Com. v. Vinson, C. ( 2018 )

J-S40020-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
CHRISTOPHER VINSON :
:
Appellee : No. 3961 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered October 23, 2017
in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-23-CR-0004806-2017
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and PLATT*, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PLATT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
The Commonwealth appeals1 from the order granting a habeas corpus
“motion for discharge” as to aggravated assault and simple assault. Appellee,
Christopher Vinson,2 struck a nurse, and fled. The Commonwealth contends
it presented a prima facie case that Appellee caused bodily injury under 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(3). We conclude that the trial court, in granting the
____________________________________________
1 In the notice of appeal, the Commonwealth certified under Pa.R.A.P. 311(d)
that the order will terminate or substantially handicap the prosecution. (See
Notice of Appeal, 11/22/17).
2 Appellee Vinson identifies as a female and prefers the use of female
pronouns. (See Appellee’s Brief, at 4 n.1).
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S40020-18
habeas motion, erroneously viewed the evidence in the light most favorable
to Appellee Vinson. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
The facts are not in substantial dispute.3 On February 2, 2017, at about
6:10 a.m., Amy Botta, a registered nurse, was working in the emergency room
at Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. She informed
Appellee, as instructed, (and as “multiple” other staff had done before her for
half an hour), that Appellee had been discharged and the hospital needed the
bed. This time, Appellee sat up in the bed, swung her arm at Nurse Botta,
and struck her in the face, causing redness and soreness for several days.
Appellee immediately fled the hospital.
Another nurse witnessed the incident from the hallway. Hospital staff
called the police, who charged Appellee with aggravated assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 2702(a)(3); simple assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701; and harassment, 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 2709.
After a preliminary hearing, Appellee filed the habeas motion, which the
trial court granted. The Commonwealth filed this appeal after the trial court
denied its motion for reconsideration. Both the Commonwealth and the court
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. The trial court opinion concluded that the
Commonwealth failed to establish a prima facie case of aggravated and simple
assault. (See Trial Court Opinion, 1/10/18, at 2, 5).
____________________________________________
3 Ms. Botta was the only witness who testified at the preliminary hearing.
-2-
J-S40020-18
The Commonwealth raises one question on appeal, which we summarize
as follows: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, did the Commonwealth present a prima facie case that
Appellee attempted to cause or knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly caused
bodily injury to the nurse? (See Commonwealth’s Brief, at 1).
The Commonwealth’s issue implicates the grant of the habeas motion.
Our scope and standard of review is well-settled:
We review a trial court’s grant [or denial] of a pre-trial
habeas corpus motion de novo and our scope of review is plenary.
See Commonwealth v. Dantzler, 135 A.3d 1109, 1112 (Pa.
Super. 2016) (en banc).
As this Court explained in Dantzler:
A pre-trial habeas corpus motion is the proper means for
testing whether the Commonwealth has sufficient evidence
to establish a prima facie case. To demonstrate that a prima
facie case exists, the Commonwealth must produce
evidence of every material element of the charged
offense(s) as well as the defendant’s complicity therein. To
meet its burden, the Commonwealth may utilize the
evidence presented at the preliminary hearing and also may
submit additional proof.
Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Commonwealth v. Carper, 172 A.3d 613, 620 (Pa. Super. 2017), appeal
denied, 184 A.3d 540 (Pa. 2018).
In reviewing a trial court’s order granting [or denying] a
defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, we “must generally
consider whether the record supports the trial court’s findings, and
whether the inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those
findings are free from error.” . . . Notably, the Commonwealth
does not have to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. Further, the evidence must be considered in
-3-
J-S40020-18
the light most favorable to the Commonwealth so that
inferences that would support a guilty verdict are given
effect.
Commonwealth v. Santos, 876 A.2d 360, 363 (Pa. 2005) (citations omitted)
(emphasis added).
Here, on independent review, we conclude that the Commonwealth
presented evidence at the preliminary hearing which, viewed in the light most
favorable to it, was plainly sufficient to establish a prima facie case.
The Commonwealth’s evidence showed that Appellee struck Ms. Botta,
who as a registered nurse is a specially protected member of an enumerated
class, emergency medical services personnel, who was engaged in the
performance of duty, and working within the scope of her employment. See
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(c)(21), (d). Nurse Botta was indisputably injured. Under
section 2702(a)(3), the Commonwealth was not required to prove that she
was seriously injured. Compare section 2702(a)(1) and (2) with 2702(a)(3).
The trial court’s suggestion that Appellee may have been sleeping and
rolled over, (see Trial Ct. Op., at 4-5), is belied by the record and in any event
fails to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth. See Santos, supra at 363. We are constrained to conclude
that the trial court erred in reviewing the record and granting habeas corpus.
Order reversed and remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
-4-
J-S40020-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/18/18
-5-