Com. v. Crepps, W. ( 2016 )

J-A10019-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
WILLIAM GLENN CREPPS,
Appellant No. 499 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 12, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-63-CR-0002749-2013
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PANELLA, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED July 1, 2016
Appellant, William Glenn Crepps, appeals from the judgment of
sentence of a fine of $300 and court costs, imposed after he was convicted,
following a trial de novo, of the summary offense of harassment, 18 Pa.C.S.
§ 2709(a)(1). Appellant challenges the sufficiency and weight of the
evidence to sustain his conviction. After careful review, we affirm.
The trial court summarized the facts of this case, as follows:
On August 25, 2013, [] Appellant and [James Robert]
Dawkins got into an altercation at the Chambers Dam
Association.1 That morning, Dawkins was walking in the
neighborhood to a neighbor’s home when [] Appellant, who was
on a riding tractor at the time, rode up to Dawkins and began to
____________________________________________
1
The Chambers Dam Association is a nonprofit organization comprised of 27
members, all of whom own cabins next to a lake formed by Chambers Dam
in Washington, Pennsylvania. See N.T. Trial, 2/12/15, at 10 (Dawkins’
describing the Chambers Dam Association).
J-A10019-16
speak to him. Dawkins could not hear what [] Appellant was
saying because the tractor was running, and so Dawkins walked
towards [] Appellant so that he could hear. Then Appellant and
Dawkins had the following verbal exchange:
Appellant: “I didn’t change the god-damned locks.”
Dawkins: “I didn’t say you changed the locks.”
Appellant: “You’re a jagoff.”
Dawkins: “Fuck you Bill.”
Immediately following this verbal argument, [] Appellant
got up off of his tractor and began walking towards Dawkins.
After approaching Dawkins, [] Appellant began swinging his
arms with closed fists towards Dawkins. Appellant then hit
Dawkins in the cheek with one of his closed fists. During this
altercation, Dawkins had a coffee cup in his right hand. When
Dawkins raised this hand to defend himself against [] Appellant’s
blows, his coffee cup was shattered by the force of [] Appellant’s
arms and closed fists. Dawkins then had attempted to return to
his home, but Appellant continued to pursue him. At that point,
Dawkins swung his right foot out and tripped [] Appellant, which
caused [] Appellant to fall and sustain a substantial head injury.
Dawkins called 911 and [] Appellant got up off the ground
and began throwing rocks at Dawkins. After this, [] Appellant
got back onto the tractor. Shortly thereafter [] Appellant got off
… the tractor once again and approached Dawkins and stated,
“I’m going to go up on the hill and get my gun.” Dawkins and
Appellant then exchanged more profanities, and [] Appellant
went back onto the tractor until the police arrived. Ultimately[,]
both men were charged with Simple Assault and Harassment.
Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 5/13/15, at 2-3 (citation to the record omitted).
Prior to trial, the Commonwealth nolle prossed the charge of simple
assault against Appellant. On February 12, 2015, the court convicted
-2-
J-A10019-16
Appellant of summary harassment.2 Appellant was sentenced to a fine of
$300 and court costs.3
On February 19, 2015, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion,
essentially challenging the sufficiency and weight of the evidence to sustain
his conviction. That same day, the court issued an order scheduling a
hearing on that motion. However, on February 20, 2015, the trial court
issued an order vacating its prior order for a hearing, concluding that no
post-sentence motions are permitted following a conviction for a summary
offense. See Order, 2/20/15 (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(D) (“There shall be no
post-sentence motion in summary case appeals following a trial de novo in
the court of common pleas.”)). The court further directed that Appellant
“has the right to file an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court within 30
days from the entry of this order.” Id. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on
March 19, 2015, which the trial court considered as timely. Under this
procedural posture, we will likewise deem Appellant’s notice of appeal as
being timely filed. Appellant also timely complied with the trial court’s order
____________________________________________
2
We note that on that same day, the court also conducted a separate, non-
jury trial and convicted Dawkins of summary harassment, as well. He was
sentenced to a fine of $300 and court costs. See TCO at 2 n.2.
