Com. v. Groce, F.

J-S13021-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
FATEEN GROCE
Appellant No. 894 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 7, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002881-2015
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 11, 2017
Fateen Groce appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, following his conviction of
simple assault.1 Upon review, we affirm.
Groce was charged based upon his alleged involvement in an
altercation at 1800 Madison Street, Philadelphia. Officer Ken Fazio testified
that he saw Groce kicking and stomping on another man’s chest. N.T. Non-
Jury Trial, 12/18/15, at 10. Officer Fazio had not observed what preceded
the kicking nor did he identify the victim. However, a radio call he received
had reported that a person was screaming and that two people wearing
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a).
J-S13021-17
white hoodies were involved in an altercation. Officer Fazio testified that
Groce and the victim were both wearing white hoodies.2 Thereafter, Officer
Fazio arrested Groce for assault. Groce was convicted of simple assault
following a non-jury trial on December 18, 2015, and sentenced to five to
ten months’ incarceration and one year of probation on March 7, 2016. This
timely appeal followed.3
____________________________________________
2
Defense counsel argued that a third person was involved in the altercation,
asserting that two men in white hoodies were attacking the third person.
See N.T. Non-Jury Trial, 12/18/15, at 47. However, this assertion was not
supported by Officer Fazio’s testimony that only two men were involved.
See id. at 10.
3
In this matter, as in Commonwealth v. Hood, 872 A.2d 175 (Pa. Super.
2005),
the trial judge did not provide us with a 1925(a) opinion or direct
us to the places in the record where he states the reasons for his
decisions. Ordinarily, the remedy for non-compliance with the
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) is a remand to the trial court with directions
that an opinion be prepared and returned to the appellate court.
Although we do not approve or sanction the trial court’s failure
to comply with Rule 1925(a), our review of the record, in
particular, the notes of testimony from . . . the trial transcript,
adequately apprise[s] us of the trial court’s reasoning in relation
to the [] issues raised herein. Therefore, we decline to delay
this case further by remanding for the preparation of a [Rule]
1925(a) opinion.
Id. at 178 (citations omitted). Here, the trial judge is no longer on the
bench; however, the court’s reasoning in deciding the issue raised on appeal
can be apprised from the record and the notes of testimony. Accordingly,
we proceed to review Groce’s claim on the merits. Id.
-2-
J-S13021-17
On appeal, Groce raises the following question for our review: “Was
not the evidence insufficient to convict [Groce] of simple assault where there
was a claim of self-defense inherent in the facts of the case and the
Commonwealth failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt, that [Groce]
acted in self-defense?” Brief for Appellant, at 3.
In considering sufficiency of the evidence claims,
we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, and
all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the
light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner,
support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . Where
there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find
every element of the crime has been established beyond a
reasonable doubt, the sufficiency of the evidence claim must fail.
Of course, the evidence established at trial need not preclude
every possibility of innocence and the fact-finder is free to
believe all, part or none of the evidence presented.
Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108, 113 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc).
The Commonwealth can satisfy its burden via wholly circumstantial
evidence. Id.
Groce argues that because the arresting “officer had not witnessed the
genesis of the incident,” an “inherent self-defense claim” is presented by the
facts of this matter. Brief for Appellant, at 7. Groce argues that the burden
shifted to the Commonwealth to disprove his self-defense argument beyond
a reasonable doubt because “[t]he only evidence as to the initial aggressor
came from the officer who happened upon the incident after it had already
begun.” Id.
-3-
J-S13021-17
The elements that the Commonwealth must prove in order to convict a
person of simple assault include that (1) he or she causes bodily injury to
another, (2) with the requisite state of mind, which can be recklessly,
knowingly, or intentionally. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701. Bodily injury is the
“impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.” See 18 Pa.C.S. §
2301.
As to self-defense,
[t]he use of force against a person is justified when the actor
believes that such force is immediately necessary for the
purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force
by the other person. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 505(a). When a
defendant raises the issue of self-defense, the Commonwealth
bears the burden to disprove such a defense beyond a
reasonable doubt. While there is no burden on a defendant to
prove the claim, before the defense is properly at issue at trial,
there must be some evidence, from whatever source, to justify a
finding of self-defense. If there is any evidence that will support
the claim, then the issue is properly before the fact finder.
Commonwealth v. Torres, 766 A.2d 342, 345 (Pa. 2001) (citations
omitted).
No evidence was presented in this matter to justify a finding of self-
defense. Instead, the testimony of Officer Fazio indicated that Groce
repeatedly kicked and stomped on the victim, who was on the ground. This
clearly satisfies the definition of simple assault. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701. At
that point, even had there been a need for self-defense earlier in the
altercation, Groce was clearly no longer in danger. Thus, his physical
treatment of the victim had moved beyond acting in self-defense into
-4-
J-S13021-17
assaultive behavior, since force was no longer “immediately necessary for
the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force[.]” 18
Pa.C.S. § 505 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we find that without evidence
to support the claim of self-defense, the Commonwealth was not required to
disprove the defense. Torres, supra.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/11/2017
-5-