Court Opinion

ID: 9890253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 17:11:27.815431+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:12.800078
License: Public Domain

J-S29037-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  HOWARD BISHOP                                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1697 MDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 7, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-31-CR-0000082-2021

BEFORE:      MURRAY, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.:                            FILED: OCTOBER 12, 2023

       Appellant, Howard Bishop, appeals from the aggregate judgment of

sentence of 171/2 to 35 years’ incarceration, imposed for his convictions of

attempted rape, aggravated assault by putting an employee of a correctional

institution in fear of imminent serious bodily injury, and unlawful restraint.1

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Appellant’s attempted rape and

aggravated assault convictions, but vacate his unlawful restraint conviction

and judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.

       Appellant, an inmate at SCI-Smithfield, was charged with the above

offenses and indecent assault, false imprisonment, simple assault, and

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 901(a) and 3121(a)(1), 2702(a)(6), (c)(9), and 2902(a)(1),

respectively.
J-S29037-23

harassment for attacking a female SCI-Smithfield corrections counselor

(Victim) on November 10, 2020. A jury trial was held on July 13, 2022, at

which Victim and three corrections officers testified.

      Victim testified that she asked Appellant on November 10, 2020 to call

his mother because Appellant’s mother had phoned her expressing concern

that Appellant had not called her for months and was worried about him. N.T.

Trial at 12-13, 16. Victim testified that Appellant wasn’t sure that he had his

mother’s telephone number, that she went to her office to get the number for

him, and that Appellant followed her into the office and shut the door. Id. at

16. She testified that she got the number for Appellant, gave it to him, and

asked Appellant to leave the office.     Id. at 17-18.    Victim testified that

Appellant did not leave the office after she requested several times that he

leave, that she screamed and pressed the duress alarm because he refused

to leave, and that Appellant grabbed her tightly from behind when she leaned

over her desk to press the alarm and began rubbing her crotch and breasts.

Id. at 18-19. Victim testified that she felt Appellant trying to pull her pants

down, that she dropped to the floor to keep him from getting her pants off,

and that she screamed, yelled for help, and tried to fight Appellant off. Id. at

19-20.   She testified that when she yelled for help, Appellant covered her

mouth with his hand and said “you don’t want them to hear” and that Appellant

“was whispering in my ear like this was something that I wanted.” Id. at 20-

21.   Victim testified that while she was on the floor screaming, struggling

                                     -2-
J-S29037-23

against Appellant, and trying to reach the door, she saw the door open and

that corrections officers came in and grabbed Appellant and pushed him away

from her. Id. at 20. Victim testified that the only physical injuries that she

suffered were some bruises, but that she was terrified and in fear of suffering

serious injury while Appellant was attacking her. Id. at 21, 24-25.

      The corrections officer who first came to Victim’s aid testified that he

heard a female voice screaming and immediately went to the office from which

the screams were coming.        N.T. Trial at 31-32.   This corrections officer

testified that when he opened the office door, he saw Victim crawling on the

floor and saw Appellant climbing off of Victim with his penis hanging out of his

pants.   Id. at 31-34. This corrections officer testified that he immediately

grabbed Appellant and pinned Appellant against the desk and that two other

corrections officers who had followed him into the office put handcuffs on

Appellant. Id. at 31, 33, 35.

      One of the two other corrections officers who came to Victim’s aid

testified that he heard a female scream and an alarm bell go off and went to

the office, where two officers had Appellant over the desk and were trying to

put handcuffs on him.     N.T. Trial at 40-41.   This officer testified that he

grabbed one of Appellant’s arms that Appellant was holding underneath

himself and pulled it behind Appellant’s back to help handcuff Appellant. Id.

at 40. A corrections officer who was not on the cell block where the attack

occurred testified that when Appellant was brought to the medical area after

                                     -3-
J-S29037-23

he attacked Victim, Appellant said to the officers, “come on guys. I was just

trying to get some pussy.” Id. at 45-46.

