Court Opinion

ID: 9404886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-26 17:09:54.74869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:17.515464
License: Public Domain

J-S14031-23

    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    ALEXIS BROLIN                              :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1233 WDA 2022

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 18, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-11-CR-0000171-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                           FILED: JUNE 26, 2023

        Alexis Brolin (Brolin) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed in

the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County (trial court) after his bench

conviction of one count of disorderly conduct, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(4). Brolin

argues that the court erred in denying his motion to change venue/recuse and

in precluding and limiting his presentation of certain witnesses; that the

evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; and that his conviction was

against the weight of the evidence. We affirm.

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S14031-23

                                         I.

                                         A.

      The trial court aptly set forth the pertinent background facts of this

matter in its December 14, 2022 opinion:

            The charge against Brolin arose from an incident that
      occurred at the Cambria County Prison (CCP) on October 2, 2020,
      in which the inmates in housing unit B (B Block), including Brolin,
      refused orders to “lock-in” and seized control of the housing. The
      seizure of B Block resulted in an hours long standoff involving
      emergency response teams from the CCP, the Pennsylvania
      Department of Corrections (DOC), and Cambria County. In
      addition, hostage negotiators from the CCP and DOC responded,
      along with local law enforcement and other first responders.
      Eventually the inmates surrendered to authorities and order was
      restored.

(Trial Court Opinion, 12/14/22, at 2).

      On May 27, 2022, the trial court issued an order scheduling the matter

for a waiver trial. Brolin filed a motion for change of venue on June 7, 2022,

and the court held a hearing on June 15, 2022. At that time, Brolin requested

that his motion be treated as a motion to recuse because he sought to

disqualify all Cambria County judges from presiding over his bench trial. He

argued that since all the witnesses in this case were Cambria County

employees and there was a working relationship between the bench and the

CCP, no Cambria County jurist could be unbiased in this matter.             The

Commonwealth responded that it believed the judges were capable of being

impartial and that the evidence would consist of corrections officers’ (CO)

testimony and the video surveillance of the incident.

                                     -2-
J-S14031-23

      Brolin did not offer any evidence to support his allegation that the

Cambria County trial judge could not be fair and impartial in this matter or

point to any decision in his case that called into question the court’s

impartiality. The court denied Brolin’s motion, concluding that it was able to

be impartial, and that the working relationship between the bench and the

CCP staff would not cause a significant minority of the community to question

the Court’s impartiality.

                                      B.

      The trial court describes that at the one-day August 18, 2022 trial:

             … Lieutenant Mark Sanford (Sanford) testified that he was
      the shift commander on October 2nd when he was summoned to
      B Block by another [CO] who reported that the inmates had
      refused multiple orders to lock-in.[a] The lock-in order had been
      given in preparation to move the inmates from B Block’s dormitory
      unit to C Block which consisted of individual cells. The move was
      part of an effort by prison officials to minimize the risk of
      spreading COVID-19 among the prison population by limiting
      inmate contact and enforcing social distancing. The second block
      had become available when the inmates housed there were
      transferred to various state correctional institutions as part of
      COVID-19 mitigation procedures.

          [a] B Block is a dormitory style housing unit without
          individual cells[;] [a] lock-in order directs inmates to
          return to their bunks and vacate the block’s common
          areas.

            Sanford testified that he went to B Block with a response
      team equipped with various chemical weapons including pepper
      spray, pepper foam, and firearms equipped to fire pepper balls.
      Once there Sanford ordered the inmates to lock-in and prepare to
      move blocks and the inmates failed to comply with that order.
      Sanford and the other COs exited the block to regroup. Sanford
      and his officers reentered B Block and gave a final order for the
      inmates to lock-in. This order was refused and the officers

                                    -3-
J-S14031-23

      deployed various chemical weapons in an effort to gain
      compliance. In response the inmates began throwing items at the
      officers and the situation quickly deteriorated to the point that
      Sanford ordered his officers out of B Block. The inmates then
      secured the doors to the block by tying sheets to the door handles.
      Sanford then called for the prison to go into lockdown and for the
      deployment of the CCP’s emergency response team. Sanford
      testified that eventually both the DOC and Cambria County
      emergency response teams arrived on scene to aid in efforts to
      secure the surrender of the inmates.            Various local law
      enforcement agencies and other first responders also arrived to
      provide assistance and secure the area around the prison.

