Com. v. Seigel, R., Sr.

J-S43013-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ROBERT FRANCI SEIGEL
Appellant No. 1845 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 7, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0000201-2015
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MAY 20, 2016
Appellant, Robert Franci Seigel, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas, following
his jury trial conviction for flight to avoid apprehension, trial or punishment.1
We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.
On or around May 16, 2014, Appellant completed paperwork evidencing his
intent to plead guilty to two charges of driving under the influence of alcohol
or a controlled substance (“DUI”) at docket CP-54-CR-0001107-2013 and
docket CP-54-CR-000169-2013. On May 30, 2014, the court held a hearing
in the DUI cases to determine if Appellant had completed a Court Reporting
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5126(a).
J-S43013-16
Network (“CRN”) evaluation before accepting Appellant’s guilty plea. The
court determined Appellant had not completed a CRN evaluation and issued
the following order:
[Appellant] having submitted a petition to enter a plea of
guilty on a DUI offense but having failed to obtain a CRN
evaluation, it is hereby ordered that [Appellant]
immediately schedule an appointment for the CRN
evaluation and provide written proof thereof to the criminal
court administrator no later than two weeks from the date
of this Order. If [Appellant] fails to do so or fails to keep
his…scheduled appointment, bail will be revoked, a bench
warrant will issue, and [Appellant] will remain incarcerated
until such time a CRN is completed.
(N.T. Trial, 8/31/15, at 54-55).2 On November 17, 2014, the court held a
status hearing, which Appellant failed to attend. Appellant had not yet
completed a CRN evaluation at the time of the status hearing. As a result,
the Commonwealth asked the court to issue a bench warrant for Appellant’s
arrest and revoke bail. The court signed an order granting the
Commonwealth’s request on November 21, 2014, stating:
Upon motion of the District Attorney’s Office, it is hereby
ordered that a bench warrant be issued and executed
forthwith to take [Appellant] into custody.
It is further ordered that the bond posted in this case be
declared forfeited without prejudice to the right of the
____________________________________________
2
The Commonwealth introduced the May 30, 2014 order as
Commonwealth’s Exhibit 2 at trial. This exhibit is not included in the
certified record. Nevertheless, Commonwealth witness Debra Holley, a
deputy clerk for the Clerk of Courts, read the content of this order into the
record during her testimony.
-2-
J-S43013-16
surety or [Appellant] to petition to have the forfeiture set
aside.
The Clerk of Courts is directed to give written notice of the
forfeiture to the surety, or if there is no surety to
[Appellant] personally, or by certified mail at the last
known address.
(Id. at 56).3 The November 21, 2014 order was filed in the Clerk of Courts
on December 3, 2014.
At approximately 8:30 p.m. on November 21, 2014, Officer Travis
Bowman was on duty when he received a radio dispatch that Appellant was
located at the One Stop Shop convenience store and that there was an
active warrant concerning Appellant. Officer Bowman called the Schuylkill
County Communications Center and verified there was an active warrant for
Appellant.4 Officer Bowman proceeded to the area and observed Appellant
standing outside. Appellant noticed the police vehicle and looked down,
appearing to hide his face. Officer Bowman pulled over his vehicle and
exited the car, when Appellant began quickly walking and then running
away. Officer Bowman engaged in a brief chase of Appellant and ultimately
apprehended him. The officer took Appellant into custody and transported
him to the police station. The Commonwealth subsequently charged
____________________________________________
3
The Commonwealth introduced this order as Commonwealth’s Exhibit 3.
This exhibit is also missing from the certified record. Nevertheless, Ms.
Holley read the content of this order into the record during her testimony.
4
The officer was uncertain of the basis for the warrant.
-3-
J-S43013-16
Appellant with, inter alia, flight to avoid apprehension, trial or punishment.
