Court Opinion

ID: 9380190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 16:08:50.60476+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:23.291583
License: Public Domain

J-S05025-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    DANNY RUIZ                                 :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 929 WDA 2022

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 20, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s):
                          CP-25-CR-0002610-2021

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                           FILED: March 17, 2023

        Danny Ruiz appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the Court

of Common Pleas of Erie County. We affirm.

        Following trial, a jury convicted Ruiz of one count each of aggravated

assault—attempt to cause serious bodily injury,1 simple assault,2 recklessly

endangering another person,3 disorderly conduct,4 and harassment.5 At trial,

the victim testified that Ruiz kicked and punched her in the head, face, and

mouth while she was on the ground.             The assault was captured on video,

____________________________________________

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1).

2   Id. at § 2701(a)(1).

3   Id. at § 2705.

4   Id. at §5503(a)(1).

5   Id. at § 2709(a)(1).
J-S05025-23

which the jury viewed. At some point during the altercation, the victim was

rendered unconscious, and she later went to the hospital.             The victim

sustained facial and dental injuries.

      Following Ruiz’s conviction, the court sentenced Ruiz to ten to twenty

years’ incarceration. Ruiz filed a post-sentence motion, which was denied,

followed by this timely appeal. Both Ruiz and the trial court have complied

with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

      On appeal, Ruiz raises one issue: “Did the Commonwealth present

sufficient evidence to sustain [his] conviction for aggravated assault?”

Appellant’s Brief, at 2. Ruiz argues that in order to sustain his conviction, the

jury would have had to have found that he either actually caused serious

bodily injury or attempted to cause bodily injury. Id. at 11. This claim is

meritless.

      A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law.
      In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, we must determine whether
      the evidence, and all reasonable inferences deducible from that,
      viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as
      verdict[]winner, are sufficient to establish all the elements of the
      offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We may not weigh the
      evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder.
      Issues of witness credibility are the province of the fact-finder, not
      the appellate court. However, where the evidence offered to
      support the verdict is in contradiction to the physical facts, in
      contravention to human experience and the laws of nature, then
      the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law.

Commonwealth v. Heater, 899 A.2d 1126, 1131 (Pa. Super. 2006)

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

                                        -2-
J-S05025-23

      A person may be convicted of aggravated assault, graded as a felony of

the first degree, if that person “attempts to cause serious bodily injury to

another, or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly[,] or recklessly under

circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.”

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1). “Serious bodily injury” is defined as “bodily injury

which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent

disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily

member or organ.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301. “For aggravated assault purposes,

an ‘attempt’ is found where the accused, with the required specific intent, acts

in a manner which constitutes a substantial step toward perpetrating a serious

bodily injury upon another.” Commonwealth v. Gruff, 822 A.2d 773, 776

(Pa. Super. 2003). “Intent can be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence;

it may be inferred from acts or conduct or from the attendant circumstances.”

Id. (citation omitted).

      After our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the relevant law,

we affirm the judgment of sentence based on the opinion authored by the

Honorable John J. Mead. See Trial Court Opinion, 9/21/22, at 4 (“Sufficient

evidence, as found by the jury, existed to prove [Ruiz] intentionally acted in

a manner which constituted a substantial or significant step toward

perpetrating serious bodily injury upon [the victim].”).

      The parties are directed to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of

further proceedings.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                     -3-
J-S05025-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/17/2023

                          -4-