Court Opinion

ID: 9947352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 17:10:19.05716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:22.561831
License: Public Domain

J-A06016-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                   v.                    :
                                         :
 JUSTIN MARTINEZ                         :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :
                                         :
                                         :   No. 600 WDA 2023

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 22, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division
                    at No(s): CP-65-CR-0000231-2020,
                          CP-65-CR-0005559-2019

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
                   v.                    :
                                         :
                                         :
 JUSTIN JUAN DE LA CRUZ MARTINEZ         :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :   No. 601 WDA 2023

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 22, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division
                    at No(s): CP-65-CR-0000231-2020,
                          CP-65-CR-0005559-2019

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and BECK, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, P.J.E.:                FILED: MARCH 4, 2024

     Justin Martinez appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the

Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County on May 22, 2023 at docket

Nos. 5559-2019 and 231-2020. After careful review, we conclude Martinez’s

brief violates the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure to such a degree
J-A06016-24

that it impedes our review. The only contention raised in Martinez’s brief is a

rambling narrative which restates his factual defense at the time of trial, which

was rejected by the finder of fact. Although we could dismiss this appeal on

this basis alone, we adopt the trial court’s well-written and comprehensive

OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925, dated July 20, 2023, which is attached

hereto, as it explains that the verdicts were based upon competent and

substantial evidence.

      This case is to be removed from the Argument list of March 5, 2024.

      Judgment of Sentence affirmed.

FILED: 3/4/2024

                                      -2-
                                                                                 Circulated 03/01/2024 02:01 PM

        IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY
                   COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
                           CREVENAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
                                                                                Nos. 5559 C2019
         V.
                                                                                      231 C"2020

JUSTIN JUAN DE LA CRUZ MARTINEZ,
                               Defendant..

                             OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925,

        AND NOW, this U day of July, 2023, the Court files the`herein Rule 1925(a) Opinion

following the filing of the Defendant's Notices of Appeal ,and Concise . Statement of Errors

Complained of on Appeal:

No. 5559 C2019

        On November 20, 2019, acriminal complaint was .filed charging the defendant with

Disorderly Conduct, 1& Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(4), and Resisting Arrest, 18 Pa.C:S. § 5104. These

charges arose out of an incident where the defendant. was alleged to have videorecorded the secure

area of the communications room at the Pennsylvania State Police ICiski. Valley barracks, refused

to comply with police directives to surrender the recording, and forcibly resisted police efforts to

obtain the recording.

        On December 23, 2019, the. defendant waived counsel, and appeared pro .se before

Magisterial District Judge Jason Buczak for apreliminary hearing. At the conclusion of the

evidence, all charges. were held for court.
        On January 27, 2020, a Criminal Information was filed, charging the defendant with

Disorderly Conduct, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(4), and Resisting Arrest, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5104.

        On February 25, 2020, the defendant was formally arraigned on the Commonwealth's

Information.

        On March 12, 2020, .the Commonwealth filed aNotice consolidating this case with No.

231 C 2020.

N6.231 C 2020
:

        On December 3, 2019, a criminal .complaint was filed charging 'the defendant with

Trespass, .18 Pa.C.S. §3503(b)(1)(y), and Disorderly Conduct; 18 Pa.C.S. §55.03(a)(4). These

charges arose out of an incident at the start of the school. day on November 19, 2019, where it was

alleged that the defendant, wearing aunicom head mask and carrying asign,. stood on the: property

of the Deity Area .High School and on the berm of the road immediately adjacent to the.school's

driveway, .impeding entry into the school and distressing students, parents, and teachers, at atime

after written notice was given to him that he was not permitted on school property.

       On January 15, 2020, the defendant: waived co»nsel and appeared pro se before Magisterial

District Judge Mark Bihk for apreliminary hearing. At the conclusion of the evidence ;all charges

were held for court.

       On March 12, 2020,."a Criminal Information was filed, charging.the defendant with Defiant

Trespass; .18 ' Pa.C.S. §3501(b)(1)(v), and two counts of Disorderly Conduct„ 18 Pa.C.S.

§5503(a)(4):

       On March. 12, 2020, the Commonwealth filed a. Notice: consolidating this case with No.

5559 C2019.

                                                2.
        On June 9, 2020, the defendant was formally arraigned on the Commonwealth's

Information.

Nos. 5559 C 2019 and 231 C 2020

        On September 18, 2020, and November 9, 2020, the defendant pro se filed fourteen

motions. These were. heard by -the Honorable Christopher A. Feliciani on January 13, 2021;and

resolved by agreement or order.

        On February' 5;.2021, the Commonwealth filed. amotion to modify the defendant's bail.

       On February'8, 2021., the defendant pro se filed eight additional motions. These. were heard

on February 19, 2021., and, after an evidentiary hearing, denied.

