Commonwealth v. Coniker

2023 PA Super 25

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL J. CONIKER Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL J. CONIKER Appellant

Nos. 23 WDA 2022, 24 WDA 2022

No. J-A29038-22

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

February 15, 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 18, 2021, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0014079-2018.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

OPINION

KUNSELMAN, J.

Michael Coniker appeals from the judgments of sentence entered against him following his convictions at two criminal dockets for harassment, disorderly conduct, and criminal trespass. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for every conviction. We reverse in part and affirm in part.

Background

These cases concern two separate incidents, which gave rise to separate criminal complaints, docket numbers, and dispositions. We will refer to the case at CP-02-CR-0006879-2018, No. 24 WDA 2022 as "the Office Case" and the case at CP-02-CR-0014079-2018, No. 23 WDA 2022 as "the Church Case."

The trial court set forth the facts at the Office Case as follows:

Some time prior to March 1, 2017, Attorney James Herb represented Mr. Coniker. Mr. Coniker and Attorney Herb eventually had a falling out, and Attorney Herb informed Mr Coniker that he was not permitted to enter Attorney Herb's offices and that if Mr. Coniker did so, Attorney Herb would have him arrested. Knowing that he was not permitted to enter Attorney Herb's offices, Mr. Coniker called Attorney Herb's offices and started to record the telephone conversation. The call was then disconnected, and neither Attorney Herb, nor anyone from his office elected to call back Mr. Coniker.

Accordingly, after being told he was not permitted to enter Attorney Herb's offices and having also unsuccessfully tried to speak to Attorney Herb and his office by telephone Mr. Coniker, knowing he was not welcome, decided to try to communicate again with Attorney Herb by entering Attorney Herb's offices on March 1, 2017. Mr. Coniker made this entrance immediately after leaving the local magisterial district judge's offices, where he made threats regarding a weapon because his case therein had been postponed. Despite his incredible assertions to the contrary, Mr. Coniker's intent when entering Attorney Herb's offices was to cause disruption and to frighten, scare, and alarm its occupants just like he had intended to and did moments before at the magistrate's office.^[1]

Mr. Coniker's conduct inside Attorney Herb's office achieved Mr. Coniker's intent. He was threatening and frightening to the office's occupants. Attorney Herb's staff, including Janet Knochel, who encountered Mr. Coniker in the offices, were, in fact, so concerned about Mr. Coniker that they called the police and fled the offices. Mr. Coniker was screaming [into a cell phone, "I'm at Attorney Herb's office and I got a gun."]

The impact on Attorney Herb's office was such that following the incident with Mr. Coniker, the "format of [the] office" changed. Attorney Herb explained:

Subsequent thereto … I put a metal door in at the top of the ramp and bullet proof glass in to protect the front office assistants. And so nobody can get into the interior offices without us buzzing them in or letting them in. And there's a speaker box on the bullet proof glass that allows the front office assistant to speak and hear the people who come in … from the outside. And the wall goes up to the ceiling now, so that the front is secure. You can't enter in, you can't get into the offices without someone letting you in . . . .

Eventually, the police arrived at Attorney Herb's offices. Notably, prior to being dispatched to Attorney Herb's offices, the police had been forced to respond to the local magistrate's office to deal with Mr. Coniker's conduct there, where they took the magisterial district judge and his staff into safety and placed the courtroom in lockdown. Once at Attorney Herb's offices, law enforcement caught up to Mr. Coniker and saw and heard him screaming, yelling, and berating Attorney Herb. Mr. Coniker was ultimately arrested.

Trial Court Opinion, 3/9/22, at 4-6 (record citations omitted).

Approximately 18 months after the events in the Office Case, Coniker was involved in an incident at Assumption Church. The trial court set forth the facts from the Church Case as follows:

Mr. Coniker has a turbulent relationship with Assumption Church. Indeed, prior to September 20, 2018, the police had been summoned to escort Mr. Coniker from the church's property on multiple occasions.

