Com. v. Hillian, M.

J-S32005-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
MICHAEL HILLIAN :
:
Appellant : No. 2968 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 18, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0001532-2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., STABILE, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JUNE 14, 2017
Appellant, Michael Hillian, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench
trial convictions of one count each of resisting arrest and public
drunkenness.1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them.
Appellant raises one issue for our review:
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO
CONVICT [APPELLANT] OF THE CRIME OF RESISTING
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5104 and 5505, respectively.
___________________________
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S32005-17
ARREST BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT SINCE THE
TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY THE COMMONWEALTH FAILED
TO SUPPORT THE NECESSARY INFERENCE THAT HE
CREATED A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF HARM TO THE
OFFICERS INVOLVED OR THAT THE POLICE WERE
REQUIRED TO USE SUBSTANTIAL FORCE TO TAKE HIM
INTO CUSTODY ON THE DATE IN QUESTION[?]
(Appellant’s Brief at 7).
When examining a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence:
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. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal
denied, 613 Pa. 642, 32 A.3d 1275 (2011) (quoting Commonwealth v.
Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super. 2005)).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Kevin F.
-2-
J-S32005-17
Kelly, we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion
comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented.
(See Trial Court Opinion, filed November 1, 2016, at 8-13) (finding: Officer
Marvil credibly testified that when he responded to scene, he observed
Appellant repeatedly pushing female to ground; Officer Marvil announced he
was police officer and instructed Appellant to stop; when Appellant failed to
comply, Officer Marvil pulled Appellant away and attempted to arrest him; as
Officer Marvil restrained Appellant’s hands, Appellant aggressively reached
toward his waistband; Officer Gill then arrived at scene and assisted Officer
Marvil; when Appellant continued to resist, Officer Marvil struck back of
Appellant’s head with open palm; Officer Gill was then able to cuff
Appellant’s left hand, but officers could not cuff Appellant’s right hand
because he continued to resist; with his knee, Officer Marvil struck back of
Appellant’s leg, which enabled Officer Marvil to cuff Appellant’s right hand;
Officer Marvil credibly testified that absent his strikes, officers could not
have subdued Appellant; throughout incident, Officer Marvil repeatedly
advised Appellant he was under arrest and instructed Appellant to stop
resisting and place his hands behind his back; Appellant’s conduct
necessitated officers’ use of force to place Appellant in custody). The record
supports the trial court’s rationale. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of
the trial court’s opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-3-
J-S32005-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/14/2017
-4-