       On, February 8, 2021, after an evidentiary hearing, the Court ordered modification of the

defendant's bond. toinclude conditions of home electronic monitoring and no iaternet access until

further order of court.. The Court also driected the defendant to remove the video from social

media which was the subject of the Commonwealth's motion.

       On.February . 1.6, 2021, the Court ordered the defendant to obtain apsychiatric evaluation.

       On February 19, 2021, the defendant pro se filed an additional three motions. These were

denied by Court Order dated February 22, 2021.

       On February 22, 202:1.,.and .February 25, 2021, the defendant pro se filed an additional four

motions. On March 1, 2021, `the Office of the Public Defender of Westmoreland County entered

its appearance on defendant's behalf. On March 2, 2021, the Court issue an Order denying the

defendant's pro se motions without prejudice to re-filing as counseled motions.

                                                 3
        On May 26, 2021;, defendant, through counsel, filed aPetition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

An evidentiary hearing on this motion was, held on September 8, 2021, December 13, 2021, and

December 15, 2021. Habeas Corpus relief was denied by Order dated December 1S, 202.1.

        On July 12, 2021., defendant, through counsel, filed amotion for bond modification: On

July 23, 2021., the Court granted defendant's motion and ordered that he be released from home

electronic monitoring and:.participate in recommended treatment.

        On October 12, 202-1,         counsel. moved to withdraw from representation, citing

disagreements between the defendant and courisel. On October 26, 2021, after, ahearing, the Court

granted leave for the Office, of the Public Defender to withdraw and, at the defendants reques₹,.

appointed stand-by counsel,

        On November 15, 2021, after new criminal charges were filed against the defendant, a

detainer was issued directing that the defendant be incarcerated. On December 1, 2021, after a

hearing, the Court denied that Commonwealth's motion to revoke bond and ordered that the

defendant be released'on home electronic monitoring.

        On February 8, 2022, ahearing was held on several motions that were filed by the

defendant. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court ordered that additional discovery materials

be provided to the defendant and that the .defendant be released from home electronic monitoring.

        By Order dated April 14, 2022 ;.
                                       the ,Court directed that the defendant's two cases which

Were consolidated be listed for a. jury trial.

        By Order dated July 13, 2022, the Court denied the defendant's request to consolidate new

criminal charges at No. 338 C 2022. for trial with the two cases captioned above.

        On August 22, 2022,; trial commenced before Judge Feliciani, sitting with. ajury. On

August 29, 2022, at No. 5559 C2019, the jury returned verdicts of guilty as to Count 1(Disorderly

                                                 4
    Conduct) and not guilty as to Count 2(
                                         Resisting Arrest) and, at No. 231 C 2020, verdicts of not

    guilty as to 'Count 1 (Defiant. Trespass) and. guilty as to Count 2: (Disorderly Conduct)..Sentencing

    was deferred pending apre-sentence investigation.

             On September 7;2022, defendant pro se filed eight motions seeking various forms of post-

    trial relief.

             On September 9, 2022,, defendant filed aNotice of Appeal with .the Superior Court of

    Pennsylvania, docketed at No. 1.037 WDA 2.022. On January 27, 2023, this appeal was quashed

    after the Superior Court found that ,it was premature. On March 1.4, 2023, the record was

    remanded/remitted to the trial court.

             On March 30, 2023, Judge Feliciani.recused himself from further proceedings in all three

cases involving the defendant, including the .two, which are the subject of this Court's opinion

   pursuant to 'Rule.1925.

             On. May 22, 2023, the undersigned, having assumed judicial responsibility for the cases

    docketed at the above numbers and terms, sentenced the defendant at No. 231 C 2020 to aperiod

    of incarceration for fifteen days to one. year, with credit for.fifteen days which were previously

    served. The defendant was further awarded credit for the time served on home electronic

   monitoring and, supervision was closed., At No. 5559 C 201.9, the defendant was sentenced to a

   period of incarceration for fifteen. days to one year, with credit for fifteen days which were.

   previously served, `concurrent with the sentence imposed at No. 231 C 2020. The defendant was

   further awarded credit for. the time served on home electronic monitoring and supervision was

   closed.

             On May 23, 2023, the defendant timely filed an-appeal to the Pennsylvania,Superior Court.

   Further, the defendant timely filed aConcise. Statement of Errors Complained of'on Appeal raising
the following issues: the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the conviction at No. 231 C2020,

arguing that his conduct -
                         was. in furtherance of alegitimate purpose of protesting; the sufficiency

of the evidence regarding the conviction at .No. 5559 G 2.019., arguing that his conduct was in

furtherance of alegitimate purpose of filing acomplaint with the Pennsylvania State Police; and

the propriety of the jury instruction on Disorderly Conduct regarding evaluation of :the alleged

conduct using astandard of reasonableness instead of individual intent.

           This Opinion is in support of the Order, of Sentence, imposed on May 22, 2023, at both case

numbers.

