Com. v. Smith, C. ( 2017 )

J-S88024-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CALVIN SMITH
Appellant No. 1329 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 1, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006801-2013
BEFORE: OLSON, J., RANSOM, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED JANUARY 31, 2017
Appellant, Calvin Smith, appeals from the judgment of sentence of five
to fifteen years of incarceration, following a bench trial resulting in his
conviction for aggravated assault, simple assault, and recklessly
endangering another person.1 We affirm.
Victim, S.S., testified that in March 2013, she was in the City and
County of Philadelphia looking for drugs when she encountered Appellant
who claimed to have drugs. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 1/23/15 at 56, 58.
Victim followed Appellant into a building where Appellant revealed he did
not, in fact have drugs, but instead wanted to have anal sex with her. Id. at
59-61, 80-81. When Victim told Appellant that she wanted to leave,
____________________________________________
1
Respectively, see 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702(a), 2701, and 2705.
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S88024-16
Appellant hit her in the face, tripped her, and told her he was “going to kill
[her].” Id. at 62-63. A scuffle began, wherein Victim used a razor blade to
cut Appellant’s forehead and hands. Id. at 71, 73-75, 86.2 Appellant then
chased Victim down the street, tripping, kicking, and biting her, as well as
punching her in the face. Id. at 64-66, 69. Victim attempted to flee more
than once but was thwarted by Appellant’s continuous tripping and hitting.
Id. at 69.
Firefighter Joseph McGuigan (“Mr. McGuigan”) testified that he was
driving an ambulance in the area when he “saw a [Victim] with no clothes on
in the middle of the street covered in blood and [Appellant delivering] . . .
non-stop, repetitive blows.” Id. at 5-6, 13. Mr. McGuigan stopped the
ambulance and called the police. Id. at 6-7. As a result of the incident,
Victim had multiple abrasions, including large abrasions on her knees and
right elbow, facial trauma, an acute subdural hematoma, and thin
hyperdense subdural collections along both frontal lobes.3 Id. at 105-106.
Victim was hospitalized for three to four days, and as of the date of the trial
she still had trouble thinking. Id. at 75.
____________________________________________
2
The razor blade was left inside of the building. Id. at 86.
3
Appellant and the Commonwealth stipulated to the testimony of Dr.
Sjoholm, attending physician at Temple University on the date that Victim
appeared for treatment. Id. at 105-106
-2-
J-S88024-16
Following trial in January 2015, the court sitting without a jury, found
Appellant guilty of the aforementioned charges. In April 2015, Appellant
was sentenced to five to fifteen years of incarceration and given credit for
time served. Appellant timely appealed and filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) statement. The trial court issued a responsive opinion.
Appellant presents the following question for our review:
1. WAS THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A
CONVICTION OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
In his only issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
presented at trial. Appellant avers the evidence presented at trial was
insufficient to show he attempted to cause Victim serious bodily injury or
that he intentionally, knowingly or recklessly caused Victim serious bodily
injury.4 Appellant’s Brief at 8-10.
When examining a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our
standard of review requires we consider the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner.
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, and may sustain its burden by means of
wholly circumstantial evidence. Significantly, we may not
substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder; if the record
____________________________________________
4
Appellant does not challenge his other convictions.
-3-
J-S88024-16
contains support for the convictions they may not be disturbed.
So long as the evidence adduced, accepted in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth, demonstrates the respective
elements of a defendant's crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, his
convictions will be upheld. 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. McKellick, 24 A.3d 982, 990 (Pa. Super. 2011)
(citations omitted).
A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he “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.S.C. § 2702(a)(1).
As the trial court observed:
[Victim]’s testimony demonstrates that Appellant severely and
relentlessly beat her, causing serious injuries that were not
disputed at trial. Her testimony was corroborated by an
eyewitness, Firefighter Joseph McGuigan. This evidence is more
than sufficient to support the fact-finder’s determination of guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.
PCRA Court Opinion, 4/19/16, at 6. We agree, adding that Appellant
repeatedly prevented Victim from escaping his onslaught and she sustained
significant injury to her head as a result of his actions.
Judgment affirmed.
-4-
J-S88024-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/31/2017
-5-