Com. v. Brock, R. ( 2020 )

J-S02017-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
v. :
:
RYAN EDWARD BROCK :
:
Appellant : No. 1368 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 30, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-31-CR-0000097-2018
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., KING, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 20, 2020
Appellant, Ryan Edward Brock, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Huntingdon County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury
trial conviction for aggravated assault.1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court sets forth the relevant facts of this case as
follows:
On November 22, 2017, [Appellant] was an inmate at the
State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon,
Pennsylvania…. Mr. Kenneth Boal was the sergeant
assigned to Bravo block where [Appellant] was housed. At
or around 3:00 p.m.[,] Sergeant Boal noticed [Appellant] at
a desk located at the end of the block. He overheard
[Appellant] conversing with a Corrections Officer…about
seeing someone from the psychology department.
[Appellant]…was insistent that he wanted a psychologist to
come to the block and see him immediately. Sergeant Boal
testified that [Appellant] was agitated. He related that he
told [Appellant] that a call to psychology would be made,
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(3).
J-S02017-20
and that he should return to his cell. [Appellant] complied
with the order and started down the tier towards his cell.
Sergeant Boal followed him. At a point midway down the
tier, [Sergeant] Boal testified [Appellant] planted a foot,
spun around, and hit him on the left side of his face. His
glasses flew off, and he and [Appellant] (who is substantially
younger) engaged in a struggle. [Appellant] struck
him…with multiple blows to both sides of his head. Sergeant
Boal was able to take [Appellant] to the floor, but…he
continued to kick and swing. Another officer—CO Roberta
Miller—was on the tier when the fight began and she called
for help, and then she gained control of [Appellant’s] legs.
Other officers responded, and [Appellant] was sprayed with
pepper spray which rather quickly brought the fight to a
conclusion.
(Trial Court Opinion, filed October 2, 2019, at 1-2).
Following trial, a jury convicted Appellant of aggravated assault. On
July 30, 2019, the court imposed a sentence of twenty-seven (27) to fifty-four
(54) months’ imprisonment consecutive to any sentence Appellant was
already serving. Appellant did not file post-sentence motions. On August 15,
2019, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and voluntary Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
SHOULD [APPELLANT] HAVE BEEN GRANTED A VERDICT OF
ACQUITTAL, GIVEN THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT
TRIAL FAILED TO PROVE THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME
CHARGED?
(Appellant’s Brief at 2).
On appeal, Appellant asserts the Commonwealth failed to provide any
evidence to prove that he intended to injure Sergeant Boal. Appellant claims
he was seeking psychology services, and Sergeant Boal denied the request
-2-
J-S02017-20
and ordered him to return to his cell. Appellant acknowledges he reacted to
the order with anger, but Appellant insists he did not have the purpose of
causing an injury to Sergeant Boal. Appellant concludes the Commonwealth
presented insufficient evidence to support the aggravated assault conviction.
We disagree.
When examining a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, our standard
of review is as follows:
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at
trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there
is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every
element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In
applying [the above] test, we may not weigh the evidence
and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition,
we note that the facts and circumstances established by the
Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of
innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may
be resolved by the fact-finder 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. The
Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every
element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means
of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the
above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all
evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the
[trier] of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses
and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe
all, part or none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 215 A.3d 972, 980 (Pa.Super. 2019) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal
denied, 613 Pa. 642, 32 A.3d 1275 (2011)).
The Pennsylvania Crimes Code defines the offense of aggravated
-3-
J-S02017-20
assault, in relevant part, as follows:
§ 2702. Aggravated assault
(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, juvenile detention
center or any other facility to which the person has
been ordered by the court pursuant to a petition
alleging delinquency under 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 63
(relating to juvenile matters).
18 Pa.C.S.A § 2702(a)(3), (c)(9). Sections (a)(3) and (c) list protected
classes of persons and evince the legislative concern with protecting these
classes, as well as a decision to attach more serious consequences to behavior
that threatens law enforcement officers while in the performance of their
duties. Commonwealth v. Jones, 629 A.2d 133 (Pa.Super. 1993).
A person is guilty of aggravated assault on a corrections officer if the
person attempts to cause or intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to
-4-
J-S02017-20
the officer during performance of duty. Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d
544, 560 (Pa.Super. 2011) (en banc). Therefore, in the context of aggravated
assault on a corrections officer, the Commonwealth does not need to establish
that the corrections officer actually suffered a bodily injury. Id. Rather, the
Commonwealth need only establish an attempt to inflict bodily injury. Id.
To show an attempt to cause bodily injury, the Commonwealth must
establish the defendant acted with specific intent to cause bodily injury.
Commonwealth v. Matthew, 589 Pa. 487, 491-92, 909 A.2d 1254, 1257
(2006). A person acts with intent with respect to a material element of the
crime, if “it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to
cause such a result[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 302(b)(1)(i). Therefore, the
Commonwealth can prove the requisite intent to inflict bodily injury by
showing factual circumstances that reasonably suggest the defendant
intended to cause injury. Brown, supra at 560.
Instantly, Sergeant Boal testified that Appellant requested psychological
services. Sergeant Boal attempted to follow institutional protocol, informing
Appellant that he would make a call to request the services. In the meantime,
Sergeant Boal needed to return Appellant to his cell. While returning to the
cell, Appellant planted his foot, spun around, and punched Sergeant Boal with
a closed fist to the head. Appellant repeatedly punched Sergeant Boal until
other officers subdued Appellant. Further, Sergeant Boal sought immediate
medical attention for the injuries caused by Appellant’s flurry of punches.
-5-
J-S02017-20
Contrary to Appellant’s contentions, the Commonwealth produced sufficient
evidence to establish Appellant’s intent to cause Sergeant Boal bodily injury.
See Matthew, supra; Brown, supra. Therefore, Appellant’s issue lacks
merit. Accordingly, we affirm.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/20/2020
-6-