the two were approximately five feet apart.

Appellant then began to swing his umbrella toward Victim. Victim approached

and told Appellant to drop the umbrella. “As Appellant began to drop it,

[Victim] punched him once in the chest.”2 After which, Appellant continued to

swing the umbrella toward Victim’s face, and Victim blocked the umbrella with

his arms. At some point during the five-to-ten-minute altercation, Victim

received a one inch, V-shaped laceration on his arm from the umbrella, which

did not require medical treatment but left a scar.

        Ultimately, Appellant left the scene when Victim dialed 911 on his

cellphone. When police arrived, Victim rode with police around the

neighborhood to find Appellant, whom he soon identified waiting at a bus stop.

As relevant to the charge of False ID, the trial court summarized Philadelphia

Police Officer James Bacevich’s testimony regarding this incident:

        Officer Bacevich exited the police vehicle and placed Appellant in
        handcuffs. He then asked Appellant for his name, to which
        Appellant replied that his name was Christopher Henderson.
        Officer Bacevich subsequently located a card in Appellant’s
        pockets which had his given name on it, Michael Jennings.

____________________________________________

2   Tr. Ct. Op, 12/3/21, at 3.

                                           -2-
J-S07009-23

Tr. Ct. Op. at 4 (citing N.T., 8/25/20, at 51-54).

       The trial court presided over a bench trial on August 25, 2020, at which

only Victim and Officer Bacevich testified.3 The trial court found Appellant

guilty of Simple Assault and False ID.4 The court sentenced Appellant the same

day to two years of probation for Simple Assault, with one year reporting and

one year non-reporting, and a concurrent sentence of one year of reporting

probation for the False ID conviction.

       Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on September 1, 2020.

Subsequently, Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

       1. Was the evidence insufficient to adjudicate [Appellant] guilty of
       Simple Assault?

       2. Was the evidence insufficient to adjudicate [Appellant] guilty of
       False Identification to Law Enforcement Authorities?

Appellant’s Br. At 4.

                                               A.

       In his first issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for

his conviction for simple assault, relying in part on his claim that he acted in

____________________________________________

3 Prior to trial, the court granted numerous continuances, including several
related to Appellant’s mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic. We
additionally observe that while Appellant filed his Rule 1925(b) statement in
September 2020, the court did not file its opinion until December 3, 2021. The
parties subsequently filed multiple requests for extensions of time for their
briefing, which this Court granted.

4It found Appellant not guilty of Aggravated Assault, Possessing Instruments
of Crime, Terroristic Threats, and Recklessly Endangering Another Person.

                                           -3-
J-S07009-23

self-defense. “A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question

of law.” Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). “Our

standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary.”

Commonwealth v. Mikitiuk, 213 A.3d 290, 300 (Pa. Super. 2019). When

reviewing sufficiency challenges, we evaluate the record in the light most

favorable to the verdict winner, giving the Commonwealth the benefit of all

reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Commonwealth v.

Trinidad, 96 A.3d 1031, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

      This Court will not disturb a verdict if the evidence produced at trial is

“sufficient to establish all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Id. (citation omitted). “[A] conviction may be sustained wholly on

circumstantial evidence, and the trier of fact—while passing on the credibility

of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence—is free to believe all, part, or

none of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 172 A.3d 632, 640 (Pa.

Super. 2017). “[T]he appellate court may not weigh the evidence and

substitute its judgment for the fact-finder.” Id.

      A person is guilty of Simple Assault if he “attempts to cause or

intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another[.]” 18

Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1). The Crimes Code defines “bodily injury” as “impairment

of physical condition or substantial pain.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2301. “[I]njuries that

are ‘trivial in nature,’ ‘noncriminal contact resulting from family stress and

rivalries,’ or a ‘customary part of modern day living’ do not satisfy this

element.” Commonwealth v. Wroten, 257 A.3d 734, 744 (Pa. Super. 2021).

                                     -4-
J-S07009-23

The Commonwealth can, however, satisfy the bodily injury element without

demonstrating that the victim sought medical treatment. Id.; see In re M.H.,

758 A.2d 1249, 1252 (Pa. Super. 2000) (affirming simple assault conviction

where defendant grabbed victim’s arm and pushed her into a wall, even

though the bruises she sustained did not necessitate medical treatment).

     In regard to self-defense, “[t]he use of force against a person is justified

when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the

purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other

person.” Commonwealth v. Torres, 766 A.2d 342, 345 (Pa. 2001) (citing

18 Pa.C.S. § 505(a)). The Commonwealth bears the burden to disprove an

assertion of self-defense by the defendant. Id. This Court has found that the

Commonwealth can disprove claims of self-defense by demonstrating that the

defendant was the initial aggressor in the altercation. Commonwealth v.