3
Appellant’s sentence was imposed on February 12, 2015, but the
sentencing order was not entered on the trial court’s docket until February
18, 2015.
-3-
J-A10019-16
to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal. Herein, he presents one issue for our review:
I. The evidence presented by the Commonwealth was insufficient
to support a conviction for harassment and the conviction of
Appellant … was against the weight of the evidence as
determined by the court.
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
Preliminarily, we note that Appellant improperly combines two distinct
claims - a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, and an allegation that
the court’s verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. As discussed
in further detail, infra, the main focus of Appellant’s argument is an attack
on the weight of the evidence; nevertheless, we will begin with a brief
discussion of the sufficiency of the evidence to support his harassment
conviction.
In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must
determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, as well as all
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light
most favorable to the verdict winner, are sufficient to support all
elements of the offense. Commonwealth v. Moreno, 14 A.3d
133 (Pa. Super. 2011). Additionally, we may not reweigh the
evidence or substitute our own judgment for that of the fact
finder. Commonwealth v. Hartzell, 988 A.2d 141 (Pa. Super.
2009). The evidence may be entirely circumstantial as long as it
links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreno, supra at 136.
Commonwealth v. Koch, 39 A.3d 996, 1001 (Pa. Super. 2011).
Appellant was convicted of harassment as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. §
2709(a)(1):
-4-
J-A10019-16
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of
harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm
another, the person:
(1) strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects the other
person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do
the same[.]
In concluding that the evidence was sufficient to prove that Appellant
committed this offense, the trial court explained:
On August 25, 2013[,] Appellant and Dawkins got into a
verbal disagreement that unfortunately escalated into a physical
altercation. Dawkins and [] Appellant both testified that the
men had exchanged unpleasant words. Dawkins credibly
testified before this Court that [] Appellant had told him what he
believed was, “I’m going to kick your ass.” (NJT Transcript,
Page 17, Lines 22-25). Trooper Ross, who responded to the
scene, testified that [] Appellant … admitted to him that once the
argument escalated he had told Dawkins, “I should get off this
tractor and whoop your ass.” ([Id. at] 71, Lines 6-7). Dawkins
credibly testified that after this threat was made, [] Appellant
got … off of his tractor, and walked towards him. He testified
that [] Appellant then began making swinging motions with
closed fists in an attempt to hit Dawkins. In response, Dawkins
stated that he raised his arms above his face to protect himself.
He testified that he had a cup in his hand, and that [] Appellant’s
swinging fists caused the mug to completely break. Dawkins
credibly stated that [] Appellant’s conduct caused a scratch on
his arm, and a cut on his thumb.
Appellant admitted that while he and Dawkins did
exchange heated words, he did not recall making any threat to
Dawkins, but stated, “I can’t swear that I didn’t say it or that I
did say it. I don’t remember.” ([Id. at] 96, Lines 18-24).
When further questioned about this threat, [] Appellant testified
that he “doubt[ed]” that he had said that ([Id. at] 97, Line 2).
Appellant testified to a completely different version of events,
wherein he stated that he believed that Dawkins had thrown a
coffee cup at the back of his head and that is what caused his
injuries. ([Id. at] 83-84, Lines 25-14).
This [t]rial [c]ourt, sitting as both the trier-of-fact and the
evaluator of credibility, determined that Appellant did in fact
-5-
J-A10019-16
strike Dawkins and did verbally threaten him, and accordingly
[that] he was guilty of the summary offense of Harassment as
defined by 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1). Based on the testimony
and evidence presented, this [c]ourt believes that …, despite
[Appellant’s] testimony that he did not pursue or swing his fists
at Dawkins, and that he “did not remember” threatening to
injure Dawkins, … Appellant did in fact aggressively approach
and strike Dawkins. The [c]ourt further found that based on the
credible testimony of both Dawkins and Trooper Ross, that []
Appellant did make a threat to physically harm Dawkins.
