Court Opinion

ID: 9881895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 16:28:23.4746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:25.097510
License: Public Domain

J-S17039-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
  WILLIAM EARL SHANER                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :      No. 1234 WDA 2022

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 15, 2022
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-10-CR-0000181-2021

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

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                               FILED: October 4, 2023

       Appellant, William Earl Shaner, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial

convictions for the summary offenses of harassment and disorderly conduct.1

We affirm Appellant’s convictions and amend his flat sentence of 90 days’

imprisonment, which is illegal.

       The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this

case as follows:

          By Information filed on March 29, 202[1], [Appellant] was
          charged with one count of resisting arrest or other law
          enforcement [as a second-degree misdemeanor], 18
          Pa.C.S.A. § 5104.     By Amended Information filed on
          September 15, 2022, [Appellant] was charged with two
          summary offenses: Count 1—Disorderly conduct, 18

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2709(a)(1) and 5503(a)(1).
J-S17039-23

       Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(1) and Count 2—Harassment, 18
       Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1).

       A non-jury summary trial was held on July 8, 2022 for both
       [Appellant] and his mother, Co-Defendant Barbara A.
       Foster. Mrs. Foster was charged with disorderly conduct.
       At trial, Lt. David Villotti of the Butler City Police testified
       that on January 15, 2021, he and fellow officers went to the
       home of Mrs. Foster, to serve an arrest warrant on
       [Appellant] for a simple assault domestic violence incident
       involving [Appellant] and Mrs. Foster. The officers waited
       for Mrs. Foster, who was the victim of the assault, to return
       home. When she arrived home, Lt. Villotti and Officer Shulik
       approached Mrs. Foster and they explained that they were
       there to arrest [Appellant]. Mrs. Foster stated that she
       wanted to drop the charges and would not permit the
       officers inside her home. Mrs. Foster claimed that she did
       not know where [Appellant] was and that he was not inside
       her home. Lt. Villotti decided to apply for a search warrant
       in order to gain access to the house. At this point, one of
       the officers saw [Appellant] look through the window on the
       front door. Lt. Villotti asked Mrs. Foster once more for
       access to the house. She refused and was arrested for
       hindering the apprehension of [Appellant].

       Lt. Villotti removed the lanyard with the house key from
       around Mrs. Foster’s neck and she was escorted to a patrol
       car. Lt. Villotti unlocked the front door but was unable to
       open the door because it [was] blocked from inside. During
       this time, Lt. Villotti saw [Appellant] look through the front
       door window. Finally, the officers were able to push the
       door open. The officers were aware that a shotgun was
       located somewhere in the house and asked [Appellant] to
       show himself and his hands.              [Appellant] refused.
       Eventually, [Appellant] came into Lt. Villotti’s view and as
       he did not see a weapon, he holstered his firearm, drew his
       taser, and ordered [Appellant] to turn around and put his
       hands behind his back. [Appellant] refused and backed into
       the shadows (according to Lt. Villotti’s testimony there were
       no lights on in the house). Both Lt. Villotti and Officer Shulik
       fired their tasers on [Appellant], who dropped. [Appellant]
       attempted to stand and continued to refuse to roll onto his
       stomach and put his hands behind his back. Therefore, the
       officers fired their tasers once again, however, [Appellant]

                                    -2-
J-S17039-23

       refused to roll onto his stomach. Two other police officers
       assisted and were able to handcuff [Appellant] after a one
       or two minute struggle.

       Lt. Villotti testified that the officers struggled to place
       [Appellant] into the patrol car because [Appellant] refused
       to walk and during this entire encounter, [Appellant] was
       screaming and yelling that he would call the FBI and that
       the police had no right to be there.

       At trial, [Appellant’s] appointed counsel, Patrick Casey did
       not appear [on July 8, 2022] due to a family emergency.
       Mrs. Foster’s defense counsel did cross-examine Lt. Villotti.
       The court continued the summary trial to September 15,
       2022 when [Appellant’s] counsel could be present.

       The trial resumed on September 15, 2022 and began with
       Attorney Patrick Casey’s ([Appellant’s] counsel) cross-
       examination of Lt. Villotti. The Lt. testified that after
       [Appellant] was tasered and fell to the floor, Officers Doctor
       and Fennell entered the home and attempted to place
       [Appellant] into custody. However, [Appellant] refused to
       roll onto his stomach and show his hands, so there was a
       physical struggle, with [Appellant] wrestling back and forth
       with Officers Doctor and Fennell. Officer Shulik and Lt.
       Villotti stood back, ready to deploy their tasers if necessary.
       Lt. Villotti testified that [Appellant] was noncompliant during
       the entire encounter. The officers had to pick up [Appellant]
       and carry him to the patrol car and force him into the car.