             Sanford testified that when he entered B Block Brolin was
      seated at a round table in the common area near where Sanford
      was standing making him one of the closest inmates to the
      officers. Sanford testified that Brolin: had clearly not complied
      with the order to lock-in; refused to comply with either of
      Sanford’s orders to lock-in; began yelling at Sanford and the COs
      after the final order was given; and continued to yell directly at
      Sanford after the chemical weapons were deployed. A video was
      played during Sanford’s testimony that showed the surveillance
      videos recorded during the incident which corroborated Sanford’s
      testimony regarding Brolin’s actions.

(Trial Ct. Op., at 2-3).

      The misconduct report authored by Lieutenant Sanford stated, in

pertinent part, that:

      After this Lieutenant gave the unit multiple orders to lock in[,]
      inmate Brolin quickly joined other Inmates refusing to comply and
      began yelling. Inmate Brolin was one of the most vocal and
      loudest inmates at this time. Inmate Brolin was instigating and
      encouraging other inmates not to comply. The situation quickly
      escalated to the point the team had to back out and a Code 3 was
      called. …

(Defendant’s Exhibit 6, Stanford Misconduct Report, at 1) (some capitalization

omitted).

                                     -4-
J-S14031-23

                                      C.

      Brolin called CCP Warden Christian Smith, Captain George Rozum,

Jessica Greathouse, on cross and stated his intent to call Cambria County

Detective William Hines and CCP CO Zachary Shuhayda.

                                      1.

      To show that his actions on October 2, 2020, served a legitimate

purpose, Brolin called Warden Smith, the chief administrator at the CCP to

testify about the CCP’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic. After sustaining

the Commonwealth’s objection based on relevance, the court limited Warden

Smith’s testimony to the time period up to and including October 2, 2020.

      Warden Smith testified that as of October 2, 2020, there were positive

Covid-19 cases in all male housing units, including B and C Blocks. To reduce

the spread of Covid-19, they were moving inmates from the open dormitory

B Block to the closed cells of C Block. He explained that there was no written

Covid-19 policy at that time, but they were following the directives of the DOC

and PrimeCare Medical.     Covid-19 counseling was provided by PrimeCare

Medical and there were postings about Covid-19 throughout the units. (See

Defense Exhibit 2, Covid-19 Postings). He detailed that the whole prison was

sanitized on September 24, 2020, a memo was sent to inmates with CCP’s

                                     -5-
J-S14031-23

Covid-19 mitigation procedures on September 25, 2020,1 (see Defense

Exhibit 3, Covid-19 Mitigation Procedures Memo, 9/25/20), the staff was

tested for Covid-19 at their discretion on September 26, 2020, and voluntary

mass testing of the prison population started on September 28, 2020.

Inmates who refused testing were put in isolation for everyone’s safety.

       Warden Smith stated he had personnel who went to the units every day

to answer questions and talk with the inmates. When asked about the white

shirt2 request made on October 2, 2020, Warden Smith said inmates

requested to talk to white shirts every day. There was a system in place in

which the inmates could request information using CCP tablets and he had

never heard of anyone being unable to use his access code in order to do this.

(See N.T. Trial, 8/18/22, at 25-26, 31-42).

                                               2.

       The court limited Captain Rozum’s testimony to what occurred on

October 2, 2020, agreeing with the Commonwealth that the proposed

testimony about his participation in the internal disciplinary proceedings

____________________________________________

1  The memo/bulletin was sent to inmates weekly. When the defense
attempted to ask Warden Smith about a memo sent after the October 2, 2020
incident, the court sustained the Commonwealt’s objection. Warden Smith
stated that the memo sent after the incident was the same as the previous
memos sent prior to it.

2 According to the trial court, “a ‘white shirt’ refers to a supervisor or higher
ranked CO and [the term] is derived from their uniform shirts being white.”
(Trial Ct. Op., at 10 n.4).

