Com. v. Morris, I. ( 2015 )

J-S47015-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ISAAC LUIS MORRIS,
Appellant No. 59 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered December 9, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-22-CR-0001738-2014
BEFORE: ALLEN, OTT, and STRASSBURGER*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED JULY 28, 2015
Isaac Luis Morris (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed after the trial court found him guilty of, inter alia, the summary
offense of public drunkenness. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505. We affirm.
On appeal, Appellant presents us with a single issue:
I. Whether the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient
evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction for public drunkenness
where the Commonwealth failed to prove that Appellant was
manifestly under the influence of alcohol to the degree that he
could have endangered himself or other persons or annoyed
persons in his vicinity?
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
We initially note:
Our standard when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is
whether the evidence at trial, and all reasonable inferences
derived therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to
the Commonwealth as verdict[-]winner, are sufficient to
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S47015-15
establish all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
We may not weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for
that of the fact-finder. Additionally, the evidence at trial need
not preclude every possibility of innocence, and the fact-finder is
free to resolve any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt unless
the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law
no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined
circumstances. When evaluating the credibility and weight of
the evidence, the fact-finder is free to believe all, part, or none
of the evidence. For purposes of our review under these
principles, we must review the entire record and consider all of
the evidence introduced.
Commonwealth v. Emler, 903 A.2d 1273, 1276-1277 (Pa. Super. 2006)
(citation omitted).
The public drunkenness statute states:
A person is guilty of a summary offense if he appears in any
public place manifestly under the influence of alcohol or a
controlled substance . . . to the degree that he may endanger
himself or other persons or property, or annoy persons in his
vicinity.
18 Pa.C.S. § 5505.
Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his
conviction for public drunkenness because “the evidence failed to establish
that he was intoxicated, and as the only people in Appellant’s vicinity to
annoy were police officers, his conviction cannot stand.” Appellant’s Brief at
7. The record does not support Appellant’s argument.
At his trial, Appellant did not present any witnesses. The
Commonwealth presented two witnesses: Harrisburg Police Officer Colin
Kerns, and Harrisburg Police Officer Thomas McGarrity.
-2-
J-S47015-15
On the afternoon of March 8, 2014, Officer Kerns received a report of a
fight at North 18th Street and Park Street. N.T., 12/9/14, at 41-42. There
was no “active fight” when Officer Kerns arrived, but he remained in the
area for approximately 45 minutes. Id. at 42. Around 3:00 p.m., Appellant
approached the driver’s side of Officer Kerns’ patrol vehicle, smelling “of an
odor of alcoholic beverage”, and “yelling about the fight.” Id. at 43.
Addressing Officer Kerns, Appellant asked, “Why the fuck can’t you dumb-
ass cops stop these punk-ass kids from fighting?” Id. Appellant then
walked away, screaming back at Officer Kerns that he was a “pussy-ass
cop.” Id. at 44, 70. Officer Kerns encountered Appellant again later that
evening, when he saw Appellant on Market Street “stumbling from side to
side on the sidewalk.” Id. at 46. Officer Kerns testified:
[Appellant] cut across Market Street. The way he was
stumbling, I assumed he was still intoxicated, or possibly
intoxicated like from the first encounter I had with him, so that’s
why I decided I wanted to stop him.
Id. at 69.
Officer Kerns approached Appellant on suspicion of public
drunkenness, and Appellant fled. Id. at 77-87. During his flight, Appellant
“ran directly into” Officer McGarrity. Id. at 87. Officer McGarrity testified
that he and Appellant “ended up kind of rolling around on the sidewalk, kind
of fighting for control.” Id. Officer McGarrity described Appellant:
Screaming, cursing at us, at one point he started calling us
“crackers” and he made a reference that he was a ranger, I
-3-
J-S47015-15
assume like an Army Ranger. He said he was gonna whip my
ass, quote, whip my ass.
Id. at 89.
Given the foregoing, there existed sufficient evidence to support
Appellant’s arrest for public drunkenness, see Thomas v. City of Erie, 236
Fed.Appx. 772, 2007 WL 1666585 (police officers had probable cause to
arrest for public intoxication where arrestee was staggering, had bloodshot
eyes, and the smell of alcohol on his breath). Moreover, viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence was
sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that Appellant was guilty of
public drunkenness. Although the Commonwealth’s evidence was
circumstantial, it was unrefuted. In addition, the public drunkenness
statute, which provides that a person is guilty if he “appears in any public
place manifestly under the influence of alcohol . . . to the degree that he
may . . . annoy persons in his vicinity”, does not exempt police officers from
being “persons in the vicinity” who “may be annoyed.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5505.
Further, although Officer Kerns testified that as a police officer, he is “cursed
out all the time” and it does not bother him “at all”, N.T., 12/9/14, at 63-64,
the language of the statute specifies that the behavior of the actor be such
that it “may” annoy, and does not require that the actor under the influence
of alcohol shall or actually annoy with his drunken behavior.
Instantly, after hearing the testimony of the police officers, the trial
court acted within its province as fact-finder in convicting Appellant of the
-4-
J-S47015-15
summary offense of public drunkenness. We therefore affirm the judgment
of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/28/2015
-5-
J-S47015-15
-6-