Com. v. Landers, G. ( 2023 )

J-S40005-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
GERALD LANDERS :
:
Appellant : No. 129 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 24, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002982-2021
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED FEBRUARY 14, 2023
George Landers appeals from the judgment of sentence entered after
the trial court convicted him of aggravated assault and other crimes based on
allegations he threw bricks at a vehicle being driven by his neighbor, Brittany
Pugh. On appeal, Landers claims there was insufficient evidence to establish
that he had the specific intent to cause serious bodily injury to support his
conviction for aggravated assault. We disagree and therefore affirm.
For purposes of this appeal, the following facts are undisputed. See
Appellant’s Brief, at 5-8. Landers and Pugh were neighbors living on the same
street in Philadelphia. On March 26, 2021, Landers began shouting threats at
Pugh with statements such as “count your days” and “I got people on your
head. And they’re watching you, and they’re going to kill you.” N.T., waiver
trial, 9/21/21, 16, 18. Pugh called the police and, since the police had not yet
J-S40005-22
arrived, she loaded her children into her SUV and attempted to drive away.
See id., at 18-20.
Pugh stopped at a traffic light at the end of the street where Landers
continued to pursue and harass her. See id., at 20-21. After Pugh told Landers
to leave her alone, he began throwing bricks in the direction of Pugh who was
seated in the driver’s seat of the vehicle. See id., at 21. Pugh was hit by three
bricks; one struck her hand and two in the stomach. See id., at 21-22. Other
bricks hit the vehicle breaking a window, a mirror and denting the exterior.
See id., at 27-28.
Attempting to flee, Pugh drove erratically around a construction zone
and onto the sidewalk. See id., at 22-23. The attack ended when Pugh’s
family came outside in response to her screams for help and Landers walked
away from the scene continuing to shout threats at Pugh: “I’m still going to
get you. This ain’t over. Watch your back.” Id., at 29-30. Pugh did not suffer
serious physical injuries as a result of being hit by the bricks. See id., at 27.
Ultimately, Landers was arrested and, following a bench trial on
September 21, 2021, he was convicted of aggravated assault, possession of
an instrument of crime ("PIC"), terroristic threats, simple assault, criminal
mischief, and recklessly endangering another person ("REAP"). He was
sentenced to two and a half years to five years of confinement for aggravated
assault, three concurrent sentences of two years of probation for PIC,
-2-
J-S40005-22
terroristic threats, and REAP, and a concurrent sentence of one year of
probation for criminal mischief.
On appeal, Landers claims that the evidence was insufficient to find that
he had the intent to inflict serious bodily harm on Pugh and, instead, showed
his intent to instill fear in her. Therefore, he argues that his conviction for
aggravated assault is not sufficiently supported by the evidence.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the court must view the
evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner. See Commonwealth
v. Hennigan, 753 A.2d 245, 253 (Pa. Super. 2000). In cases of criminal
convictions, each element of the crime must be sufficiently evidenced beyond
a reasonable doubt but, “the Commonwealth need not preclude every
possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may be
resolved by the factfinder 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." Id.“A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he: 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 “Bodily
injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious,
permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of
any bodily member or organ." 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301.
-3-
J-S40005-22
Since it is undisputed that Pugh did not suffer serious bodily injury, “the
charge of aggravated assault can be supported only if the evidence supports
a finding of an attempt to cause such injury." Commonwealth v. Fortune,
68 A.3d 980, 985 (Pa. Super. 2013). An attempt requires the defendant take
an intentional and substantial step towards the commission of a crime. See
Id.The court must evaluate a defendant’s intent to inflict serious bodily
injury on a “case-by-case basis” and with consideration of the “totality of the
circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Matthew, 909 A.2d 1254, 1257 (Pa.
2006). Relevant factors that may shed light on a person’s intent may include,
“any restraint on the defendant preventing him from escalating the attack,
the defendant’s use of a weapon or other implement to aid his attack, and his
statements before, during, or after the attack which might indicate his intent
to inflict injury.” Id. (citation omitted).
Here, Landers argues the evidence proved he had the intent to instill
fear in Pugh, not the intent to inflict serious injury. Therefore, he claims the
evidence only supported a verdict of simple assault, not aggravated assault.
First, Landers argues his threats to have the victim killed were evidence
that he only intended to instill fear in Pugh. Landers suggests, since the
inherent intent of a threat is to instill fear, he continued with that intent by
throwing bricks at Pugh’s car to scare her. Once Landers took the overt action
of pursuing Pugh’s car and throwing multiple bricks, the threats directed at
-4-
J-S40005-22
Pugh before, during, and after throwing bricks, served as evidence of
Landers’s intent. This evidence was sufficient to allow the fact-finder to infer
that Landers intended to seriously injure Pugh.
Next, Landers claims he threw bricks to cause damage to the car, not
to strike Pugh. Landers argues the damage to the vehicle was evidence
supporting that his only intended target was the vehicle, and some of the
bricks struck Pugh unintentionally. However, given Landers’s threats to Pugh’s
personal safety, as well as the fact that three bricks struck Pugh, the factfinder
was entitled to infer that Landers intended to hit Pugh. See Commonwealth
v. Holley, 945 A.2d 241, 247 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“Intent can be proven by
direct or circumstantial evidence; it may be inferred from acts or conduct or
from the attendant circumstances.” (citation omitted)).
Landers cites to a dissenting opinion of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
which asserts, “[w]here a finder of fact is presented with evidence that could
support two reasonable conclusions, one of which leads to a finding of guilty
and the other to a finding of not guilty, it is improper for the fact finder, in the
absence of additional evidence, to choose the one that implies guilt.”
Matthew, 909 A.2d at 1259 (J. Baldwin, dissenting). Landers once again
contends that the evidence at trial merely supported an inference that he
intended to frighten Pugh, but not cause her serious bodily injury. However,
as discussed above, there was sufficient additional evidence of Landers’s
intent to support a finding that Landers did not merely intend to frighten Pugh.
-5-
J-S40005-22
In addition to his verbal threats, Landers hit Pugh with not one, but three
bricks. See N.T. 9/21/22, 21-22. All of this evidence was sufficient to allow
the factfinder to determine Landers struck Pugh intentionally.
Therefore, when viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
we find there is sufficient evidence to conclude Landers had the intent to inflict
serious injury necessary to uphold the conviction of aggravated assault.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/14/2023
-6-