Statement of Facts

          The facts,, adduced from the testimony at trial, read in the light most, favorable to the.

Commonwealth,' may be summarized as follows:

           On or about August 29, 2019, .
                                        Justin Juan de La Cruz Martinez (hereinafter "the

defendant") emailed Eric Curry (hereinafter "Curry"), the superintendent of Derry Area School

District, and. Rod Bisi .(hereinafter "Bisi"), the principal of Grandview Elementary School,

requesting to come to Grandview School as part of.his .anti-bullying campaign. (TT 316-321; 368;

533) 2 On behalf of the. school_ district, Ned Nakles, Esq, the district's solicitor, sent Martinez a

cease-and-desist, letter directing the defendant to stay off school grounds.and stating that.the police

would be alerted and it would be, considered trespass should .Martinez enter school. property. (TT

379-381; 383-384.;431;583) Nakles further.advisedthe defendant.that the.school district could not

1   See discussion below.

2   The- letters "TT" followed by numerals refer to the transcript of the trial,

                                                     6
control his movements outside of school property so long as the defendant did not interfere with

the school activities or transportation, (TT 353;403-4.04; 409; 411; 413-414; 417) The defendant,

upon receiving the denial from Curry and Nakles, informed them that he would be at .
                                                                                   Grandview

School on November 7, 2019, regardless of whether the district supported his presence. (TT 341;

343;.345; 376; 383; 41.0; 421).

        On November 7, 2019, the. defendant: stood beside State Route 982, outside of the entrance

of Grandview School in Derry, Westiuoreland County, Pennsylvania, wearing aunicorn mask and

holding an anti-bullying sign. (TT 354; 404-405; 427; 437; 522) At about 7:30 am., the school

began to field telephone calls from parents who were ,concerned for_ their children's safety .and

confused about the defendant's presence near the school. (TT 405; 415; 419-420; 422; 453; 459;

462;472-475; 481-487; 505-508.; 511; 516; 557-560) Some parents reported to the school and.

police that the defendant was standing on school property. (TT 43'5-441; 44.7; 450; 466-468; 53.0;

560.; 562) Additionally, cars had begun to redirect and switch lanes, honking at each other,

attempting to avoid the defendant and.slowing down, affecting the transportation of students to the

school. (TT 405; 415; 419.-420;. 422; 450; 454; 470; 578; 594; 598; 620) The traffic worsened as

students arrived and worsened again when the police arrived on scene, (TT 601; 631; 1180)

        Thomas Esposito, (hereinafter, "Esposito"), was the school's safety officer at the time of

the incident. When .he arrived on campus, he was not initially concerned by the defendant's

presence as he mistook the defendant .for the Chic-fl-A cow. (TT 576-577) Upon. entering the

school, Esposito was summoned to the office, informed of the evolving situation, and told to go

look into the. scene near the road. He observed the defendant standing, near the school's marquee.

(TT 576) Esposito's main objective was to ensure' the safety of the building. (TT 576) He was

'concerned for the safety and welfare of staff and students in relation to the defendant, as well as

                                                 7
possible traffic issues. (TT 578) Esposito had been made aware of the fact that the defendant had

been disallowed .from being on school property that day and became concerned that the defendant

was the masked individual.. (TT 583)

       .Jeff Kelly, the dean of students for the middle and high school, received a. call of 'amasked

individual walking around the school premises. (TT 646-648) He testified that the situation gave

him afeeling of "angst" as students had begun to arrive on campus and there was expected to be

over athousand students:present that day..(1650.; 646; 649;. 668; 672; 679,) Kelly had been made

aware of the defendant's social media posts and apparent plans to protest' on Nbvember 7as well

as the fact. that he had been disallowed` from being on .campus that day. (TT 667;'669; 671;, 673)

Kelly could not positively identify the area on which the defendant was standing as , school

property. (TT 660)

        Kelly reported the defendant's presence to Casey Long (hereinafter, "Long"), the principal

of the high school. Long immediately called the superintendent and the police reporting the

defendant as amasked person causing concerns of violence and athreat to safety to his students.

(1"1 589;. 592;. 594; 595; 597; 598; 620; 621) Long also reported that he thought the masked

individual could be the defendant. and reported this possibility to the police. Long could not say

positively that the defendant was on school property, just that he was "pretty dam close." This

proximity justified. calling the authorities to ascertain whether or'not there was.a threat to the safety

of the school. (TT 597; 629) When more students. began to arrive .on campus and the police had

not yet arrived,.Long called the police for asecond time: Long also reported to the police that he

thought the masked individual could be the defendant as he was aware that the defendant.had been

denied access to the school that day.