                                           -6-
J-S14031-23

following the incident was irrelevant. Captain Rozum testified that he did not

respond to the scene until sometime after the riot, so his investigative reports

were based on his review of a surveillance video. Because the surveillance

video did not have any audio, he utilized time stamps for reference.          The

report indicates that the video showed Brolin sitting at the round table near

the officer’s desk with other inmates apparently playing cards.        He stayed

seated at the table until after chemical munitions were deployed.         At that

point, Brolin rose from the table and appeared to speak to Lieutenant Sanford.

He then started up the stairs, continuing to say something to staff. Thereafter,

Brolin mostly stayed on the top tier during the riot and was not involved in

throwing items or causing destruction to the unit.         (See id. at 43-44);

(Defense Exhibit 5, Rozum Incident Report, at 1-2).

                                       3.

      Jessica Greathouse, a counselor at the CCP and member of the hostage

negotiator team, testified on cross that she and another negotiator spoke with

inmates to resolve the October 2, 2020 situation. She encountered Brolin,

who told her he was a federal inmate, but she did not remember any other

details of their conversation. (See N.T. Trial, at 46-51).

                                       4.

      Brolin stated his intent to call Detective Hines, who reported to the

incident after it had concluded. Defense counsel wanted Detective Hines to

testify about his investigation into the riot and his resulting report in which he

                                      -7-
J-S14031-23

made a statement that one reason for the incident was that the inmates were

upset over the Covid-19 situation.          The Commonwealth objected since

Detective Hines “responded after the fact” and, therefore, any testimony

about what had occurred would be hearsay and irrelevant. (N.T. Trial, at 27).

The trial court took judicial notice that Covid-19 was a serious concern

throughout    Cambria   County   in   October    2020   and   that   there   were

administrative orders “outlining how the courts and everybody was operating.”

(N.T. Trial, at 30). The court directed that any reports could come in through

Warden Smith and deferred ruling on the Commonwealth’s objection to

Detective Hines. Ultimately, Brolin did not introduce Detective Hines’s report

or call Detective Hines as a witness, so the court made no ruling on the

Commonwealth’s objection and whether he could testify. (See id. at 26-27,

29-30).

                                       5.

      Brolin sought to call CCP CO Shuhayda to testify about inmate requests

to speak with a supervisor regarding sanitation of B Block on October 2, 2020.

The Commonwealth objected on relevancy grounds, noting that a request to

speak to a supervisor would only be relevant if made by Brolin, which it was

not. It also argued that even if Brolin had made a request, it would still not

justify a refusal to comply with the lock-in order. The court sustained the

objection based on the lack of relevance of the requests made by other

inmates. (See id. at 39-41).

                                      -8-
J-S14031-23

                                      D.

      Brolin testified that he had been an inmate at the CCP since June 2020.

He was aware of COVID-19 and its associated risks prior to his incarceration

and continued reading about it in the Prison Legal News provided to inmates.

He maintained he could not use a CCP tablet because his access code was not

working.    However, he also stated that he spoke with a white shirt

approximately a week before the October 2, 2020 riot about the fact that using

the tablet to talk to his father made communication difficult because his father

is elderly and he complained that he could not do so by telephone because of

Covid-19 restrictions. Although he alleged that as of the day of the riot, there

had not been any white shirts or counselors on B Block for a week due to

Covid-19, Brolin testified that in the days before the incident, Captain Sobecki

was aware of the inmates’ grievances. (See id. at 52-54).

      On the day of the riot, Brolin did not request to speak to a white shirt

because he knew several other people had already done so. He was concerned

about moving to C Block because he believed that inmates who tested positive

for Covid-19 were transferred there.       He explained that the inmates were

outside in the yard prior to the incident and:

      When we came in, people … started to ask about the white shirt
      again and [Officer] Shuhayda refused. So I don’t even remember
      who the first one was that were like “I’m not locking in until we
      see a white shirt.” And people started to sit down and agree with
      that saying we needed to see a white shirt before we locked in.

            I went up to my cube—well, some people said you want to
      play cards while you wait for the white shirt and I said sure. I

                                     -9-
J-S14031-23

      went up to my cube and got a cup of coffee, came back down and
      I just joined them shortly whenever Lieutenant Sanford and the
      others came on to the block for the first time.

(Id. at 57). Brolin testified that he never became aggressive with the COs

and that he only wanted to talk to someone about his concerns. He noted

that the video did not show him behaving aggressively and showed he tried

to stay out of the situation, although he acknowledged that refusing to comply

with the lock-in order was a violation of CCP policy. (See id. at 51-65).