Appellant proceeded to a jury trial on August 31, 2015. At trial, the
Commonwealth called four witnesses: Debra Holley, Kyla Snyder, Officer
Bowman, and Officer David Stamets. Ms. Holley testified, inter alia, she is a
deputy clerk for the Clerk of Courts. Ms. Holley discussed several relevant
filings in the Clerk of Courts including, Appellant’s paperwork agreeing to
plead guilty to two DUI charges, the court’s May 30, 2014 order directing
Appellant to complete a CRN evaluation, and the November 21, 2014 order
directing a bench warrant to be issued. Ms. Snyder testified, inter alia, she
is the DUI administrator for the District Attorney’s Office. Ms. Snyder
discussed the requirements of a CRN evaluation prior to disposition of a
guilty plea for DUI, the purpose of holding a status hearing on November 17,
2014 to determine why Appellant had not completed a CRN evaluation and
when the evaluation would be completed, and the November 21, 2014 order
directing a warrant to be issued. Ms. Snyder also confirmed the DUI charges
at issue were misdemeanor offenses. Officer Bowman testified, inter alia,
regarding the radio dispatch he received on November 21, 2014 concerning
Appellant, the officer’s verification of an active warrant for Appellant, and
the officer’s interaction with and apprehension of Appellant that evening.
Officer Stamets testified, inter alia, about the radio dispatch concerning
Appellant, verification of an active warrant for Appellant, and the officer’s
interaction with Appellant at the police station following apprehension. At
-4-
J-S43013-16
the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief, Appellant moved for
judgment of acquittal on the flight charge, which the court denied. Appellant
exercised his right not to present any evidence/testimony.
The jury convicted Appellant of flight to avoid apprehension, trial or
punishment. On October 7, 2015, with the benefit of a pre-sentence
investigation report, the court sentenced Appellant to time-served to twelve
(12) months’ county imprisonment. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal
on October 22, 2015. On November 4, 2015, the court ordered Appellant to
file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely complied.5
Appellant raises one issue for our review:
DID THE COMMONWEALTH FAIL TO PRESENT EVIDENCE
THAT A MISDEMEANOR WARRANT OR NON-SUMMARY
OFFENSE WARRANT EXISTED AT THE TIME OF
[APPELLANT’S] ARREST AND IF IT EXISTED THAT
[APPELLANT] WAS AWARE OF THE WARRANT AND
CONCEALED HIMSELF OR TOOK FLIGHT IN ORDER TO
AVOID APPREHENSION?
____________________________________________
5
On November 13, 2015, this Court issued a per curiam order directing
Appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be quashed where the
October 7, 2015 judgment of sentence did not appear on the trial court
docket. This Court issued a second rule to show cause on December 4,
2015, after Appellant failed to respond. On December 11, 2015, Appellant
explained the Clerk of Courts had inadvertently omitted the judgment of
sentence from the docket. Appellant submitted an updated docket reflecting
the sentence imposed on October 7, 2015. On December 17, 2015, this
Court discharged the show-cause orders and referred the issue to the merits
panel. Our review of the certified docket confirms entry of the judgment of
sentence. Thus, there are no jurisdictional impediments to our review.
-5-
J-S43013-16
(Appellant’s Brief at 4).
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)).
Appellant argues he was visible on the streets of the Shenandoah
Borough from the time he submitted the guilty plea paperwork until his
apprehension. Appellant asserts he did not leave his hometown, and the
Commonwealth failed to show Appellant concealed himself from law
enforcement. At most, Appellant contends, the Commonwealth
demonstrated he walked away from police on November 21, 2014.
-6-
J-S43013-16
Appellant claims the Commonwealth presented no evidence that Appellant
had notice of the court’s November 17, 2014 status hearing. Appellant
contends the “active warrant” the officers verified prior to Appellant’s arrest
was not the November 21, 2014 order concerning his DUI cases (which was
not filed with the Clerk of Courts until December 3, 2014), but was merely
an unrelated “borough” warrant. Appellant concludes the Commonwealth
presented insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction, and this Court must
vacate the judgment of sentence. We disagree.