Emler, 903 A.2d 1273, 1280 (Pa. Super. 2006).

     In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for simple assault,

Appellant first asserts that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he

attempted to cause bodily injury because he used the umbrella to keep Victim

away from him rather than to harm him. Appellant’s Br. At 8. Second, he

argues that the laceration, which bled for merely thirty minutes and for which

Victim did not seek treatment, does not constitute bodily injury. Id. At 8-9.

Third, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed to disprove Appellant’s

claim of self-defense. Appellant argues that his reaction in picking up the

umbrella after Victim punched him was “was completely reasonable under

                                     -5-
J-S07009-23

these circumstances as he also knew that [Victim] worked security and was

trained in martial arts.” Id. At 9-10. We disagree and instead find that the

record contains sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that

Appellant committed Simple Assault.

      The trial court opined that the Commonwealth presented sufficient

evidence that Appellant committed Simple Assault by demonstrating intent

and bodily injury. The court found that Appellant “became upset with [Victim

and] intended to injure him,” after Victim instructed Appellant that he was not

welcome in Victim’s apartment. Tr. Ct. Op. at 7. The court found that Appellant

caused bodily injury as Victim sustained a laceration defending himself from

Appellant’s umbrella, a wound that left a scar.

      The court additionally concluded that Victim’s testimony disproved

Appellant’s theory of self-defense. While acknowledging that Victim punched

Appellant, the court emphasized that “Appellant was the initial aggressor”

when he began swinging his umbrella at Victim, which was “not justified” as

it was not necessary to protect himself. Id.

      After careful review of the record and for the reasons set forth by the

trial court, we agree that Victim’s testimony provided sufficient evidence to

demonstrate both that Appellant intended to injure Victim and that Victim

sustained bodily injury. Likewise, when viewed in a light most favorable to the

Commonwealth, the evidence disproved Appellant’s claim of self-defense.

Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence for Simple Assault.

                                      B.

                                     -6-
J-S07009-23

      Appellant next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his

conviction for False ID. A person commits False ID “if he furnishes law

enforcement authorities with false information about his identity after being

informed by a law enforcement officer who is in uniform or who has identified

himself as a law enforcement officer that the person is the subject of an official

investigation of a violation of law.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 4914(a).

      Appellant does not contest that Officer Bacevich was in uniform or that

Appellant provided false information; rather, the only element Appellant

challenges is whether he was “informed by” the officer that he was the subject

of an official investigation. Appellant’s Br. At 8-10. Our precedent mandates

that the Commonwealth demonstrate the “informed by” element by proving

“that the individual was told by police that he or she was under investigation,

and that must occur prior to the individual’s presentment of false identity

information.” Commonwealth v. Kitchen, 181 A.3d 337, 345 (Pa. Super.

2018) (en banc) (emphasis in original). Our Supreme Court explained that the

statutory language required that the information “must come from the law

enforcement officer” rather than being “derived from the surrounding

circumstances.” In the Interest of D.S., 39 A.3d 968, 975 (Pa. 2012).

      Based upon the clear precedent of D.S. and Kitchen, we reject the trial

court’s conclusion that Officer Bacevich did not need to inform Appellant that

he was under investigation because Appellant “had reason to know why he

was being questioned by Officer Bacevich after he was placed in handcuffs.”

Tr. Ct. Op. at 10. We instead conclude that the evidence is insufficient to

                                      -7-
J-S07009-23

support Appellant’s conviction of False ID because the Commonwealth failed

to establish that Officer Bacevich informed Appellant that he was the subject

of an investigation prior to asking his name.5 Accordingly, we are constrained

to reverse and vacate Appellant’s sentence for False ID.

       As in Kitchen, however, we do not remand for resentencing. Instead,

we “leave the remainder of Appellant’s judgment of sentence intact[,]”

because vacating his sentence for False ID does not “upset the trial court’s

sentencing scheme[.]” Kitchen, 181 A.3d at 338, 345.6

     Judgment of sentence affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/05/2023

____________________________________________

5 “The Commonwealth does not oppose vacating the false identification
conviction[.]” Commonwealth Br. at 2.

6 Specifically, the trial court imposed Appellant’s sentence of one year of
probation for False ID concurrently with his two-year probationary sentence
for Simple Assault, such that vacating his sentence for False ID does not
impact the total sentence imposed by the trial court.

                                           -8-