      The same day, the trial court convicted Brolin of disorderly conduct. It

sentenced Brolin to pay the costs of prosecution and a $100 fine and to 90

days of probation.    Brolin’s post-sentence motions were denied after a

hearing. He timely appealed and filed a court-ordered statement of errors

complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

      On appeal, Brolin raises four issues for our review: (1) whether the trial

court erred in denying his motion for change of venue/to recuse; (2) the

sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction; (3) the weight of the

evidence to support the verdict; and (4) whether the trial court erred in

precluding him from calling witnesses. (See Brolin’s Brief, at 3).

                                    - 10 -
J-S14031-23

                                               II.

                                               A.

       Brolin argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his

motion for change of venue/motion to recuse3 all Cambria County judges from

presiding over his non-jury trial because they could not be impartial due to

their knowledge of the facts of the case, employment with Cambria County

and their vested interests in protecting the CCP and its employees.

       “In general, a motion to recuse is properly directed to and decided by

the jurist whose participation the moving party is challenging.” Watson, 228

A.3d at 939 (citation omitted).         “It is the burden of the party requesting

recusal to produce evidence establishing bias, prejudice or unfairness, which

raises a substantial doubt as to the jurist’s ability to preside impartially.” Id.

(citation omitted).

             The inquiry is not whether a judge was in fact biased against
       the party moving for recusal, but whether, even if actual bias or
____________________________________________

3 It is well settled that “Where a jurist rules that he ... can hear and dispose
of a case fairly and without prejudice, that decision will not be overturned on
appeal but for an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Watson, 228
A.3d 928, 939 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted).

       In reviewing the denial of a recusal motion to determine whether
       the judge abused his discretion, we recognize that our judges are
       honorable, fair and competent. Based on this premise, where a
       judge has refused to recuse himself, on appeal, we place the
       burden on the party requesting recusal to establish that the judge
       abused his discretion.

Id. (citation omitted).

                                          - 11 -
J-S14031-23

      prejudice is lacking, the conduct or statement of the court
      raises an appearance of impropriety. The rule is simply that
      disqualification of a judge is mandated whenever a significant
      minority of the lay community could reasonably question the
      court’s impartiality.

Id. (citation omitted).

      Brolin maintains that the trial judge who presided over his case had

“significant personal knowledge” about the incident since he had presided over

the trial of 21 other inmates involved in the riot and that he was on the

Cambria County Prison Board. (See Brolin’s Brief, at 16). However, he fails

to produce any evidence establishing that the judge’s conduct has reflected

“bias, prejudice or unfairness” or that he made any statement raising the

appearance of impropriety. Watson, 228 A.3d at 939 (citation omitted). To

accept Brolin’s argument absent any actual evidence of the appearance of

impropriety would mean that a trial court could not oversee any criminal trials

in general because the prosecutor is a county employee and oversees

specifically any trials that involve incidents in county prisons. The trial court

denied Brolin’s motion because after considering his argument, it determined

that it could preside over the matter impartially, and that the relationship

between CCP staff and the bench would not cause a significant minority of the

community to question the court’s impartiality. (See Trial Ct. Op., at 7). We

discern no abuse of discretion and this issue lacks merit. Watson, 228 A.3d

at 939.

                                     - 12 -
J-S14031-23

                                               B.

       Brolin argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction

of disorderly conduct because, “although he did not initially comply with the

lock-in order, [he] made no attempts to create a hazardous condition which

created danger or risk.”4 (Brolin’s Brief, at 20); (see id. at 18). He maintains

that although his conduct might have violated policies at the prison, it did not

rise to the level necessary to prove disorderly conduct. Moreover, his actions

served the legitimate purpose of trying to address his concerns about Covid-

____________________________________________

4 In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, our standard of review is as
follows:

       The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the
       evidence is to determine whether, when viewed in a light most
       favorable to the verdict winner, the evidence at trial and all
       reasonable inferences therefrom is sufficient for the trier of fact to
       find that each element of the crimes charged is established beyond
       a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden
       of proving every element beyond a reasonable doubt by means of
       wholly circumstantial evidence.