      Appellant introduced a stipulation that the remaining corrections officer

who came to Victim’s aid if called would testify that he handcuffed Appellant

and that he did not see Appellant’s penis or place it back in Appellant’s pants.

N.T. Trial at 54-55. Appellant did not testify at trial. Id. at 56-57.

      The jury convicted Appellant of attempted rape, aggravated assault by

putting an employee of a correctional institution in fear of imminent serious

bodily injury, unlawful restraint, indecent assault, false imprisonment, and

simple assault, and the trial court, as finder of fact on the summary charge of

harassment, found Appellant guilty of harassment. N.T. Trial at 74; Verdict

Slip; Verdict Order. On October 7, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant

to 10 to 20 years’ incarceration for attempted rape consecutive any other

sentence that he was serving, a consecutive term of 5 to 10 years’

incarceration for the aggravated assault conviction, and a consecutive term of

21/2 to 5 years’ incarceration for unlawful restraint, resulting in an aggregate

judgment of sentence of 171/2 to 35 years’ incarceration consecutive any other

sentence that he was serving. N.T. Sentencing at 7-8, 10; Sentence Order.

The trial court imposed no sentence for the remaining four offenses on the

ground that indecent assault merged with the attempted rape conviction, false

imprisonment merged with the unlawful restraint conviction, and simple

                                     -4-
J-S29037-23

assault and harassment merged with the aggravated assault conviction. N.T.

Sentencing at 2-3, 7-8.

      Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion on October 17, 2022, in

which he sought a new trial on all counts on the ground that the guilty verdicts

were against the weight of the evidence and also sought judgment of acquittal

on the attempted rape, aggravated assault, and unlawful restraint charges.

The trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion on December 9, 2022,

and this timely appeal followed.

      Appellant raises the following three issues in this appeal:

      I. Whether the verdict of guilty on the charge of Criminal Attempt
      - Rape (F1) was against the weight of the evidence in that there
      was no evidence of a specific intent to commit a rape since the
      complaining witness’s clothes were not removed in any way, the
      complaining witness testified that she positioned herself in such a
      manner as to make penetration impossible, there was no
      penetration of any kind, any contact with the complaining
      witness’s breasts was incident to an actual physical assault, and
      there was no evidence of arousal or gratification in regard to either
      [Appellant] and/or the complaining witness?

      IL Whether the verdict of guilty on the charge of Aggravated
      Assault by Physical Menace - Certain Designated Persons (F2) was
      against the weight of the evidence in that there was no evidence
      of a “serious bodily injury” that was sustained and/or evidence
      that the potential infliction of an injury of this magnitude was
      “imminent”, but rather any fear was unreasonable and a product
      of an overreaction to an unexpected event?

      III. Whether the verdict of guilty on the charge of Unlawful
      Restraint (M[1]) was against the weight of the evidence in that
      there was no evidence that the complaining witness was exposed
      to an actual danger of a “serious bodily injury” as there was no
      serious bodily injury of any kind sustained by anyone in the
      underlying event, there were no marks or other evidence of
      restraint, the door to the office remained unlocked at all times,

                                      -5-
J-S29037-23

      and multiple other corrections officer[s] were within ear shot of
      the incident at all pertinent times?

Appellant’s Brief at 7-8 (suggested answers, unnecessary capitalization, and

footnote omitted).

      Appellant states each of these issues as a claim that one of the

Appellant’s convictions was against the weight of the evidence. A new trial

may be granted on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the

evidence only where the verdict was so contrary to the evidence that it shocks

the trial court’s sense of justice. Commonwealth v. James, 268 A.3d 461,

468 (Pa. Super. 2021); Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 758

(Pa. Super. 2014). Our review of the denial of a motion for a new trial based

on weight of the evidence is limited. We review whether the trial court abused

its discretion in concluding that the verdict was not against the weight of the

evidence, not whether the verdict, in this Court’s opinion, was against the

weight of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Clemons, 200 A.3d 441, 463-

64 (Pa. 2019); Commonwealth v. Delmonico, 251 A.3d 829, 837 (Pa.