                                                    8
       Police Officer Randy Glick, (hereinafter, "Glick") received the report that the defendant

was on school, property, despite being previously disallowed from.being there. (TT 753) Glick was

somewhat familiar with the defendant as he.had spoken with the defendant on previous occasions

regarding his protests. (TT 754) When he arrived at the school, Glick walked over to the defendant

and asked him what he was doing and informed him. of the.reports of trespassing., (TT 1169)

       Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Stephanie Smith (hereinafter; "Stephanie Smith")

arrived on scene after receiving areport of amasked individual outside of Grandview School who

was causing alarm to parents and:staff..(TT 712; 732-733) Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Ty

Smith (hereinafter;. "Ty Smith",), received similar reports and proceeded to the scene with lights

and siren activated, as is protocol for responding to school concerns, especially with, the "school-

shooter culture." (TT (683; 685-686) When he got there, he noted that traffic was heavy, as

students had begun. to arrive. (
                               TT688) When Stephanie Smith arrived,, she observed the defendant

on the berm.of the road, walking across the.driveway of the school, ,which -
                                                                           she, believed to be school

property. (TT 714-715; 71.8; 720; 723; 8.6.1.-862) Upon exiting her vehicle, Stephanie Smith

requested that the defendant remove the unicorn mask and show aphoto ID. (TT 1173) The

defendant removed the unicorn mask, revealing another.mask underneath,, and showed Stephanie

Smith acard 'which identified him as "the Bully Monster." (TT 71.9; 882 -
                                                                        883; 1171 -
                                                                                  1173; 1176)

When he removed his mask, Ty Smith iecognized him from a.social.media post about asituation

in Derry. (TT 690) Glick also:recognized the defendant when he removed his unicorn mask. (TT

754) The defendant then.gave Stephanie Smith his Pennsylvania driver's license.. (TT 1177)

       The troopers .considered that the :
                                         defendant was exercising his right to protest but were

concerned that he was protesting in away that was causing adisruption .and creating, a.
                                                                                      safety

hazard for students, staff, parents, and troopers. (TT 766768) Ty "Smith also agreed that the

                                                 9
defendant, by protesting, was exercising his civil rights. (TT 73 9) After reviewing maps of the area

and considering where the defendant was standing, it was decided that adisorderly conduct charge

was appropriate. (TT 693.
                        ;703) At trial, Glick testified that this incident represents disorderly

conduct "all day long." (TT 788) Glick, at that time, did not file the official charge for trespassing ;

as nobody presented him with evidence thatthe defendant had been. on school property., (TT 769).

        The troopers pointed out the traffic issues to the defendant, but he disagreed that the traffic

was.anything worse than normal school drop-off traffic. (TT 1180) Ty Smith asked the defendant

to leave, but the defendant asserted thathe was exercising his rights and was..attempting to attract

attention to the issue of .bullying. (TT 1185) The defendant then asked the troopers if he was

trespassing and stated that, if they could not. positively identify the area on which.he was standing

as school property; `it was his .intention to stay and protest. (TT 1189) Stephanie Smith then

informed the defendant that .it was her intention to arrest him unless he left the school area,, citing

the reports from parents who believed the defendant was trespassing on school property, as well

as the disruptive nature of the situation. as reason for the possible arrest:. (TT 728; 864-866.; 1196)

The defendant asked the troopers for a:phone. number to call to reach their superiors, which they

gave him, (TT 1197) At this point, the defendant left the area, of the school. (TT 1197) After the

defendant left, the troopers. radioed the, barracks to alert them that the situation.had been handled

(TT 732; 737) Stephanie Smith testified that she regarded the defendant as athreat because he

made acomment that he would be back and that he enjoys .confrontation. (TT 736) After reviewing

the evidence of this incident Pennsylvania State Police- Corporal Jhirison Shepbard, (hereinafter;

"Shephard"), testified that the "totality of the circumstances was creating ahazardous situation,

especially given the roadside nature of the interaction with Martinez. (TT 867-868)

                                                  10
       At trial, the defendant provided character witnesses who testified to his peaceful nature

                                                                                       of his
(TT 932; 940; 954; 960; 962; 966; 975; 982). He also showed numerous photos and videos -

prior protests., in which he can be seen wearing masks.and waving anti-bullying sign (TT 1080-

1086; 1102-1130).

        On or about November. 19, 2019, the defendant proceeded to the Pennsylvania State Police:

Barracks inKiski Valley. Prior to his arrival. at the barracks on November 19, 2019, the defendant

called Ma Provenzo .(hereinafter, "Provenzo"), the communications. officer at the time of the

incident. In this call, he reported that he was going to come to the barracks in relation to filing

complaints. (TT 794; 120 1) Upon arrival in the lobby, the defendant called Provenzo .again to alert

her that he was there. (TT 797) Provenzo advised the defendant that he would not be able to record

in the restricted area or have his phone pointed toward the window. (TT 825) The restriction on

recording is also posted inside the barracks, as this is an. issue addressed with any individual who

enters the lobby. (TT 829) Provenzo alerted Shephard of the defendant's arrival at the: barracks.