Notably, [] Appellant did not testify that he did not make this
statement. Despite the minor linguistic difference between the
testimony of Dawkins and Trooper Ross regarding the specific
words Appellant used to threaten Dawkins, this [c]ourt found
that [] Appellant’s conduct as described above demonstrated
that he did intend to threaten[,] and did so threaten[,] Dawkins
with physical contact by stating[,] “I’m going to kick your ass,”
or a variation thereof.
TCO at 5-6 (citation omitted; emphasis in original).
The trial court, as fact-finder, credited the testimony of Dawkins and
Trooper Ross, and we may not disturb that credibility determination on
appeal. See Commonwealth v. Holmes, 663 A.2d 771, 774 (Pa. Super.
1995) (“On appeal we may not disturb [the fact-finder’s] determination as to
credibility.”) (citation omitted). After reviewing the testimony of those
witnesses, we agree with the court that it was sufficient to demonstrate that
Appellant struck Dawkins, and threatened to further harm him, while
intending to “harass, annoy or alarm” Dawkins. 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(1).
Before leaving this issue, however, we address Appellant’s argument
that the physical evidence supported his version of the altercation, rather
than Dawkins’ testimony. See Appellant’s Brief at 12 (“Dawkins also
indicates that he smashed the mug in the confrontation with [A]ppellant ….
-6-
J-A10019-16
But after traversing 50-60 feet parts of the coffee mug were still found next
to the tractor tire [it was uncontroverted][] … where [A]ppellant says he was
struck by the mug.”). In support of this claim, Appellant cites his own
testimony that shards of the coffee mug were on the ground next to the
tractor tire; our review of the record reveals that Appellant did not present
any physical evidence to support that testimony. Therefore, contrary to
Appellant’s claim, this is not a case “where the evidence to support the
verdict is in contradiction to the physical facts….” Id. (citation omitted).
Thus, Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is meritless.
Next, we address Appellant’s argument that the court’s verdict was
contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Our standard of review for a challenge to the weight of the
evidence is well-settled: The finder of fact is the exclusive judge
of the weight of the evidence as the fact finder is free to believe
all, part, or none of the evidence presented and determines the
credibility of the witnesses. See Commonwealth v.
Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (2003), cert.
denied, 542 U.S. 939, 124 S. Ct. 2906, 159 L. Ed. 2d 816 (2004).
As an appellate court, we cannot substitute our judgment for
that of the finder of fact. See id. Therefore, we will reverse a
jury's verdict and grant a new trial only where the verdict is so
contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice. See
Commonwealth v. Passmore, 857 A.2d 697, 708 (Pa. Super.
2004), appeal denied, 582 Pa. 673, 868 A.2d 1199 (2005). Our
appellate courts have repeatedly emphasized that “[o]ne 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.” Commonwealth v. Forbes, 867
A.2d 1268, 1273 (Pa. Super. 2005) (internal quotes omitted).
Furthermore,
where the trial court has ruled on the weight claim below,
an appellate court's role is not to consider the underlying
-7-
J-A10019-16
question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to whether
the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on
the weight claim.
Champney, 574 Pa. at 444, 832 A.2d at 408 (citation omitted).
Commonwealth v. Rabold, 920 A.2d 857, 860-61 (Pa. Super. 2007).
Additionally, this Court has declared that “[a]n abuse of discretion is more
than just an error of judgment and, on appeal, a trial court will not be found
to have abused its discretion unless the record discloses that ‘the judgment
exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice,
bias, or ill-will.” Commonwealth v. Lane, 424 A.2d 1325, 1328 (Pa.
Super. 1981) (citations omitted).
Here, Appellant contends the court’s verdict was contrary to the
weight of the evidence because the court erroneously disregarded the
testimony of George McDonough, an ostensible eyewitness to the altercation
between Appellant and Dawkins.4 McDonough claimed that he was standing
beside Dawkins when Dawkins threw his coffee mug at Appellant, who was
sitting on the tractor. See N.T. Trial, 2/12/15, at 41, 50. According to
McDonough, the mug struck Appellant in the back of his head, cutting him.