       The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth
       need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubt raised
       as to the accused’s guilt is to be resolved by the fact-finder. As
       an appellate court, we do not assess credibility nor do we assign
       weight to any of the testimony of record. Therefore, we will not
       disturb the verdict unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive
       that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from
       the combined circumstances.

Commonwealth v. Vogelsong, 90 A.3d 717, 719 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal
denied, 102 A.3d 985 (Pa. 2014) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

                                          - 13 -
J-S14031-23

19 with supervisors since inmates were not receiving information and feared

for their health.

      Section 5503 of the Crimes Code provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]

person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public

inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he

… creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which

serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(4). “Public”

includes “prisons ... or any premises which are open to the public." 18 Pa.

C.S. § 5503(c). “The offense of disorderly conduct is not intended as a catchall

for every act which annoys or disturbs people; it is not to be used as a dragnet

for all the irritations which breed in the ferment of a community.”

Commonwealth v. Mauz, 122 A.3d 1039, 1041 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation

omitted). “It has a specific purpose; it has a definite objective, it is intended

to preserve the public peace.” Id. (citation omitted).

      We agree with the trial court that, “[b]y refusing to comply with the

lock-in order and arguing with Sanford, Brolin’s actions intentionally caused

public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, and/or recklessly created a risk

thereof by creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition.” (Trial Ct.

Op., at 10). It is undisputed that Brolin was an inmate at CCP on October 2,

2020, and refused to comply with the lock-in orders until chemical weapons

were deployed. (See Brolin’s Brief, at 20).

                                     - 14 -
J-S14031-23

      According to Lieutenant Sanford’s testimony, when he arrived at B

Block, Brolin was seated at a nearby table playing cards. (See N.T., 8/18/22,

at 8, 22). Brolin did not comply with either of Lieutenant Sanford’s lock-in

orders until chemicals were disbursed to obtain compliance and he argued

with Lieutenant Sanford, other COs and fellow inmates. (See id. at 8, 13-14,

22). In his report, Lieutenant Sanford stated that Brolin was one of the “most

vocal and loudest inmates” and was “instigating and encouraging other

inmates not to comply.” (Defendant’s Exhibit 6, at 1). The prison inmates

became increasingly aggressive ultimately resulting in a riot that required the

response of multiple law enforcement agencies to resolve. Surveillance video

corroborated Lieutenant Sanford’s testimony. (See Joint Exhibit 2).

      Captain Rozum testified consistently with his report about what the

video surveillance showed. The video showed Brolin sitting at the round table

with other inmates playing cards and staying at the table until after chemical

munitions were deployed, at which point he rose from the table and appeared

to speak to Lieutenant Sanford. (See id. at 42-45); (Defense Exhibit 5).

      Based on the foregoing, the evidence establishes that by refusing to

comply with the lock-in orders and instead loudly instigating others, ultimately

requiring the COs to disburse tear gas to obtain compliance, Brolin

intentionally created an inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly

created a risk thereof, resulting in the creation of a hazardous or physically

offensive condition. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(4).

                                     - 15 -
J-S14031-23

      Moreover, Brolin’s argument        that   his non-compliance     served a

legitimate purpose because he wanted to speak with a supervisor about his

Covid-19 concerns is belied by his own trial testimony. At trial, Brolin testified

that he knew other inmates already had requested to speak to a supervisor

about the Covid-19 issue, so he did not attempt to speak with staff about his

concerns. (See N.T. Trial, at 53-67). Further, the evidence at trial was that

Warden Smith and his staff were available to speak with and counsel inmates

on Covid-19 issues on a daily basis, had posted information in the cell blocks

and issued informative memos on what mitigation steps the prison was taking.

(See id. at 33-38); (Defense Exhibit 2, Posted Covid-19 Information);

(Defense Exhibit 3, Covid-19 Mitigation Procedures Memo, 9/25/20). Brolin

testified that he had spoken with a white shirt approximately one week prior

to the riot and elected not to speak to him about his alleged Covid-19

concerns, instead complaining about having to use a CCP tablet to contact his

father. (See id. at 53-54). Thus, his refusal to comply with the lock-in order

did not serve a legitimate purpose, and the trial court properly found that the

evidence was sufficient to establish the offense of disorderly conduct. See

Vogelsong, 90 A.3d at 718.