The defendant inquired as to the status of his previously filed complaints, as this was. the eighth

day after they had.been filed. (TT 833-834) 4 Shephardinstructed him to slide any.new complaints

under the window. Because one of the complaints was against Sheppard, the defendant did not

want to'directiy give him the complaint, so he refused to slide it under the window and sat. down.

3Prior to this date, he had filed averbal complaint against Stephanie Smith and Ty Smith, alleging
afalse arrest in relation to the events which transpired on November 7, 2019. (TT 823; 850; 853;
1199) While he was at the barracks .previously, the defendant was.recording with his cellphone,
but was not directing the recording towards the window or the.restricted area, so this: recording
was not considered problematic at the time. ( TT 825; 829; 876; 1204) Shephard, who received the
complaint;advised the defendant that he would have information about the complaint in a, week.
(TT 834; 870-872)

4.In. addition to those against Stephanie Smith and Ty Smith, the defendant had filed complaints
_
a,cgainst Corporal Shephard, Sergeant Stallone, and an internal affairs officer. (TT 1200; 1211)

                                                 11
(TT 820 834; 873; 1203) Because, the defendant was recording this interaction, Shephard gave

him orders to not record in the direction of the .restricted area. Shephard could not. tell if the

defendant was recording the secured area with the front camera" or himself with the back camera.

(TT 902-903) The :defendant continued to record, ignoring Shephard's orders to hold his phone

out"to the side. Every time the defendant would move his phone to the side, he would immediately

bring it back to the front, recording toward, the restricted area. (
                                                                   TT 879=881; 891-892; 899-900;

1204) Shephard was concerned about. Martinez recording classified and confidential information,.

including information regarding victims and.arrestees, that could be available in"the restricted area.

(TT 837) Because of these concerns, Shephard attempted to seize the defendant'"s phone, resulting

in astruggle. (TT 820 835-83.6; 840; 896-897;1206-1208) Shephard ordered the defendant to get

on the ground and told hirn that he was under arrest, at which point the.. struggle ceased. (TT 81.3=

816; 841; 1208) Martinez was, placed under arrest, handcuffed, patted down, and escorted to the

patrol room. Following this incident, Shephard filed criminal charges against the defendant. (TT

830; 838) The defendant's. cell phone was confiscated, asearch warrant was secured, and the

videos of the incident were recovered from the phone. (TT 832) Shephard testified that the

defendant "disrupted operations of.my dispatcher, another crime corporal, acrime unit member,"

as well as his own efforts .to..oversee"patrol duties: (TT 837;. 881)

    1.      Sufficiency of the Evidence

         The standard of review for claims of insufficient evidence. is well-settled. With respect to

such claims, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict

winner. In that light, we decide if the evidence and all reasonable inferences from that evidence

are sufficient to establish the elements of the offense beyond areasonable doubt." Commonwealth

                                                  12
v. Devries. 112 A.3d 663, 667 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations omitted); Commonwealth v. Barkman,

-- A;3d —, 2023 Pa Super. 87, at *J5 (May .19, 2023);. and Commonwealth v. Arias; 286 A.3d 341,.

349 (Pa. Super. 2022). "This standard is equally applicable to cases where. the evidence is

circumstantial rather than direct so long as the combination of the evidence links the accused to

the clime beyond areasonable.doubt.". Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736,756 (
                                                                                 Pa. Super.

201.4), app. den.. 626 Pa. 681., 95 A.3d 275 (2014); Commonwealth v. Estepp, 17 A.3d 939, 943

(Pa. Super. 2011)(citing Commonwealth v. Brooks ; 7 A.3d 852, 856-857 .(Pa. Super. 2010));

Commonwealth v. Becker ;No. 1841 MDA 20.19, 2021 WL156138;3, at *4 (Pa. Super. Ct. April

21, 2021.)(non-precedential decision); and Commonwealth v. Zarnoch, No. 105 MDA 2020,.2021

WL 1328798, at * 2 (Pa. Super. Ct. April 9, 2021)(non-precedential decision) .

        The prosecution must be given the benefit .of all reasonable inferences, to be drawn from

the evidence. Commonwealth, v. 'Widmer, 744 A.2d, 745., 751-52 (Pa. 2000)(citations omitted),

Commonwealth v. Buchanan, No. 858 MDA 2020, 2021 WL 944420, at *4-5 (Pa. Super. Ct:

March 12,.2021)(non-precedential decision). The factfinder is free'to believe all, part, or none of

the   evidence,   and   credibility: determinations   rest   solely within the   purview of the

factfinder. Commonwealth v. Treiber, 874 A.2d 26,30 (
                                                    Pa. 2005); Commonwealth v. Watson, No.