Super. 2021).

      Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see
      the evidence presented, an appellate court will give the gravest
      consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial
      judge …. 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.

Antidormi, 84 A.3d at 758 (quoting Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049,

(Pa. 2013)) (brackets omitted).

                                     -6-
J-S29037-23

      In his first issue, Appellant argues that the testimony of one of the

corrections officers that Appellant had his penis out was contradicted by lack

of evidence that anyone put it back in Appellant’s pants and that the testimony

of another corrections officer that Appellant said that he was “trying to get

some pussy” was unreliable because only the word “pussy” could be heard on

a video recording of the interaction in which Appellant made the statement.

These contentions do not show that the verdict was against the weight of the

evidence.   The trial court, which heard the testimony and observed the

witnesses’ demeanor, found the testimony of both witnesses credible. Trial

Court Opinion at 6, 8. That conclusion was not an abuse of discretion. Neither

witness’s testimony was inconsistent with the other evidence at trial. The fact

that no corrections officer put Appellant’s penis back in his pants after the

attack does not discredit the testimony that his penis was out when he was

attacking Victim, as two corrections officers testified that Appellant had one

of his hands in front of and underneath him before he was handcuffed, N.T.

Trial at 33, 40, and Appellant therefore could have done that himself. While

only the word “pussy” could be heard on the video, which was played at trial,

and the rest of what Appellant was saying was not audible, Trial Court Opinion

at 6, the fact that the video did not capture the full statement does not

contradict the witness’s testimony as to what he heard Appellant say.

      Appellant also contends that the attempted rape verdict was against the

weight of the evidence because the evidence allegedly was too speculative or

                                     -7-
J-S29037-23

unreliable to show that Appellant intended to commit a rape. This argument

is patently without merit. There was testimony at trial from Victim and two

corrections officers that Appellant grabbed Victim, fondled her private parts,

tried to pull her pants down, was climbing off of Victim with his penis out when

he was stopped, and said that he was “trying to get some pussy.”      N.T. Trial

at 19, 21, 27, 31-34, 45-46. That testimony, which the trial court concluded

was credible, Trial Court Opinion at 6, 8, is amply sufficient to show intent to

rape and that Appellant committed the offense of attempted rape.

Commonwealth v. Faison, 297 A.3d 810, 831 (Pa. Super. 2023) (evidence

was sufficient to prove attempted rape where defendant pinned victim and

removed her pants and admitted to police that he was “just trying to get some

pussy”); Commonwealth v. Moody, 441 A.2d 371, 372-73 (Pa. Super.

1982) (evidence was sufficient to prove attempted rape where defendant

forced a victim into his basement, fondled her genitalia and began to unzip

his pants before she escaped); Commonwealth v. Bullock, 393 A.2d 921,

923 (Pa. Super. 1978) (en banc) (evidence was sufficient to prove attempted

rape where defendant grabbed victim, tore open her blouse, pulled down her

bra, and tried to remove her pants). The trial court therefore did not abuse

its discretion in holding that the attempted rape verdict was not against the

weight of the evidence.

      In his second and third issues, Appellant argues that his aggravated

assault and unlawful restraint convictions were against the weight of the

                                     -8-
J-S29037-23

evidence solely on the ground that the evidence at trial was allegedly

insufficient to prove the elements of these offenses. Such arguments are in

fact challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, not the weight of the

evidence. Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 258 (Pa. Super. 2003).

      The distinction between a claim challenging the sufficiency of
      evidence and a claim challenging the weight of evidence is critical.
      A motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict is contrary
      to the weight of the evidence concedes that there is sufficient
      evidence to sustain the verdict but claims that “notwithstanding
      all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to
      ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to
      deny justice.” A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence,
      however, asserts that there is insufficient evidence to support at
      least one material element of the crime for which [the defendant]
      has been convicted.

Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000))

(citations omitted). We therefore address these claims as sufficiency of the

evidence claims and accordingly evaluate whether the evidence was sufficient

to prove all elements of the crimes in question, accepting as true all evidence

and reasonable inferences that support the verdict. Lyons, 833 A.2d at 258

(addressing defendant’s claim that verdict was against the weight of the

evidence as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence where defendant’s

argument was that there was insufficient evidence to prove the elements of

the offense); Commonwealth v. Frederick, 475 A.2d 754, 760-61 & n.3

(Pa. Super. 1984) (same).

      Appellant’s second issue merits no relief.       The aggravated assault

offense of which Appellant was convicted requires that the Commonwealth

                                      -9-
J-S29037-23

prove that Victim was an officer or employee of a correctional institution and

that Appellant attempted “by physical menace” to put her “in fear of imminent

serious bodily injury” while she was while in the performance of her duties.

18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(6), (c)(9). The only elements that Appellant contends

that the Commonwealth failed to prove are that his actions constituted

physical menace and that he attempted to put Victim in fear of imminent

serious bodily injury. The evidence is sufficient to prove these elements where

the Commonwealth shows that the defendant placed the victim in fear of

imminent serious bodily injury through the use of menacing or frightening

activity.   Commonwealth v. Repko, 817 A.2d 549, 554 (Pa. Super. 2003),

overruled in part on other issue, Commonwealth v. Matthews, 870 A.2d

924 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc); see also Commonwealth v. Reynolds,

835 A.2d 720, 726-27 (Pa. Super. 2003) (interpreting identical elements in

simple assault statute).

      Here, the evidence at trial was sufficient to show that Appellant engaged

in menacing and frightening activity and that this menacing and frightening

activity put Victim in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Victim testified

that Appellant overpowered her to the point that she could not escape and

that he covered her mouth when she screamed and told her not to call for

help. N.T. Trial at 19-20. Such an attack is menacing and frightening conduct

that would reasonably cause a person to fear for her life, particularly when

the attacker is a convicted criminal in a prison setting. In addition, Victim

                                    - 10 -
J-S29037-23

testified that she was terrified and was in fear of suffering serious bodily

injury. Id. at 21. The fact that Victim was not in fact seriously injured does

not negate the elements of the aggravated assault offense of which Appellant

was convicted. The section of the Crimes Code under which Appellant was

charged and convicted of aggravated assault, Section 2702(6), requires only

proof of an attempt to put the victim in fear of imminent serious bodily, not

proof that the defendant injured the victim. 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(6). Indeed,

the elements of physical menace and attempting to put the victim in fear of

imminent serious bodily do not require proof that the defendant had the ability

to seriously injure the victim or that the victim was in actual danger.

Commonwealth v. Gouse, 429 A.2d 1129, 1131 (Pa. Super. 1981).

      In his third issue, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to

prove the elements of unlawful restraint because there was no evidence that

Victim was in danger of serious bodily injury. The crime of unlawful restraint

requires proof of a restraint more serious than the offense of false

imprisonment, of which Appellant was also convicted, which requires proof

only that the defendant knowingly restrained the victim unlawfully so as to

interfere substantially with the victim’s liberty. 18 Pa.C.S. § 2902 Jt. St. Govt.

Comm. Comment; Commonwealth v. Prince, 719 A.2d 1086, 1087-88 (Pa.