                                       C.

      Brolin claims that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence

because it is based on the prejudice created by the Commonwealth’s trial

                                     - 16 -
J-S14031-23

witness, Lieutenant Sanford.5            He maintains that this testimony was

“somewhat inconsistent” with the soundless video and that his actions did not

rise to the level of that of the other inmates. (Brolin’s Brief, at 22). Moreover,

he notes that Captain Rozum’s report, which was based on his review of the

surveillance video, did not state that Brolin created a disturbance.

              For an appellant to prevail on a challenge to the weight of
        evidence, he must establish that the evidence was so tenuous,
        vague, and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the
        court. One of the least assailable reasons for granting or denying
        a new trial is the lower court’s conviction that the verdict was or
        was not against the weight of the evidence. Moreover, the weight
        of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact, who is free to
        believe all, none, or some of the evidence and to determine the
        credibility of the witnesses.

Commonwealth v. Gilliam, 249 A.3d 257, 269-70 (Pa. Super. 2021), appeal

denied, 267 A.3d 1213 (Pa. 2021) (citations, quotations marks and brackets

omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Charlton, 902 A.2d 554, 562 (Pa.

Super. 2006), appeal denied, 911 A.2d 933 (Pa. 2006) (“It [is] within the

____________________________________________

5   It is well-settled that:

        [O]ur standard of review for a weight of the evidence claim is an
        abuse of discretion. As we have often reminded appellants, [a]n
        appellate court’s standard of review when presented with a weight
        of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of review
        applied by the trial court. Appellate review of a weight claim is a
        review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question
        of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Rogers, 259 A.3d 539, 541 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation,
quotation marks and emphases omitted).

                                          - 17 -
J-S14031-23

province of the … fact-finder to resolve all issues of credibility, resolve conflicts

in evidence, make reasonable inferences from the evidence, believe all, none,

or some of the evidence, and ultimately adjudge appellant guilty.”) (citation

omitted).

      Instantly, the trial court found the testimony of Lieutenant Sanford and

Captain Rozum, which was corroborated by the surveillance video, to be

credible. (See Trial Court Op., at 14). The court was free to believe all, some

or none of the evidence, and to the extent there were any inconsistencies, it

was within its province to resolve them. See Charlton, 902 A.2d at 562. As

previously stated, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and

we will not re-weigh the evidence or override the trial court’s credibility

decision. See Gilliam, 249 A.3d at 269-70. Because we discern no abuse

of discretion, this issue lacks merit. See Rogers, 259 A.3d at 541.

                                         D.

      In his final issue, Brolin argues that the trial court abused its discretion

in sustaining the Commonwealth’s relevance objections to his proposed

witnesses because all of them were relevant to show that his actions served a

legitimate purpose because the inmates were concerned about Covid-19.

Specifically, he maintains that the trial court abused its discretion when it

limited the testimony of Warden Smith and Captain Rozum, although Warden

Smith had the most knowledge about how the CCP was addressing the Covid-

19 pandemic. (See id. at 25-26, 37, 41). He complains that the trial court

                                       - 18 -
J-S14031-23

precluded Detective Hines from testifying, although he would have testified

about his report that contained information about why the inmates were upset

about the Covid-19 situation at the CCP.           (See id. at 26-30).   Finally, he

maintains that CCP CO Shuhayda’s proposed testimony about inmate requests

to speak with supervisors regarding sanitation efforts in response to Covid-19

was relevant to his defense that he had a legitimate reason not to comply with

the lock-in orders.6 (See id. at 39-41). The Commonwealth responds that

the trial court deferred a decision on the relevance of Detective Hines’s

testimony and never ruled on it and, even if it had, Brolin’s complaints about

Covid-19 did not justify his refusal of the COs’ lock-in orders. Similarly, the

Commonwealth maintains that other inmates’ requests to speak with CCP CO

Shuhayda was irrelevant to Brolin’s refusal to lock-in, thereby committing

disorderly conduct.

____________________________________________

6   We observe that:

              In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of
        evidence, our standard of review is one of deference. Questions
        concerning the admissibility of evidence are within the sound
        discretion of the trial court, and its discretion will not be reversed
        absent a clear abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is not
        merely an error of judgment, but is rather the overriding or
        misapplication of the law, or the exercise of judgment that is
        manifestly unreasonable, or the result of bias, prejudice, ill-will or
        partiality, as shown by the evidence of record.