1694.EDA 2019, 2020 WL 5269916,. at *5 (Pa. Super. Ct: September 4., 2020)(non-precedential

decision); and Antidormi, 84 A.3d at 756-Moreover, any doubts. concerning adefendant's guilt ate

to be resolved by the factfinder unless the evidence was so weak. and inconclusive that no.

probability of fact could be drawn from that evidence, Commonwealth v. Kane ;10 A.3d 327, 332

(Pa. Super. 2010) ;app. den, . 29 A.3d. 796 (Pa. 2011); and Commonwealth w Martin, No. 1361

MDA 2019, 2020 WL 3960350, at.*2.(Pa. Super. Ct. July 13, 2020)(non-precedential decision).

                                                13
       Finally, although aconviction must be based on more than mere suspicion or conjecture,

the Commonwealth.need not establish guilt. to a mathematical 'certainty, Comm onwealth.v.

Martuscelli, 54 A.3d 940,. 947 (Pa. Super. .2012); Martin, at *2, or preclude every possibility of

innocence. Barkman.'at * 15 Commonwealth v. Knox, 21.9 A.3d 186,195 (Pa. Super. 2019), app..

den., 228 A.3d 256 (Pa. 2020); Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 39-40 (Pa. Super. 2014);

and. Commonwealth v. Bailey, No. 1220 EDA 2020, 2021 WL 655439, at *I1 (Pa. Super. Ct.

February 19, 2021.)(non-precedential decision)'.

       The defendant was convicted at each case of Disorderly Conduct, 18 Pa.C.S. §5503(a)(4).

"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 ahazardous or physically .offensive

condition by any act which serves-no legitimate purpose of the actor." 18 Pa-C.S.A. § 5503(a)(4).

The offense .of disorderly conduct has the "specific purpose ... to preserve the 'public peace."

Commonwealth v. Hock, 728 A.2d 943, 947 (Pa. 1999) (citation omitted). "The cardinal feature

of the crime of disorderly conduct is public unruliness which can .or does lead to tumult and

disorder." .
           Hock;. 728 A.2d at 946 (citation omitted). The goal of Section 5503 is to protect. the

community from public unruliness leading to tumult or disorder; it is not:a "catchall for every act

which annoys or disturbs people." Commonwealth v.. Mauz; 122 A.3d 1039, 1041 (Pa. Super.

2015) (quoting Commonwealth v. Maerz,               879 A.2d   1267,   1269 (Pa. Super: 2005)).

Commonwealth v. Coniker, 290 A.3d 725, 735 (Pa. Super. 2023). "ft has aspecific purpose; it has

adefinite objective ;it is intended to preserve the public peace." Mauz, 122 A.3d at 1041 (citation

omitted). Commonwealth v. Broa, No. 1.233. WDA 2022, 2023 WL 4173820, at * 6 (Pa. Super.

Ct. Jigne.26 ;.2023)(non-precedential decision).

                                                   14
        "First, Section 5503 .requires proof that the defendant had one of"two alternative mental

states: "intent to cause public "inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating arisk

thereof." 18 Pa,C.S.A. § 5503 (emphasis added) ;The Commonwealth can thus ;sustain adisorderly

conduct conviction with .evidence that the defendant recklessly created a risk of public

inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, even if he lacked the .intent to do so. Commonwealth v. Troy,

832 A.2d 1089,.1094 (Pa. Super, 2003) (citing Commonwealth v, Kidd, 442 A.2d 826, .827 (Pa.

Super. 1982))." Conker, 290 A.3d at 735. "The mens rea requirement of th[e disorderly conduct]

statute demands proof that:appellaut by his .actions intentionally [caused] or recklessly created a

risk [of causing] apublic inconvenience, annoyance or alarm." Commonwealth V. Gilbert, 674

A.2d 294,286 (Pa. Super.1996); see also 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a). (defendant must actwith the "intent

to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating arisk thereof')., "The

specific intent, requirement of this statute may be: met by ashowing of areckless disregard of the.

risk of public inconvenience,, annoyance, or alarm, even if the appellant's intent was to send a

message to acertain individual, rather than to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm:"

Maerz, 879 A.2d at 1269 (citation.and .quotation marks omitted). Commonwealth v. McConnell,

244 A.3d 44, 51 (Pa. Super. 2020),.

        Second, Section 5503(a)(4) requires. proof that adefendant "create[d] ahazardous or

physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actoh" 18.

Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(4). "A condition is ` hazardous' if.it ` involves danger, or risk' of `the possibility

of injuries resulting from public disorders! Commonwealth v. Roth, 531 A.2d 1133, 1137 (Pa.

Super. 1:987), app, den., 541 A.2d 1137 (Pa.1988); Commonwealth V. Williams, 574 A.2d 1161,

1.1.64 (Pa. Super. 100). A hazardous "condition has been defined as one that involves "danger [ox]

risk," Roth, 531 A.2d at 113'7. "The dangers and risks against which the disorderly conduct statute

                                                   I5:
are directed are the possibility of injuries resulting from public disorders." Williams.. 574 A.2d at

1.164. "The reckless creation of arisk of public alarm, annoyance. or inconvenience is as .criminal

as actually causing such sentiments." Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720,'731 (Pa.