Before September 20, 2018, Mr. Coniker had also been informed by the church's Priest that he was not to videotape or take pictures inside the church. Mr. Coniker also knew prior to September 20, 2018, that he was not permitted to "bring the [Holy Communion] host out of [the] church" once he had received it. Mr. Coniker understood that he was to consume the host immediately if received in his mouth or within two steps if received in his hand. Mr. Coniker was aware that if he did not follow the foregoing practices regarding the host, his disobedience would cause a disturbance at the church.

On [Thursday,] September 20, 2018, Mr. Coniker went to Assumption Church for morning services. Knowing the

disturbance it would cause and that he had been forbidden from doing so, Mr. Coniker nevertheless intended that morning to take pictures and to record the goings on in the church. He also, despite his incredible assertions to the contrary, intended to violate the host-practices set forth above by removing the host from the church so that he would have God with him later in the day at a court proceeding in Ohio.

After giving Confession before morning services began, Mr. Coniker took out his camera and started to take pictures and videotape of the church. The Priest again told Mr. Coniker that he was not permitted to do so and-given Mr. Coniker's reaction and his history with the church-called the police.

Mass then began, and Mr. Coniker refused to consume the host after receiving it. That refusal caused the Eucharistic Minister to tell Mr. Coniker that he was required to consume the host. Mr. Coniker told the Eucharistic Minister that he was "going to take th[e] host with [him] to court" later that day.[] The Priest then confronted Mr. Coniker, and Mr. Coniker testified that the following occurred:

[H]e stopped me. He says, You can't do that. I said, well then, Father, you come to court-with me to court today. I need a true father in my life. My dad was biologically dead at that point and there's falsehoods-I need God the Father. And so [H]e's in this host, so, I'm going to bring God the Father with me in this host to be physically with me. He said, you can't do that. I said-I knew I was committing a spiritual act of disobedience. . . .

[H]e's telling me I can't do that. He has people surround me. He says, don't let him leave the church.

Accordingly, Mr. Coniker knew he could not leave the church with the host and had been repeatedly told the same, yet he repeatedly refused to listen and repeatedly tried to take the host out of the church without consuming it. The Priest, along with other parishioners, then attempted to prevent Mr. Coniker from leaving with the host.

After receiving the report of a disturbance at Assumption Church, law enforcement arrived on the scene. Police Chief

Matthew Sentner found the Priest and the entire congregation surrounding Mr. Coniker, whose back was up against a wall as he faced about a dozen or so people. After speaking with the Priest, Chief Sentner proceeded to arrest Mr. Coniker for theft of the host. During the arrest, Mr. Coniker was not compliant and, instead, became aggressive with Chief Sentner, who was required to wrestle Mr. Coniker to the ground. [Officer James Dold responded to the church after Mr. Coniker was handcuffed.]

Trial Court Opinion, 3/9/22, at 7-10 (record citations omitted, Chief Sentner's name corrected).

Police charged Coniker in connection with both incidents.^[2] On August 18, 2021, the trial court heard both cases in separate non-jury trials. In the Office Case, the trial court found Coniker guilty of harassment of Attorney Herb and of Ms. Knochel, disorderly conduct at the magistrate's office and at Attorney Herb's office, and defiant trespass. In the Church Case, the trial court found Coniker guilty of harassment of Chief Sentner and of Officer James Dold, as well as disorderly conduct.

The trial court sentenced Coniker to consecutive 90-day periods of probation for an aggregate term of 720 days of probation. Coniker filed timely post-sentence motions, a premature notice of appeal, and an amended post-sentence motion. The trial court ultimately denied Coniker's post-sentence motions, providing: "Mr. Coniker's sentences of probation are terminated, and the Court closes interest in the same." Order, 12/28/21, at 1. Coniker timely appealed. Coniker and the trial court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

This Court consolidated Coniker's cases sua sponte. Coniker raises the following challenges in his combined brief for both cases, which we have reordered for ease of disposition:

Did the Commonwealth provide sufficient evidence to support Mr. Coniker's convictions? More specifically:

a. At [the Office Case], did the Commonwealth fail to produce sufficient evidence to support the Harassment conviction in that it failed to establish that (1) Mr. Coniker had the intent to harass, annoy or alarm anyone, (2) … Mr Coniker had no legitimate purpose to be at Attorney Herb's office, and (3) … multiple acts supported the "course of conduct" charge?

Further, did the Commonwealth present

...