Commonwealth v. Thompson, 106 A.3d 742, 754 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal
denied, 134 A.3d 56 (Pa. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 106 (2016) (citations
and quotation marks omitted).

                                          - 19 -
J-S14031-23

       “All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by

law. Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible.” Pa. R.E. 402. “Evidence

is relevant if it logically tends to establish a material fact in the case, tends to

make a fact at issue more or less probable or supports a reasonable inference

or presumption regarding a material fact.” Commonwealth v. Stallworth,

781 A.2d 110, 117-118 (Pa. 2001) (internal citations omitted); see also Pa.

R.E. 401. “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is

outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice,

confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or

needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Pa.R.E. 403.

       Brolin admits that he did not follow the COs’ lock-in orders, but argued

that this did not create a hazardous or physically offensive condition and was

justified7 because of his and other inmates’ concerns about Covid-19

procedures in the prison.

       First, CCP CO Shuhayda’s proposed testimony about other inmates’

requests to speak to a supervisor about the sanitation methods being utilized

for COVID-19 was irrelevant to whether a legitimate purpose was served by

Brolin creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition by failing to

____________________________________________

7 The Crimes Code provides that “Conduct which the actor believes to be
necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable if … the
harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought
to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.
§ 503(a)(1).

                                          - 20 -
J-S14031-23

comply with the lock-in orders and instigating fellow inmates.       Brolin and

Warden Smith testified that there were procedures in place to bring such

concerns to the attention of supervisors. (See N.T. Trial, at 33, 51). While

Brolin maintained that the procedures were inadequate for him, he provided

no evidence of this other than his own opinion testimony. Moreover, even if

CCP CO Shuhayda’s testimony was relevant, it was cumulative where Brolin

testified that other inmates had requested information from supervisors about

Covid-19 sanitation methods at the CCP.

      As to Detective Hines, the record reveals that the trial court did not rule

on the Commonwealth’s relevancy objection to Detective Hines’s testimony.

Instead, it deferred deciding the objection until such time as Brolin called

Detective Hines, but he never did so; nor did he seek to introduce Detective

Hines’s report through Warden Smith as suggested by the court. Therefore,

this issue has no merit because the court did not grant the Commonwealth’s

objection in the first place. Even if Brolin construed the court’s discussion of

the issue as precluding Detective Hines’s testimony, Detective Hines was not

present for the riot and his proposed testimony was not based on his

observations of the surveillance video, so any testimony about underlying

Covid-19 concerns of the inmates would be hearsay and cumulative.

      Finally, Brolin complains that the trial court limited the testimony of

Warden Smith and Captain Rozum, despite Warden Smith having the most

knowledge about how the CCP was addressing the Covid-19 pandemic and

                                     - 21 -
J-S14031-23

Captain Rozum being present at the ensuing disciplinary proceedings.         We

discern no abuse of discretion.

      The record reflects that Warden Smith testified about the CCP’s Covid-

19 sanitation and mitigation procedures up to the date of the riot, and that

personnel were available to answer inmate questions about COVID-19. (See

N.T. Trial, at 33-38). Evidence of the unit postings and the mitigation memo

were entered into evidence.       (Defense Exhibits 2 and 3).   After the court

granted the Commonwealth’s objection to the relevance of the mitigation

memo distributed after the riot, Warden Smith stated it was the same as the

previous memos anyway. (See N.T. Trial, at 36-37). Captain Rozum was

precluded from testifying about the CCP’s internal disciplinary process that

occurred after the riot, but was permitted to testify about the report that he

authored based on his review of the surveillance video and the report was

admitted into evidence. (See id. at 42-45).

      We discern no abuse of discretion. Brolin has failed to demonstrate that

the trial court overrode or misapplied the law or exercised manifestly

unreasonable judgment as a result of bias, prejudice, ill-will or partiality. See

Thompson, 106 A.3d at 754. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court

properly exercised its discretion in precluding the testimony of CCP CO

Shuhayda and limiting the testimony of Warden Smith and Captain Rozum.

See id.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                      - 22 -
J-S14031-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/26/2023

                          - 23 -