       Next, the Commonwealth called Sgt. Cheryl Litz of the
       Butler City Police who is a twenty-two (22) year veteran of
       the department. Sgt. Litz testified that the police officers
       arrived at Mrs. Foster and [Appellant’s] residence around
       4:00 p.m. on January 15, 2021 to execute an arrest warrant
       on [Appellant]. When the officers approached Mrs. Foster
       after she returned home from work, they asked the
       whereabouts of [Appellant]. Mrs. Foster stated that he was
       not in her house and did not know his whereabouts. During
       the encounter with Mrs. Foster, Sgt. Litz observed
       [Appellant] in the window of the front door. Sgt. Litz
       testified that the lanyard with the house key around Mrs.
       Foster’s neck was removed. Sgt. Litz escorted Mrs. Foster,
       who uses a walker [and] did not cooperate, to a patrol car,

                                    -3-
J-S17039-23

       and was transported to the police station.        Sgt. Litz
       explained that Mrs. Foster was removed from the scene
       because of the possibility of danger in that the police had
       prior knowledge that [Appellant] had a shotgun in the
       house.

       Next, the Commonwealth called Officer Nathan Shulik of the
       Butler City Police. He has been employed by the department
       for over ten (10) years. On January 15, 2021, he was
       assisting Lt. Villotti and other city police officers with
       [Appellant’s] arrest pursuant to a warrant. While Lt. Villotti
       was speaking with Mrs. Foster outside the front of her home,
       Officer Shulik observed [Appellant] in the window of the
       front door. After several minutes of the police unlocking the
       door, then [Appellant] locking it again and barricading the
       door from inside, the police were finally able to kick the front
       door open. Lt. Villotti and Officer Shulik entered the home,
       commanded [Appellant] to come forward and show his
       hands, and explained to him that he was under arrest
       pursuant to the warrant. The interior of the home was dark,
       the blinds closed and no lights on. [Appellant] refused and
       backed into the living room of this split-level home. As
       [Appellant] retreated, the Lt. and Officer Shulik went up the
       stairs to the living room and again commanded [Appellant]
       to show his hands and come forward. [Appellant] refused.
       Then, coincidentally, Lt. and Officer Shulik deployed their
       tasers at the same time. [Appellant] fell to the floor and
       two other assisting police officers, Officers Fennell and
       Doctor, attempted to place [Appellant] in custody.
       [Appellant] resisted, refused to show his hands, and was
       crying and yelling.

       At the conclusion of the trials [on September 15, 2022], the
       court found [Appellant] guilty of both summary charges.1
       For the conviction of disorderly conduct (Count 1),
       [Appellant] was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution,
       a $300 fine and serve 90 days in jail at the Butler County
       Prison.   For the conviction of harassment (Count 2),
       [Appellant] was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution,
       a $300 fine, and serve not less than 90 days in jail,
       concurrent with Count 1.

          1 Co-Defendant Mrs. Barbara Foster was found not
          guilty of disorderly conduct by the court.

                                    -4-
J-S17039-23

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 12/12/22, at 1-3) (internal citations omitted).

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on October 14, 2022. Thereafter, the

court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on

appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant complied on November 18, 2022.

      Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

         Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion in
         failing to declare a mistrial when Appellant’s non-jury trial
         commenced without his appointed counsel present and
         missing the in-person direct and cross-examination of the
         Commonwealth’s first witness?

         Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion when
         it denied [Appellant’s] motion for judgment of acquittal due
         to the Commonwealth having failed to file an amended
         information, signed by an attorney for the Commonwealth,
         charging the summary offenses of which Appellant was
         convicted prior to the commencement of trial?

         Whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence
         to sustain the conviction of disorderly conduct against
         Appellant when the alleged actions by Appellant took place
         within his private residence and not in a public area?

         Whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence
         to sustain the conviction of harassment when the
         Commonwealth did not produce testimony delineating
         specific instances of Appellant striking, shoving, or kicking
         the officers in question?

         Whether the sentence imposed was an illegal sentence in
         that it sentenced Appellant to a flat term of imprisonment
         without a minimum or a maximum term?

(Appellant’s Brief at 7-8).

      After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude

                                     -5-
J-S17039-23

that Appellant’s issues one through four merit no relief for the reasons stated

in the trial court opinion. We further agree with the trial court that Appellant’s

fifth issue merits limited relief from this Court in the nature of amending his

sentence.