Super.2003). By contrast, the meaning of `Physically offensive condition' ` encompasses direct

assaults on.the physical senses of members of the public' as opposed to `merely morally offensive'

conduct. Commonwealth v. McConnell, 244 A.3d 44, 49 (Pa. Super. 202.0). The Commonwealth

needs to prove that the defendant created either ahazardous condition or aphysically offensive

condition,, not both. See, McConnell; 244 A,3d.at 49 n.3. Conker, 290 A.3d at 735-736.

       The defendant appears to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence at No. 23'1 C 2020 by

asserting that he was engaging in alegitimate .act of protest.    A "legitimate purpose" under the

disorderly conduct statute encompasses "conduct which is lawfully and constitutionally

protected." Roth, 531 A.2d at.1137. It is'long settled, however, that the First.Amendment does not

bar aconviction for disorderly conduct'. See. Starzell v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 533

F.3d.193, 204 (3d. Cir. 2005). For example; in Commonwealth v.'Hushes, 410 A.2d 1272 (Pa.

Super. 1979), the Court found sufficient evidence of disorderly conduct without offending the First

Amendment where in the presence of members of the general public the defendant shouted

obscenities "although the principal intent ofthe defendant may have been to.inmilt the police rather

than to cause [p]ublic inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm." Hughes, 410 A.2d at 1274, in Roth.

the Court found that the defendant created ahazardous condition by disrupting'Easter Sunday

services with asymbolic act of'protest; Noting the "emotionally charged atmosphere," the Court

reasoned that the protestors' approach could have, caused altercations with the church members,

holding that the defendants` actions "transgressed from peaceful protest to civil disobedience" and

therefore lacked alegifimate1purpose under the disorderly conduct statute: Roth, 531A-2d at 1137-

                                                 16
X1.3 8; ,
        Conker, 290 A.3d at 735. In McConnell, the Court found sufficient evidence of disorderly

conduct despite the defendant's claim that his use of bright floodlights was alegitimate act .
                                                                                             of

protest, observing that, "[elven to the extent Appellant could claim to have been exercising his

right to free. speech by turning on the floodlights as a `protest,' his attempt to evade liability for

disorderly conduct fails because he did not exercise his rights in areasonable manner: McConnell,

244 A,3d at 52=53, In Commonwealth v. Cosby, No, 2057 EDA 2021, 2022 WL 4361906(Pa.

Super. Ct. September 21, 2022),, app.. den., 293 A.3d 561 (Pa. 2023)(non-precedential decision),

the Court found sufficient evidence of disorderly conduct where the defendant screamed

profanities and loudly made offensive remarks while she .stood on the public sidewalk outside of

aprivate residence finding that, although the defendant "may have intended to send amessage to

the residents of the house specifically, the record reflects that by.initiating these interactions in

public, the defendant acted with a reckless disregard for the risk of public inconvenience,

annoyance, or alarm." Cosby, at * 7-8.

       Turning to the .evidence in the defendant's case, the evidence 'shows that the . defendant

caused significant disruption, to the peaceful and safe trafficking of students to their school during

the beginning of the school day, He was dressed in amask. and shouting, loudly while standing at

and/or on theentrance to the school driveway, drawing attention to himseLf and away from the safe

operation of vehicles and pedestrians who were attempting, to access the school, Parents called the

school complaining about the defendant's activities which were causing alarm to the students and

blocking traffic. School. staff and police officers who observed the defendant's actions were

similarly concerned about the disruptive effect of the defendant's presence and behavior. As such,

the defendant's activities crossed the line from serving :any suggested legitimate purpose to

                                                 17
creating a'hazardous .and offensive condition which caused public inconvenience, annoyance and

alarm.

         Regarding the   sufficiency of the evidence at No. 5559 C' 2019;. a review of the

Commonwealth's proof shows that the evidence. supports the conviction of Disorderly Conduct.

Despite, aproper request, the defendantrefused to stop recording of an. area where confidential and

protected activities of the police were.o conducted. He then proceeded to create adisruption in the

lobby of state police barracks. Initially; the evidence supports the conclusion that the lobby of the

barracks is a.public place. "Public" is defined. in Section 5503(a)(4) as any place "affecting or

likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or asubstantial group has access; among the

places included are highways,. transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of

business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises Which are open to the public:" 18

Pa.C.S..§5503(6). As a.place of business which was open to the public, the.lobby of the barracks

is apublic area. Next,. the :evidence shows that the defendant's actions did not have alegitimate

purpose. Although the defendant appears to argue that he was conducting the legitimate activity

of seeking information about complaints he had filed against various state police employees, the,

evidence shows that he was, instead pursuing the activity of attempting to record an:area which

was protected from public access. As such, the evidence proves that the defendant's actions had

no legitimate. purpose. Finally, the evidence proves that the defendant's actions caused asignificant

disruption to the business of the state police and any members of the public who required their

services.

