Com. v. Hunt, R. ( 2015 )

J-S28036-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
REXFORD MILES HUNT
Appellant No. 1899 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 12, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County
Criminal Division at No(s): CR-31-CR-0000027-2013
BEFORE: BOWES, J., ALLEN, J., and LAZARUS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 02, 2015
Rexford Miles Hunt appeals from his judgment of sentence imposed in
the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County after a jury found him
guilty of aggravated assault.1 Upon careful review, we affirm.
The trial court has set forth the facts of this matter as follows:
On December 8, 2012, [Hunt was] an inmate at the State
Correctional Institution at Smithfield (SCIS) located in Smithfield
Township, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania.
At or around 7:45 a.m., Hunt was in the dining hall having
breakfast. At another table, another inmate – Ronnie Eugene
Johnson – was embroiled in a dispute with Corrections Officer
(C.O.) Jeremy Yeoman. The dispute was about a banana, and
the fact that another inmate at another table had passed a
banana to Johnson. Officer Yeoman testified that while DOC
rules allow inmates to pass food to other inmates seated at their
table, the rules prohibit the passing of food from table to table.
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(3).
J-S28036-15
Officer Yeoman testified that inmate Johnson argued with him
but ultimately gave up the banana. Officer Yeoman said he
started to walk away but Johnson kept shouting profanities at
him. This prompted Officer Yeoman to turn back and to order
Johnson to leave the dining hall.
According to Officer Yeoman, Johnson stood, closed his fist and
struck him in the face. Another C.O. – William Boyd – came to
the aid of Officer Yeoman and together they subdued him.
Officer Yeoman could not say how many times Johnson struck
him; however, he related that while he was engaged with inmate
Johnson, another inmate became involved and struck him
multiple times in the back of the head.
Officer Boyd testified that he observed the entire incident. He
was standing ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet away when inmate
Johnson struck Officer Yeoman. Officer Boyd said he
immediately notified the prison control center. As he went to the
aid of his fellow officer, Officer Boyd said Hunt got up from his
table and started hitting Officer Yeoman in the back of the head.
Hunt, he said, took a swing at him and was taken down by
Officer Deline.
Trial Court Opinion, 9/19/14, at 2-4.
On March 21, 2014, at the conclusion of a one-day trial, the jury
convicted Hunt of aggravated assault. On June 12, 2014, the court
sentenced him to 2 to 4 years’ incarceration. Hunt filed a timely post-
sentence motion challenging the sufficiency and weight of the evidence
supporting his conviction. On September 19, 2014, the trial court denied
the post-sentence motion, and on October 16, 2014, Hunt filed a notice of
appeal.
On appeal, Hunt challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the
weight of the evidence.
With respect to Hunt’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence:
-2-
J-S28036-15
As a general matter, our standard of review of sufficiency claims
requires that we evaluate the record in the light most favorable
to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all
reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Evidence
will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it
establishes each material element of the crime charged and the
commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a
mathematical certainty. Any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is
to be resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak
and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact
can be drawn from the combined circumstances.
Commonwealth v. Lynch, 72 A.3d 706, 707-08 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Section 2702 of the Crimes Code defines aggravated assault, in
relevant part, as follows:
(a) Offense defined. – A person is guilty of aggravated assault if
he:
...
(3) attempts to cause or intentionally or knowingly causes
bodily injury to any of the officers, agents, employees or
other persons enumerated in subsection (c), in the
performance of duty.
...
(c) Officers, employees, etc., enumerated. – The officers,
agents, employees and other persons referred to in subsection
(a) shall be as follows:
...
(9) Officer or employee of a correctional institution, county
jail or prison[.]
18 Pa.C.S. § 2702.
-3-
J-S28036-15
Hunt claims the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt the causation and specific intent elements of aggravated
assault. Here, the trial court concluded that the Commonwealth presented
sufficient evidence to support Hunt’s conviction. The Commonwealth
presented testimony from Officer Yeoman, Officer Boyd, and Lt. Bradley
Booher, the security lieutenant at SCIS. N.T. Trial, 3/2/14, at 22-87.
Officer Yeoman testified that during his altercation with Johnson, another
inmate became involved in the fight and hit him multiple times in the back of
the head. Id. at 43-44, 49-50. Officer Boyd testified that he was standing
ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet away when he saw Hunt hitting Officer Yeoman
in the back of the head. Id. at 71. The testimony of both Officer Yeoman
and Officer Boyd was corroborated by video footage presented by the
Commonwealth and retrieved by Lt. Booher, who testified that he was able
to retrieve video footage of the altercation from the three (3) surveillance
cameras situated in the dining hall. Id. at 22-26, 49-50. The jury was able
to watch the video footage several times. Id. Lastly, the Commonwealth
presented photographs of the injuries that Officer Yeoman sustained in the
fight. Id. at 51-55. We agree with the trial court that the evidence, viewed
in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to sustain
the verdict. Lynch, supra.
Next, Hunt argues that the weight of the evidence does not support his
guilty verdict for aggravated assault and therefore, the trial court abused its
discretion in denying his post-sentence motion for a new trial.
-4-
J-S28036-15
Our standard of review of a weight of the evidence claim is as follows:
Appellate review . . . is a review of the exercise of discretion, not
of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the
weight of the evidence. 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 when reviewing a trial
court’s determination that the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence. 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 and
that a new trial should be granted in the interest of justice.
Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055-56 (Pa. 2013) (citations
omitted).
To determine whether a trial court’s decision constituted a
palpable abuse of discretion, an appellate court must “examine
the record and assess the weight of the evidence; not however,
as the trial judge, to determine whether the preponderance of
the evidence opposed the verdict, but rather to determine
whether the court below in so finding plainly exceeded the limits
of judicial discretion and invaded the exclusive domain of the
jury.” Where the record adequately supports the trial court, the
trial court has acted within the limits of its judicial discretion.
Commonwealth v. Brown, 648 A.2d 1177, 1189-90 (Pa. 1994) (quoting
Thompson v. Philadelphia, 493 A.2d 669, 672 (Pa. 1985)).
Here, in support of his weight of the evidence claim, Hunt argues that
the evidence presented strongly indicates that Johnson, Hunt’s codefendant,
was the more likely cause of Officer Yeoman’s injuries compared to the
evidence presented to implicate Hunt as the cause. Brief of Appellant, at 15.
However, the trial court found that the evidence presented strongly
supported the guilty verdict to such an extent that any other verdict would
-5-
J-S28036-15
have shocked the trial court’s sense of justice. Trial Court Opinion, 9/19/14,
at 6. Upon review of the record, we can discern no abuse of discretion on
the part of the trial court in so finding.
After a careful review of the certified record, as well as the briefs of
the parties and the applicable law, we conclude that Hunt is not entitled to
relief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/2/2015
-6-