The Crimes Code defines the offense of flight to avoid apprehension,
trial or punishment, as follows:
§ 5126. Flight to avoid apprehension, trial or
punishment
(a) Offense defined.—A person who willfully
conceals himself or moves or travels within or outside this
Commonwealth with the intent to avoid apprehension, trial
or punishment commits a felony of the third degree when
the crime which he has been charged with or has been
convicted of is a felony and commits a misdemeanor of the
second degree when the crime which he has been charged
with or has been convicted of is a misdemeanor.
(b) Exception.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to a
person set at liberty by court order who fails to appear at
the time or place specified in the order.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5126. This Court has stated:
[T]he plain language of the statute requires that the
defendant intend to avoid apprehension, trial or
punishment. … [N]othing in the statutory language
requires that police have knowledge of the underlying
charge or conviction. It is sufficient for the defendant to
intentionally elude law enforcement to avoid apprehension,
-7-
J-S43013-16
trial or punishment on a charge or conviction.
Commonwealth v. Steffy, 36 A.3d 1109, 1111-12 (Pa.Super. 2012).
Instantly, the trial court addressed Appellant’s sufficiency challenge as
follows:
Here, [defense] counsel argued to the jury…that Appellant
was unaware that a bench warrant was issued in the
morning of November 21, 2014. Appellant, therefore,
could not be aware of the warrant because it was issued in
the morning and he was arrested at night that same day,
November 21, 2014. The Commonwealth established that
[the court’s] May 30, 2014 Order directing Appellant to
complete the CRN evaluation within two weeks or be
subject to [a] bench warrant and subsequent
imprisonment for failure to do so until the CRN evaluation
was complete[,] was sufficient notice to Appellant that the
police were interested in apprehending Appellant. Thus[,]
Appellant’s flight from the police in order to avoid
imprisonment was caused by Appellant’s being advised of
his [consequences for] failure to comply with [the court’s]
May 30, 2014 Order which was issued nearly six months
earlier.
(Trial Court Opinion, filed December 22, 2015, at 6). The record supports
the court’s analysis. Appellant submitted guilty plea paperwork for two
counts of DUI on or around May 16, 2014. Because Appellant had not yet
completed a CRN evaluation, the court deferred disposition of the DUI cases
and, on May 30, 2014, directed Appellant to complete a CRN evaluation
within two weeks or face revocation of bail, issuance of a bench warrant, and
incarceration until completion of the evaluation. (See N.T., 8/31/15, at 54-
55.) When Appellant failed to comply with the court’s directive, the court
held a status conference on November 17, 2014, which Appellant failed to
-8-
J-S43013-16
attend. Because Appellant had still failed to complete the CRN evaluation,
the Commonwealth asked the court to issue a bench warrant for Appellant’s
arrest, which the court signed on November 21, 2014. This order was filed
in the Clerk of Courts on December 3, 2014.
While Appellant complains the Commonwealth failed to prove
Appellant knew about the November 17, 2014 status hearing and/or the
court’s November 21, 2014 order directing a bench warrant to be issued, the
law does not require an active bench warrant or a defendant’s knowledge of
any such bench warrant to sustain a conviction under Section 5126. See 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 5126(a). Likewise, Officer Bowman’s and Officer Stamet’s
knowledge (or lack thereof) of the basis for any such warrant is irrelevant to
Appellant’s guilt. See id.; Steffy, supra. Rather, the record makes clear:
(1) Appellant faced DUI charges at two docket numbers; (2) Appellant
completed paperwork to plead guilty to two DUI charges, on or around May
16, 2014; (3) the court ordered Appellant on May 30, 2014, to obtain a CRN
evaluation within two weeks or face revocation of bail, issuance of a bench
warrant, and incarceration until completion of the evaluation; (4) Appellant
did not comply with the court’s May 30, 2014 order; and (5) Appellant
concealed himself and/or fled from Officer Bowman on November 21, 2014.
This evidence was sufficient for the jury to decide Appellant concealed
himself and/or fled from Officer Bowman with the intent to avoid
apprehension, trial or punishment, in connection with his underlying DUI
-9-
J-S43013-16
charges. See Hansley, supra. Thus, the Commonwealth presented
sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction for flight to avoid
apprehension, trial or punishment. See id.; 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5126(a).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/20/2016
- 10 -