Com. v. Schoonover, M. ( 2021 )

J-S11027-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MICHAEL CARL SCHOONOVER :
:
Appellant : No. 1074 WDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 27, 2020,
in the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-42-CR-0000161-2019.
BEFORE: STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: JULY 28, 2021
Michael Carl Schoonover appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed following his conviction for simple assault. Upon review, we affirm.
This case arises from the following facts. On March 13, 2019,
Schoonover was at a convenience store, fighting with his girlfriend. Allegedly,
she hit him, and he threw her cell phone through the store. Schoonover was
also very upset because the store clerk refused to cash his winning lottery
ticket. The clerk asked him to leave and not return until a manager was
present. At first he refused, but eventually left, intentionally knocking over
two trash cans in the parking lot.
Schoonover returned later that same day; he was still angry. The clerk
again told him to leave, but Schoonover refused and demanded that the clerk
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S11027-21
cash his ticket. He yelled obscenities and called the clerk derogatory names.
The clerk called the police.
When the police arrived, Officer Kolin Strawcutter asked Schoonover to
leave the store, but he refused. Officer Strawcutter then put his hand on
Schoonover’s arm to escort him out, and Schoonover said “don’t f---ing touch
me.” Schoonover resisted and pushed back when the officers tried to get him
out of the store. The police pushed Schoonover against the wall, and
Schoonover and Officer Strawcutter fell to the floor. Schoonover then reached
up and grabbed Officer Strawcutter’s neck, squeezed, and pulled him down.
Schoonover then hit Officer Strawcutter above his left eyebrow. Officer
Strawcutter’s head was cut, turned red, and swelled. Officer Strawcutter had
to punch Schoonover to break the hold Schoonover had on him. During his
arrest, the police continued to struggle with Schoonover while trying to
handcuff him, and, ultimately, had to taze him. Schoonover was charged with
multiple offenses.
Following a jury trial, Schoonover was convicted of simple assault,
resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct.1 He was found not guilty of
aggravated assault of a police officer.2 The trial court sentenced Schoonover
to 7 to 14 months of incarceration plus a period of probation. He filed a post-
sentence motion, which the trial court denied.
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a)(1), 5104, and 5503(a)(4).
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(3).
-2-
J-S11027-21
Schoonover filed this timely appeal. The trial court and Schoonover
complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.
On appeal Schoonover, raises the following single issue for our review:
Whether the [trial] court erred in finding that the evidence
presented at trial was sufficient to establish [Schoonover’s] guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt as to [simple assault], where the jury’s
not guilty verdict as to [aggravated assault] precluded several
grounds for finding [Schoonover] guilty and the remaining ground
was not supported by sufficient evidence.
Schoonover’s Brief at 2-3.
Schoonover challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his
conviction for simple assault. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence, our standard of review is as follows:
Because a determination of evidentiary sufficiency presents a
question of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope
of review is plenary. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence,
we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial and all
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, were sufficient
to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
. . . It is within the province of the fact-finder to determine the
weight to be accorded to each witness's testimony and to believe
all, part, or none of the evidence. . . . [A]s an appellate court, we
may not re-weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for
that of the factfinder.
Commonwealth v. Palmer, 192 A.3d 85, 89 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation
omitted), appeal denied, 204 A.3d 924 (Pa. 2019).
To establish simple assault, the Commonwealth must show that a
defendant “attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1). “Bodily injury” is
-3-
J-S11027-21
defined as “[i]mpairment of physical condition or substantial pain.” 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 2301. The Commonwealth need not establish that the victim
actually suffered bodily injury; rather, it is sufficient if the Commonwealth
establishes an attempt to inflict bodily injury. This intent may be shown by
circumstances which reasonably suggest that a defendant intended to cause
injury. Commonwealth v. Polston, 616 A.2d 669, 679 (Pa. Super. 1992),
alloc. denied, 626 A.2d 1157 (1993). Similarly, to establish aggravated
assault against a law enforcement officer, the Commonwealth must show that
a defendant attempted to cause or intentionally or knowingly caused bodily
injury to an officer while in the performance of duty. 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
2702(a)(3).
On appeal, Schoonover specifically claims that because the jury did not
convict him of aggravated assault of a police officer, it could not have found
him guilty of simple assault. The jury acquitted him of aggravated assault
against a police officer. Consequently, according to Schoonover, the only
basis upon which the jury could convict Schoonover of simple assault was that
he recklessly caused bodily injury to Officer Strawcutter. Schoonover’s Brief
at 11-12. However, Schoonover claims that the evidence was insufficient to
demonstrate that Schoonover actually caused bodily injury to Officer
Strawcutter, and therefore claims his conviction for simple assault cannot
stand. Id. at 12.