H        Jury Instructions

                                                 18
       11q defendant raises an issue concerning the jury instructions, claiming error in the Courts

instruction regarding criminal intent.

       Before tuming to the merits of the defendant's arguments, this Court must first address

whether the defendant waived any issue claiming error in the, jury charge when he failed to

interpose an obj ection to the jury instructions after the charge was delivered to the jury but before

the: jury retired to deliberate. In Commonwealth v. Pressley, 887 A.2d. 220 (Pa,                2005), the

Pennsylvania.Supreme Court, interpreting Rules of Criminal Procedure 6035 and 647,6 held that

"the mere submission and subsequent, denial of proposed points for charge that are inconsistent

with or omitted from the instructions actually given will not suffice to..preserve an issue, absent a

sRule 603 provides

       Rule 603. Exceptions.

         (A) Any ruling of the judge on an objection or motion made during'the trial of any action
        or proceeding shall have the effect of asealed exception in .favor of the party adversely
        aff. ected without the necessity of aformal.request or notation made, on the record,

        (B) This rule shall not be applicable to the charge to the jury.

6Rule 647 provides in pertinent .part:

        Rule 647. Request for,Instructions, Charge to the Airy, and Preliminary Instructions.

        (A) Before the taking of evidence, the trial judge shall give instructions to the jurors as
       provided in Rule 626.

         (B) Any party may submit to the trial judge- written requests for instructions to the jury.
        Such requests shall be submitted within a, reasonable time before -the closing arguments,.
        and at the same time copies thereof shall be furnished to the other parties. Before closing
        arguments, the trial judge shall inform the parties on the record of the judge's rulings on
        all written requests and which instructions; shall be submitted to the jury' in writing.'The
        trial judge shall. charge the jury after the arguments are completed.

         (C) No portions of the charge nor omissions from the charge may be assigned as error,
        unless specific objections are made thereto before the jury retires to deliberate. All such
        objections shall be made beyond the hearing of the jury.

                                                    19
specific objection or exception to the charge or the trial court's ruling respecting, the points."

Presslev, 887 A.2d at 225. The Court explained;.

            The pertinent rules; therefore, require a.specific objection to the charge. or
            an exception to the trial court's ruling, on aproposed point to preserve an
            issue involving ajury instruction. Although,obligating counsel to take this
            additional step where aspecific point for charge has been rejected may
            appear counterintuitive, as the requested, instruction can be viewed as
            alerting the trial court, to adefendant's substantive legal position, it serves
            the salutary purpose of .affording the court an opportunity to avoid or
            remediate potential error; thereby eliminating the need for appellate
            review of an otherwise correctable issue.

Pressley, 887 A..2d at 224. Failure to comply with the requirement that atimely objection be

lodged after the jury has been charged results in waiver of any objection to the jury instructions

even where an objection was made at aprior charging conference. Commonwealth v. Parker, 1.04

A:3d 17, 29 (Pa Super, 2014); Commonwealth v. Cosby, 224 A.3d 372,. 421-422 (Pa. Super.

2019), vacated on other grounds, 252 A.361092 (Pa. 2021)(objections to jury charge is waived

where no objection was posed aftrial after jury was instructed and beforeahey retired to deliberate);

and Commonwealth v. Sinclair, No. 1289 EDA 2022, 2023 WL 2583850, of '* 5 (Pa. Super. Ct.

March 21, 2023)(non-precedential decision)(Objection to jury. instructions is waived where there.

was no objection made to jury instructions after they were .given to the juiy).

        In defendant's case, during the trial there was extensive discussion. and argument -about the

jury instructions prior to the Court's delivering the charge..(TT 1.323 — 1343) When asked whether

there were any concerns about the jury .charge before retiring the jury for deliberations, however,

the defendant did not raise an, objection. (TT 1370) Thus; by accepting the jury charge, the

defendant waived any issues concerning the jury instructions. The defendant also accepted the

Court's responses to jury'questions. (TT 1373; 1390; 1391) His arguments about error in the jury

charge, therefore, are not properly preserved for consideration by this Court.

                                                  20
         Even. should these issues not be deemed waived, this Court finds that they lack merit. A

review of the Court's instructions demonstrates that the jury was properly instructed regarding

mens.rea and -
             the consideration of the defendant's exercise.of alegitimate right to protest. There

was no error in the jury instructions.

cc:    Justin Juan De La Cruz Martinez, 502N. 12 tk Ave. ;Albany, IL 61230
      Anthony Iannamorelli, Esq., 2N.. Main Street, Ste. 206, Greensburg; PA 15601
      Peter Flanigan,, Esq., Office of the Criminal Court Aetministrator

                                               21