      Specifically, regarding Appellant’s first issue, the trial court explained

that the first day of trial on July 8, 2022, that proceeded without Appellant’s

counsel present, was centered on Mrs. Foster’s case. The record includes the

direct testimony of Lt. Villotti from this date and the cross-examination by

Mrs. Foster’s counsel.     Appellant was informed that his counsel, Attorney

Casey, was not present due to a family emergency, and Appellant requested

that trial be continued to a date when Attorney Casey could be present. Once

trial resumed on September 15, 2022, Attorney Casey confirmed that he had

an opportunity to read the transcript from the first day of trial that he had

missed. Attorney Casey did not raise any objections. Attorney Casey then

had an opportunity to cross-examine Lt. Villotti. Under these circumstances,

Appellant failed to establish a showing of manifest necessity that would have

warranted the trial court to declare a mistrial sua sponte. (See Trial Court

Opinion at 3-4).

      With respect to Appellant’s second issue, the Commonwealth initially

charged     Appellant   with   resisting    arrest   on   March   29,   2021.   The

Commonwealth filed a motion to amend on October 27, 2021, stating that the

allegations supported a charge of the lesser-included offense of disorderly

                                           -6-
J-S17039-23

conduct as a third-degree misdemeanor. On April 6, 2022, the court granted

the motion to file an amended information.                On June 3, 2022, the

Commonwealth filed another motion to amend seeking to amend Appellant’s

charges to disorderly conduct as a summary offense and harassment as a

summary offense. The court granted the motion that day, which was docketed

on June 15, 2022.          At the close of trial on September 15, 2022, the

Commonwealth filed the amended information, charging Appellant with the

summary offenses of harassment and disorderly conduct.2              Based on the

Commonwealth’s motion of June 3, 2022 and the court’s order granting the

requested relief, Appellant had notice of the charges the Commonwealth would

pursue against him at trial.        Significantly, the crime alleged in the original

information involved the same basic elements and evolved out of the same

factual situation as the crimes specified in the amended information.

Therefore, Appellant suffered no prejudice by the amendment of the

information. (See Trial Court Opinion at 4-5).

       Concerning Appellant’s third issue, the record shows that after a

struggle took place inside the residence to place Appellant in handcuffs,

____________________________________________

2 Appellant raised a challenge to the amended criminal information for the first

time in his Rule 1925(b) statement. Consequently, Appellant’s second issue
is waived. See Commonwealth v. Jackson, 215 A.3d 972 (Pa.Super. 2019)
(explaining that appellant waived challenge to amendment to criminal
information where he failed to articulate specific objection at appropriate stage
of proceedings before trial court). Moreover, even if Appellant had preserved
this claim, we would agree with the reasoning of the trial court that this issue
merits no relief.

                                           -7-
J-S17039-23

Appellant continued to refuse to comply with the officers’ commands. Once

outside the house, the four police officers carried or dragged Appellant to the

patrol car, during which time Appellant was yelling, screaming, and attempted

to free himself. Under these circumstances, the court found that Appellant’s

behavior outside of the house met the elements required for disorderly

conduct. (Id. at 5).

       Regarding his fourth issue, Lt. Villotti testified that Officers Doctor and

Fennell wrestled with Appellant to place him on his stomach and handcuff him.

Thus, the record shows that Appellant subjected the officers to physical

contact, sufficient to sustain Appellant’s harassment conviction. (Id. at 6).

       As it pertains to Appellant’s final issue, the trial court acknowledged that

Appellant’s flat sentence of 90 days’ imprisonment at each count was illegal.3

Nevertheless, the court noted that because the trial court intended to impose

the maximum sentence,4 this Court can amend the sentence to include a

minimum term equal to one-half of the maximum. (Id.)

       We agree with the reasoning of the trial court as set forth above.

Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s convictions based on the trial court’s

____________________________________________

3  The Commonwealth also concedes that the flat sentences imposed were
illegal. (See Commonwealth’s Brief at 19).

4 The maximum sentence for each of Appellant’s summary convictions is 90

days (see 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1105), so it is clear the court intended to impose
the maximum sentence.

                                           -8-
J-S17039-23

opinion.5 Further, we amend Appellant’s sentences at each count to reflect a

term of 45-90 days’ imprisonment, to run concurrent with each other.6

       Judgment of sentence is affirmed as amended.

Date: 10/4/2023

____________________________________________

5 We correct a citation error on page five of the court’s opinion.
                                                             The correct
citation for Commonwealth v. Rose is 463 Pa. 264, 344 A.2d 824 (1975).

6 See Commonwealth v. Duda, 831 A.2d 728 (Pa.Super. 2003) (affirming

judgment of sentence but amending flat sentence of 90 days’ imprisonment
for summary harassment to include minimum term equal to one-half of
maximum sentence or 45 days’ imprisonment, where record confirmed that
court clearly intended to impose maximum sentence).

                                           -9-