Com. v. Tittel, E. ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • J-S67014-15
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,                   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee
    v.
    ERIC PRESTON TITTEL,
    Appellant                  No. 336 MDA 2015
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 21, 2015
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-38-CR-0000443-2014
    BEFORE: BOWES, PANELLA, AND PLATT,* JJ.
    MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:                        FILED DECEMBER 14, 2015
    Eric P. Tittel appeals from the judgment of sentence of five to fifteen
    years incarceration entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts each
    of aggravated assault and simple assault, as well as one count of recklessly
    endangering another person. We affirm.
    The facts underlying this appeal were recounted by the trial court as
    follows:
    On February 11, 2014, Eric P. Tittel (herein "Defendant")
    was working as a truck driver. Defendant stopped to fill his gas
    tank and purchase food at the Love's Truck Stop at 22 Old Forge
    Road, Union Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania.
    Defendant's truck was parked at a diesel pump while he was
    inside the store. Thomas Basham (herein "Victim") was also
    working as a truck driver and stopped at Love's Truck stop to fill
    his gas tank. The Victim's friend, John Ross (herein "Ross") was
    also driving a truck and pulled into the truck stop at the same
    time as the Victim. The Victim pulled his truck in behind
    *
    Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
    J-S67014-15
    Defendant's truck. The Victim testified that he had waited forty-
    five (45) minutes for Defendant to come out of the store and
    called the store to have the driver return to his vehicle. When
    Defendant came out to his truck, he began pumping fuel, which
    would take another twenty to twenty-five (20-25) minutes. The
    Victim thought that the truck had already been fueled.
    When Defendant returned to his truck, the Victim yelled
    obscenities out the window of his truck at Defendant. Defendant
    came towards the Victim's truck. The Victim continued yelling at
    Defendant and exited his truck. Defendant shoved the Victim
    with both hands. The Victim stumbled backwards, then punched
    Defendant. Defendant punched the Victim. The Victim punched
    Defendant in the head three (3) to four (4) times. The Victim
    testified that he was able to block several punches from the
    Defendant. Defendant hit the Victim in the stomach at some
    point during the altercation. The Victim testified that the whole
    encounter lasted two (2) to three (3) minutes. Defendant went
    back to his truck, got in, and left the scene.
    When Defendant headed back to his truck, the Victim
    wrote the license plate of Defendant's truck on his hand. At this
    point, the Victim noticed blood and a gash below his rib on his
    right side. The Victim went inside the truck stop to get help.
    Ross saw the Victim enter the truck stop with the cut on his
    belly.    Jody Kohler (herein "Kohler"), the Administrative
    Assistant of Love's Truck Stop, saw the Victim come in from the
    fuel pumps. Another employee of Love's, identified by Kohler as
    "Chuck," called 911. Troopers Hoffstettler and Lynn responded
    to the report of a stabbing. Tpr. Hoffstettler testified that he
    provided immediate medical assistance while Tpr. Lynn
    interviewed the Victim.      The Victim was transported by
    ambulance to Hershey Medical Center. The Victim required
    surgery and has scars from the stab and the surgery.
    Meanwhile, Defendant had driven down the road and called
    his dispatcher to report what had happened. Defendant testified
    that he left the scene because he was scared. The dispatcher,
    Anna Lyons (herein "Lyons"), testified that Defendant sounded
    panicked and distraught. Defendant relayed to her what had
    happened and Lyons told Defendant to pull over and wait for the
    police. Defendant pulled over approximately eighteen (18) miles
    from the scene. Lyons contacted the [Pennsylvania State Police]
    -2-
    J-S67014-15
    and provided them with Defendant's location. Lyons testified
    that Defendant did not mention a knife. Defendant was taken
    into custody by Trooper Chavez. Defendant was transported to
    the Jonestown Barracks where he was interviewed by Trps. Lynn
    and Hoffstettler. Defendant initially told the Troopers that the
    Victim had the knife and Defendant got the knife away from
    Victim and stabbed him in self-defense. Eventually, Defendant
    admitted that the knife was his and that he threw the knife out
    the window along the road because he was scared. Defendant
    stated that he was afraid and in fear of serious bodily injury from
    the Victim. Defendant testified that he told the Troopers that the
    Victim had used racial slurs. Tpr. Lynn testified that Defendant
    did not mention anything about racial slurs when he interviewed
    Defendant. The Victim testified that he did not use racial slurs
    towards Defendant prior to or during the altercation.
    At the scene, pictures were taken of the area where the
    fight occurred. The Troopers interviewed Ross and Kohler.
    Kohler allowed the Troopers to review the security camera
    footage. The area where the fight occurred could not be [seen]
    from any angle of any camera.
    Trial court opinion, 3/25/15, at 1-3 (punctuation corrected).
    Appellant complied with the trial court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P.
    1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, and the court
    filed a 1925(a) opinion shortly thereafter. This matter is now ready for our
    review.   On appeal, Appellant presents one issue for our consideration:
    “Whether the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence presented
    at trial.” Appellant’s brief at 3.
    Appellant cursorily argues that the “jury’s rejection of [Appellant’s]
    self-defense claim was so contrary to the evidence as to shock the
    [conscience].”    Appellant’s brief at 7.   Since Appellant contends that he
    -3-
    J-S67014-15
    feared for his safety during the altercation with Basham, he was justified in
    using force against him.
    The Commonwealth argues first that Appellant’s sole issue is waived,
    as he did not properly preserve the challenge with the trial court. As to the
    merits, the Commonwealth avers the jury appropriately afforded little weight
    to Appellant’s claim of self-defense in light of significant contrary evidence.
    We agree with the Commonwealth that Appellant’s issue is waived and
    decline to address it.
    In order to preserve a weight of the evidence claim, an appellant must
    raise the issue with the trial judge in a motion for a new trial orally before
    sentencing, by written motion before sentencing, or in a post-sentence
    motion. Pa.R.Crim.P. 607. Review of a properly preserved claim is limited
    to the “exercise of the trial court’s discretion” and not “whether the verdict is
    against the weight of the evidence.”     Commonwealth v. Karns, 
    50 A.3d 158
    , 165 (Pa.Super. 2012).
    Appellant failed to file a written motion raising his weight of the
    evidence claim either before or after sentencing, our review of the certified
    record reveals no reference to the challenge, and Appellant identifies no
    point where he preserved his challenge. He therefore did not comply with
    Pa.R.Crim.P. 607, and we find this issue waived. See Commonwealth v.
    Priest, 
    18 A.3d 1235
    (Pa.Super. 2011).
    -4-
    J-S67014-15
    Importantly, we recognize that “[f]ailure to properly preserve the
    claim will result in waiver, even if the trial court addresses the issue in its
    opinion.”   Commonwealth v. Thompson, 
    93 A.3d 478
    (Pa.Super. 2014)
    (citing Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 
    982 A.2d 483
    , 494 (Pa. 2009)). The
    trial court “never ‘ruled’ on the issue and, therefore, it could not grant nor
    deny the claim at the time it was first raised by Appellant in his concise
    statement.” 
    Id. at 490-491.
    At the time it issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion,
    the trial court had no jurisdiction to take further action in the case;
    therefore, it was “never given the opportunity to provide Appellant with relief
    and, consequently, there is no discretionary act that this Court could
    review.” 
    Id. Even though
    the trial court thoroughly addressed Appellant’s
    weight of the evidence claim in its 1925(a) opinion, we find that his claim is
    waived due to his noncompliance with Pa.R.Crim.P. 607.
    Judgment of sentence affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 12/14/2015
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 336 MDA 2015

Filed Date: 12/14/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2024