Essentially, Schoonover claims that the jury rendered inconsistent
verdicts. We find this claim meritless.
-4-
J-S11027-21
As we have explained:
[I]nconsistent verdicts, while often perplexing, are not considered
mistakes and do not constitute a basis for reversal. Consistency
in verdicts in criminal cases is not necessary. When an acquittal
on one count in an indictment is inconsistent with a conviction on
a second count, the court looks upon the acquittal as no more
than the jury's assumption of a power which they had no right to
exercise, but to which they were disposed through lenity. . . . The
rule that inconsistent verdicts do not constitute reversible error
applies even where the acquitted offense is a lesser included
offense of the charge for which a defendant is found guilty.
Commonwealth v. Barnes, 167 A.3d 110, 120 (Pa. Super. 2017) (en banc)
(quotations omitted). The rationale for “‘allowing inconsistent verdicts is that
it is the jury’s sole prerogative to decide on which counts to convict in order
to provide a defendant with sufficient punishment.’” Commonwealth v.
Frisbie, 889 A.2d 1271, 1273 (Pa. Super. 2005). Our Supreme Court has
stated:
The most that can be said in such cases is that the verdict shows
that either in the acquittal or the conviction the jury did not speak
their real conclusions, but that does not show that they were not
convinced of the defendant's guilt . . . . That the verdict may have
been the result of compromise, or of a mistake on the part of the
jury, is possible. But verdicts cannot be upset by speculation or
inquiry into such matters.
Commonwealth. v. Carter, 282 A.2d 375, 377 (Pa. 1971) (citations and
quotations omitted).
Furthermore, “an acquittal cannot be interpreted as a specific finding in
relation to some of the evidence.” Carter, 282 A.2d at 376. Pennsylvania’s
jurisprudence has “long recognized and supported the notion that acquittals
-5-
J-S11027-21
are not tantamount to factual findings and therefore do not render inconsistent
verdicts improper so long as there is sufficient evidence presented by the
Commonwealth at trial to support the guilty verdict.” Id. (quotations
omitted). “[I]nconsistent verdicts . . . are allowed to stand so long as the
evidence is sufficient to support the conviction” notwithstanding the
defendant's acquittal on an accompanying charge. See Commonwealth v.
Miller, 35 A.3d 1206, 1208 (Pa. 2012). Thus, “this Court will not disturb guilty
verdicts on the basis of apparent inconsistencies as long as there is [sufficient]
evidence to support the verdict.” Barnes, 167 A.3d at 120.
Given the foregoing, we observe that the jury in this case could have
found that Schoonover attempted to cause bodily injury to Officer Strawcutter,
but only wanted to find him guilty of the lesser graded offense of simple
assault, a misdemeanor, rather than aggravated assault, a felony.
Furthermore, the jury’s not guilty verdict for aggravated assault of a police
officer did not constitute specific findings of the evidence, and therefore does
not affect the sufficiency analysis of Schoonover’s simple assault conviction.
Consequently, contrary to Schoonover’s argument, the jury was not precluded
from concluding that Schoonover attempted to cause bodily injury for
purposes of convicting him of simple assault as long as sufficient evidence was
presented on that charge. Therefore, we must only consider whether there
was sufficient evidence to support Schoonover’s conviction for simple assault.
-6-
J-S11027-21
Again, to establish simple assault, the Commonwealth had to show that
Schoonover attempted to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly
caused bodily injury to Officer Strawcutter. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1).
The trial court noted, “[t]he Commonwealth need not establish that the victim
actually suffered bodily injury; rather, it is sufficient to support a conviction if
the Commonwealth establish[ed] an attempt to inflict bodily injury.” Trial
Court Opinion, 11/17/20, at 11. Whether Schoonover actually caused bodily
injury to Officer Strawcutter is irrelevant.
Here, the evidence showed that, at the time of the incident, Schoonover
was angry. He was verbally assaultive and physically aggressive even before
the police arrived. When the officers arrived and told Schoonover to leave the
store, he refused. Schoonover forcefully pushed Officer Strawcutter back as
he tried to escort Schoonover out of the store. A scuffle ensued, and
Schoonover and Officer Strawcutter fell to the floor. Schoonover grabbed
Officer Strawcutter and held onto him with force. Schoonover then hit Officer
Strawcutter in the head. Officer Strawcutter had to use force to free himself
from Schoonover. Based upon our review of the record, and viewing this
evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict
winner, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to convict Schoonover
of simple assault.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-7-
J-S11027-21
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/28/2021
-8-