Id. at 41. McDonough testified that Appellant never got off the tractor
during the altercation with Dawkins. Id. at 53.
____________________________________________
4
McDonough died prior to Appellant’s trial. However, his testimony from a
deposition he provided in a civil case related to the altercation between
Appellant and Dawkins was read into the record.
-8-
J-A10019-16
Appellant maintains that “[o]nly [] McDonough (an unbiased and
disinterested witness) gave an accurate portrayal of what occurred[,]” yet
“[t]he trial court abuse[d] its discretion by discarding his testimony solely
because there [was] what appears to the trial court to be a discrepancy in
[A]ppellant’s recollection of where McDonough was standing.” Appellant’s
Brief at 14-15. The discrepancy to which Appellant refers is that McDonough
testified that when Dawkins threw the cup at Appellant, McDonough was
standing right beside Dawkins. See N.T. Trial, 2/12/15, at 41. However,
when Appellant took the stand, he testified on cross-examination as follows:
[The Commonwealth:] When did you know what it was that hit
you?
[Appellant:] After I woke up.
[The Commonwealth:] Okay. … [Y]ou woke up and you were
disoriented, [and] at that point you see George McDonough and
Forest Broderick; is that correct?
[Appellant:] Yeah. They were coming down the hill.
…
[The Commonwealth:] Okay. And you were present when we
read into the record that Mr. McDonough said he was standing
right next to Mr. Dawkins when he threw the cup?
[Appellant:] Yeah.
[The Commonwealth:] Okay. Is Mr. McDonough lying about the
fact that he was standing right there when Dawkins threw the
cup?
[Appellant:] No. That might be what he remembered. I swore
to tell the truth when I come up here, and that’s what I’m doing.
[The Commonwealth:] I understand. But when you were
talking to Mr. Dawkins, was Mr. McDonough standing
there next to him?
-9-
J-A10019-16
[Appellant:] No.
[The Commonwealth:] Okay. So Mr. McDonough, in his
testimony, would be lying if he testified to that?
[Appellant:] Maybe he misunderstood.
Id. at 98-99 (emphasis added).
The trial court discussed the discrepancy between McDonough’s
testimony and Appellant’s, and why it found McDonough’s testimony
incredible, stating:
Appellant [] argues that the [t]rial [c]ourt erred by
discounting the testimony of George McDonough. … []
McDonough testified that while he was standing next to Dawkins,
Dawkins threw a coffee cup at the back of [] Appellant’s head
and that is how Appellant sustained his injuries. (NJT Transcript,
Pages 53-55, Lines 12-23). However, during Appellant’s cross-
examination, Appellant testified that [] McDonough was not
standing next to Dawkins. When asked if Mr. McDonough had
lied about that fact, [] Appellant stated[,] “Maybe [McDonough]
misunderstood.” ([Id. at] Page 99, Lines 1-7). Based on []
McDonough’s testimony, and [] Appellant’s testimony that []
McDonough could have “misunderstood” the events as they
occurred on the day in question, this [c]ourt found []
McDonough’s version of events to be unreliable.
TCO at 9.
On appeal, Appellant essentially claims that the trial court abused its
discretion by disregarding McDonough’s testimony based on an
inconsequential difference between his testimony and that of Appellant.
Appellant understates the significance of their differing accounts of where
McDonough was standing. Appellant’s testimony that McDonough was
‘coming down the hill’ after the mug allegedly struck Appellant cast doubt on
McDonough’s ability to see what he claimed to have witnessed, and called
- 10 -
J-A10019-16
into question the credibility of his overall testimony regarding the incident.
In light of this discrepancy, we ascertain no abuse of discretion in the trial
court’s decision to disbelieve McDonough’s and Appellant’s testimony and
accept that of Dawkins and Trooper Ross. Accordingly, the court did not err
in rejecting Appellant’s challenge to the weight of the evidence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/1/2016
- 11 -