Com. v. Ruiz, D. ( 2023 )

J-S05025-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
DANNY RUIZ :
:
Appellant : No. 929 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 20, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-25-CR-0002610-2021
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED: March 17, 2023
Danny Ruiz appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the Court
of Common Pleas of Erie County. We affirm.
Following trial, a jury convicted Ruiz of one count each of aggravated
assault—attempt to cause serious bodily injury,1 simple assault,2 recklessly
endangering another person,3 disorderly conduct,4 and harassment.5 At trial,
the victim testified that Ruiz kicked and punched her in the head, face, and
mouth while she was on the ground. The assault was captured on video,
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1).
2 Id. at § 2701(a)(1).
3 Id. at § 2705.
4 Id. at §5503(a)(1).
5 Id. at § 2709(a)(1).
J-S05025-23
which the jury viewed. At some point during the altercation, the victim was
rendered unconscious, and she later went to the hospital. The victim
sustained facial and dental injuries.
Following Ruiz’s conviction, the court sentenced Ruiz to ten to twenty
years’ incarceration. Ruiz filed a post-sentence motion, which was denied,
followed by this timely appeal. Both Ruiz and the trial court have complied
with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
On appeal, Ruiz raises one issue: “Did the Commonwealth present
sufficient evidence to sustain [his] conviction for aggravated assault?”
Appellant’s Brief, at 2. Ruiz argues that in order to sustain his conviction, the
jury would have had to have found that he either actually caused serious
bodily injury or attempted to cause bodily injury. Id. at 11. This claim is
meritless.
A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law.
In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, we must determine whether
the evidence, and all reasonable inferences deducible from that,
viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as
verdict[]winner, are sufficient to establish all the elements of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We may not weigh the
evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder.
Issues of witness credibility are the province of the fact-finder, not
the appellate court. However, where the evidence offered to
support the verdict is in contradiction to the physical facts, in
contravention to human experience and the laws of nature, then
the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law.
Commonwealth v. Heater, 899 A.2d 1126, 1131 (Pa. Super. 2006)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
-2-
J-S05025-23
A person may be convicted of aggravated assault, graded as a felony of
the first degree, if that person “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 “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. “For aggravated assault purposes,
an ‘attempt’ is found where the accused, with the required specific intent, acts
in a manner which constitutes a substantial step toward perpetrating a serious
bodily injury upon another.” Commonwealth v. Gruff, 822 A.2d 773, 776
(Pa. Super. 2003). “Intent can be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence;
it may be inferred from acts or conduct or from the attendant circumstances.”
Id. (citation omitted).
After our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the relevant law,
we affirm the judgment of sentence based on the opinion authored by the
Honorable John J. Mead. See Trial Court Opinion, 9/21/22, at 4 (“Sufficient
evidence, as found by the jury, existed to prove [Ruiz] intentionally acted in
a manner which constituted a substantial or significant step toward
perpetrating serious bodily injury upon [the victim].”).
The parties are directed to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of
further proceedings.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-3-
J-S05025-23
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/17/2023
-4-