Commonwealth v. Jones

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANDRES O. JONES Appellant

No. 1430 MDA 2022

No. J-S35008-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

October 30, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 18, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0000327-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J. ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

PANELLA, P.J.

Andres Jones appeals his judgment of sentence for criminal trespass resisting arrest and public drunkenness. He claims the evidence was insufficient to support each of his three convictions and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Based largely on the well-reasoned trial court opinion, we affirm.

We borrow liberally from the trial court's recitation of the facts, which is supported by the record. Jones and his fiancé at the time, Kelsey Hoxsie, lived together with their son and Jones's daughter from a previous relationship. On November 22, 202, Jones and Hoxsie went to a party at the apartment of their neighbor, Jamie Stare. Stare's brother, Jay Deininger, and Jacob Crablo also attended the party, where alcohol was being served. Jones and Hoxsie left the party late in the evening and went to their apartment next door. At approximately 3:30 a.m., Jones and Hoxsie got into an argument. Hoxsie grabbed her son, and the two went to Stare's apartment and hid in the bathroom.

Jones followed Hoxsie next door. He knocked loudly on the door. Deininger answered the door, and while there is some dispute as to how Jones gained entry, it is undisputed that he entered the apartment. Deininger and Crablo subsequently scuffled with Jones, but they were eventually able to force Jones from the apartment and onto the front porch shared by the two apartments.

Shortly thereafter, Officer Michael McGrath of the Wilkes-Barre City Police Department arrived at the scene and found Jones's body halfway through the front porch window to Stare's residence. Officer James Fisher also responded to the scene.

While Jones disputes what happened next, we note that Officer McGrath testified that he climbed the front porch stairs, at which point Jones assumed a fighting stance and said "Let's go bro." N.T., 4/29/2022, at 66. According to Officer McGrath, Jones smelled of alcohol and showed signs of intoxication. Officer McGrath spoke to the people inside Stare's apartment and then informed Jones he was under arrest. When Officer McGrath attempted to handcuff Jones, Jones pulled away and refused to put his hands behind his back. Officer Fisher then pulled out his taser device and told Jones to comply. Jones responded that he wasn't scared as he had "been tased before." Id. at 45.

Officer Fisher called for additional officers, and two other officers arrived on the scene. The officers were able to take Jones to the ground, and although Jones continued to resist, the officers were ultimately able to place him into custody. Officer McGrath noted that the incident created substantial noise in an otherwise quiet residential neighborhood, and neighbors turned on their lights in response to the disturbance.

Jones was charged with criminal trespass, simple assault, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and public drunkenness. The matter proceeded to a jury trial, at which Hoxsie, Officer McGrath, Officer Fisher, Deininger and Crablo all testified for the Commonwealth. Jones testified in his own defense. Nonetheless, the jury convicted Jones of criminal trespass and resisting arrest. The trial court, meanwhile, found Jones guilty of the summary offense of public drunkenness. The court sentenced Jones to an aggregate probationary term of 15 months in the county intermediate punishment program, with the first 30 days to be served in prison followed by three months under house arrest.

Jones filed post-sentence motions, which the court denied. He then filed a timely notice of appeal and complied with the court's directive to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. In the statement, Jones complained there was insufficient evidence to support any of the three convictions and that the convictions were against the weight of the evidence.

The trial court issued a responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion, in which it thoroughly addressed each of Jones's claims. The court initially recounted the standard of review applicable to sufficiency claims, see Trial Court Opinion, 1/5/2023, at 5, and then individually reviewed the evidence supporting each of Jones's three convictions.

First, the court outlined what the Commonwealth was required to prove in order to sustain a criminal trespass conviction, which a person is guilty of "if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he … breaks into any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof." Id. at 6 (quoting 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3503(a)(1)(ii)). The court then explained how the evidence that Jones forced himself into the residence and then began climbing through the front porch's window was sufficient to sustain such a conviction here. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/25/2023, at 6-8. It specifically rejected Jones's arguments that he had permission to enter Stare's residence and that he had not broken into Stare's apartment. See id. at 7-8.

The court then noted what the Commonwealth needed to prove in order to sustain Jones's conviction for resisting arrest, which a person commits "if, with the intent of preventing a public servant from effecting a lawful arrest or discharging any other duty, the person creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to the public servant or anyone else, or employs means justifying or requiring substantial force to overcome the resistance." Id. at 8-9 (quoting 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5104). The court "did not hesitate to conclude" the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction here, explaining:

Officer McGrath of the Wilkes-Barre City police department testified that as he responded to a 4 AM 911 call for a disorderly male[,] he observed him hanging inside an open window. The Officer approached [Jones] who turned toward him, squared up in a fighting stance and said "Let's go bro." He ignored the threat of a taser and refused to comply with lawful commands. Ultimately it took Officer McGrath, Officer Fisher and two other responding officers to wrestle him into handcuffs.

Trial Court Opinion, 1/5/2023, at 9.

The trial court then turned to Jones's claim that the evidence had been insufficient to support his conviction for public drunkenness, which a person is guilty of "if he appears in any public place manifestly under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance … to the degree that he may endanger himself or other persons or property, or annoy persons in his vicinity." Id. at 10 (quoting 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5505). In finding the Commonwealth had presented sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction here, the trial court specifically rejected Jones's claim that the shared front porch was not a "public place" and he therefore could not be convicted of public drunkenness. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/5/2023, at 11-13 (citing Commonwealth v. Whritenour, 751 A.2d 687, 688 (Pa. Super. 2000) (holding limited access road in private community was a "public place")).

Lastly, the trial court rejected Jones's challenges to the weight of the evidence based on his assertions of witness bias and conflicting testimony.

The trial court summarized the evidence at trial and found the evidence was not so contrary to the verdict as to "shock [its] sense of justice," as a court is required to find before ruling that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. See id. at 14-15 (citing Commonwealth v. Cousar, 928 A.2d 1025, 1036 (Pa. 2007)). The court also noted that it is the province of the fact-finder to assess the credibility of witnesses. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/5/2023, at 14 (citing Commonwealth v. Bruce, 916 A.2d 657, 661 (Pa. Super. 2007)).

In his appellate brief, Jones's first three issues focus on the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his three convictions. However, we detect no error in the trial court's conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to sustain each of Jones's convictions. Jones does not convince us otherwise. With one notable exception, Jones essentially renews arguments on appeal that he raised in his Rule 1925(b) statement and which the trial court found to be without merit. We agree with the trial court that these arguments are without merit and adopt its analysis on the sufficiency claims as our own. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/5/2023, at 5-13.

The one notable exception referenced above is Jones's argument regarding the sufficiency of his resisting arrest conviction. In his Rule 1925(b) statement, Jones specifically argued only that his actions "did not create a situation where a substantial risk of bodily injury to the public servant or anyone existed or that his actions required substantial force to overcome the resistance." Statement of Matters Complained of On Appeal, 11/23/2022, at 1 (unpaginated). He abandons that argument on appeal, instead raising the distinct argument that there was no lawful arrest for him to resist. This claim is waived. See Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998) (holding that any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement are deemed waived).

In his final claim, Jones challenges the trial court's conclusion that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Our review of such a claim, as Jones recognizes, is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in denying the weight claim. See Commonwealth v. Martin, 297 A.3d 424, 436 (Pa. Super. 2023). As noted above, the...