Super. 1998); 18 Pa.C.S. § 2903(a). To prove the unlawful restraint offense

of which Appellant was convicted, the Commonwealth must prove both that

the defendant knowingly restrained the victim unlawfully and that defendant’s

                                     - 11 -
J-S29037-23

conduct exposed the victim to an actual risk of serious bodily injury.         18

Pa.C.S. § 2902(a)(1); Commonwealth v. Schilling, 431 A.2d 1088, 1091-

92 (Pa. Super. 1981).     Absent proof of an actual danger of serious bodily

injury, the evidence is insufficient to prove unlawful restraint under the section

of the statute at issue here. Schilling, 431 A.2d at 1092 (threatening the

victim with an unloaded pellet gun in perpetrating a sexual assault was

insufficient to support unlawful restraint conviction under Section 2902(a)(1)

because the victim was not exposed to actual risk of serious bodily injury);

compare Commonwealth v. Melvin, 572 A.2d 773, 774-75 (Pa. Super.

1990) (upholding unlawful restraint conviction under Section 2902(a)(1)

because forcing a victim at gunpoint to drive in search of a person who had

shot at the defendant earlier and whom the defendant wanted to kill exposed

the victim to actual risk of serious bodily injury, even though there was no

proof that the defendant’s gun was loaded).

      We agree that the Commonwealth did not prove the element of actual

risk of serious bodily injury in this case.    While the evidence at trial was

sufficient to prove that Appellant’s conduct created a reasonable fear of

serious bodily injury, there was no evidence that Appellant’s restraint of Victim

exposed her to an actual danger of serious bodily injury. There was ample

evidence that Appellant restrained Victim, but no evidence that Appellant hit

her, tried to choke her or impede her ability to breathe, threw her against any

object, or put her in a dangerous location. Nor was there any evidence of his

                                     - 12 -
J-S29037-23

and Victim’s physical sizes and strength from which an actual danger of

serious bodily injury could be inferred. This case therefore stands in contrast

to those cases where this Court has held that a restraint not involving weapons

exposed the victim to an actual risk of serious bodily injury sufficient to

support a conviction under the unlawful restraint statute at issue here.

Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 763 A.2d 411, 413-14 (Pa. Super. 2000)

(defendant handcuffed the victim, put her in the trunk of a car, and drove the

car with her in the trunk); Commonwealth v. McBall, 463 A.2d 472, 474

(Pa. Super. 1983) (defendant grabbed the victim by the neck, pushed and

shoved her, and repeatedly threatened to kill her and evidence showed that

defendant weighed twice as much as the victim and was a weightlifter);

Commonwealth v. Harbold, No. 878 MDA 2020, slip op. at 3, 10-11 (Pa.

Super. July 12, 2021) (defendant choked the victim and threatened to kill

her); Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, No. 1898 EDA 2018, slip op. at 5-6 (Pa.

Super. May 31, 2019) (defendant hit the victim in the face and threw her).

Indeed, neither the trial court nor the Commonwealth points to any evidence

that showed an actual risk of serious bodily injury to Victim. Rather, they

argue only that the evidence showed that the attack was frightening, Trial

Court Opinion at 9 & n.3; Appellee’s Brief at 1-2, 10, which supports the

aggravated assault verdict but does not show the actual risk of serious bodily

injury required to prove the unlawful restraint charge at issue here.

                                    - 13 -
J-S29037-23

      Because the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s attempted

rape and aggravated assault convictions and the trial court did not abuse its

discretion in concluding that those verdicts were not against the weight of the

evidence, we affirm those convictions. Because the evidence was insufficient

to support Appellant’s unlawful restraint conviction, we must vacate that

conviction. The vacating of the unlawful restraint conviction disturbs the trial

court’s sentencing scheme, as the unlawful restraint sentence was consecutive

to the attempted rape and aggravated assault sentences and the court did not

impose a sentence for Appellant’s false arrest conviction on the ground that it

merged with the unlawful restraint conviction that we now have vacated. We

therefore vacate Appellant’s judgment of sentence and remand this case for

resentencing.

      Convictions for attempted rape and aggravated assault affirmed.

Unlawful restraint conviction vacated.   Judgment of sentence vacated, and

case remanded for resentencing. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date:10/12/2023

                                     - 14 -
J-S29037-23

              - 15 -