Com. v. Smith, C. ( 2015 )

J-S01009-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH SMITH, :
:
Appellant : No. 363 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on February 5, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Criminal Division, No. CP-02-CR-0003875-2013
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JANUARY 30, 2015
Christopher Joseph Smith (“Smith”) appeals from the judgment of
sentence imposed following his convictions of Aggravated Assault and
Robbery—Threatening Immediate Bodily Injury.1 We affirm.
In March 2013, Smith was drinking and playing pool at a bar, where
the victim, Michael Wlazinski (“Wlazinski”), was also drinking. At closing
time, Smith took Wlazinski’s coat from his chair and began to leave. When
Wlazinski tried to recover his coat, Smith punched Wlazinski in the face.
Wlazinski lost consciousness and fell to the floor, where Smith continued to
punch him several times. Wlazinski suffered broken orbital bones, and
underwent emergency surgery to insert 3 metal plates and 11 screws to hold
his face and eye socket together.
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1), 3701(a)(1)(iv).
J-S01009-15
After a bench trial, Smith was convicted of Aggravated Assault and
Robbery—Threatening Immediate Bodily Injury. The trial court sentenced
Smith to 4 to 8 years in prison for each offense, to be served concurrently,
with credit for time served. Smith filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a
timely court-ordered Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b)
Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.
On appeal, Smith raises the following question for our review: “Did the
Commonwealth present sufficient evidence, as a matter of law, for []
Aggravated Assault?” Brief for Appellant at 4.2
Smith argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that
Wlazinski suffered serious bodily injury, and that Smith specifically intended
to cause serious injury. Id. at 8. Smith also contends that injuries from a
punch are not permanent, and are not serious enough to constitute serious
bodily injury. Id. at 8-9. Smith argues that even if the Commonwealth had
proven serious bodily injury, the Commonwealth did not present sufficient
evidence to establish that Smith acted intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly
because the punches occurred in quick succession, without an opportunity to
contemplate stopping. Id. at 9-10.
We apply the following standard of review when considering a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence:
2
Smith does not raise any claims related to the Robbery—Threatening
Immediate Bodily Injury conviction.
-2-
J-S01009-15
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
finder 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. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 39-40 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation
omitted).
Under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1), Aggravated Assault is defined as
follows:
(a) Offense defined.—A person is guilty of aggravated assault
if he:
(1) attempts to cause serious bodily injury to
another, or causes such injury intentionally,
knowingly or recklessly under circumstances
manifesting extreme indifference to the value of
human life
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1). Serious bodily injury is defined as “[b]odily
injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious,
permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of
-3-
J-S01009-15
any bodily member or organ.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301. “The intent to cause
serious bodily injury may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence.”
Commonwealth v. Matthew, 909 A.2d 1254, 1257 (Pa. 2006). Intent
may be determined using a totality of the circumstances test, to be applied
on a case-by-case basis. Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Alexander, 383
A.2d 887, 889-90 (Pa. 1978)).
Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the evidence was
sufficient to sustain Smith’s Aggravated Assault conviction. Smith
repeatedly punched Wlazinki, continuing even as Wlazinski lay helplessly on
the ground. N.T., 8/29/13, at 35-36. Wlazinski suffered injuries causing
serious and permanent disfigurement, and protracted impairment of the
function of his eye and mouth. Id. at 18-19. Wlazinski had metal plates
and screws placed in his face to repair his fractured orbital socket. Id. at
17. Wlazinski also suffers a persistent flinching in his left eye, and loss of
feeling in parts of his mouth. Id. at 18-19.
Under the totality of the circumstances, the evidence was sufficient to
prove that Smith intended to cause serious bodily injury. See
Commonwealth v. Davis, 406 A.2d 1087, 1089 (Pa. Super. 1979) (holding
that a single punch causing multiple jaw fractures constituted serious bodily
injury). Smith’s delivery of the punches, in rapid succession, does not
disprove his intent to cause serious bodily harm. Further, the fact that
Wlazinski fell to the floor after the first punch suggests that in the time it
-4-
J-S01009-15
would have taken for Smith to kneel down to continue punching Wlazinski,
Smith could have contemplated stopping. See Commonwealth v. Dailey,
828 A.2d 356, 360-61 (Pa. Super. 2003) (affirming the trial court’s holding
that evidence showing that the defendant intended to strike again after
rendering the victim “dazed” was sufficient to establish intent to inflict
serious bodily injury and aggravated assault). Thus, the evidence is
sufficient to sustain Smith’s conviction for Aggravated Assault.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/30/2015
-5-