J-S53027-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MARION CROSBY,
Appellant No. 267 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of February 5, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0012478-2013
BEFORE: DONOHUE, OLSON AND PLATT,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 08, 2014
Appellant, Marion Crosby, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on February 5, 2014. We affirm.
The trial court accurately summarized the factual background of this
case as follows:
On July 23, 2013, Pittsburgh Housing Authority Police Officer
Vincent Dicenzo was dispatched for a fight at 34 Prospect
Terrace, East Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, at approximately
5:00 [p.m]. When Officer Dicenzo arrived the fight had already
ended, but there were still groups of persons around 34 Prospect
Terrace and 28 Prospect Terrace. Officer Dicenzo spoke with the
parents of the fighting juveniles, including Appellant, and warned
them that if the children did not stop fighting the families could
be evicted and the parents potentially charged as well.
Appellant ordered her children back inside, and promised Officer
Dicenzo that her children would not leave the house again that
night. Officer Dicenzo remained on the scene until all parties
dispersed, and resumed his patrol duties.
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S53027-14
Shortly before 9:00 [p.m.], a large group from 34 Prospect
Terrace began taunting and disruptive behavior outside 28
Prospect Terrace. As a result, approximately [60] children,
teenagers, and adults gathered and were engaged in riotous and
another girl. [D.E.] wielded a blunt object in a sock as a weapon
while approximately [50] people gathered in riotous conduct
around the fighting girls. Appellant walked around the perimeter
of the fight, screaming encouragement to her daughter as she
fought. Appellant made no attempts to stop the fight or remove
her daughter from the situation.
By the time police arrived the fight had broken up. Police
treated the injured parties and started to interview witnesses on
the scene. Appellant claimed to know nothing of the fight and
that her children were not involved. Police later spoke with
witnesses on the scene and viewed several videos from
witnesses who captured the event.
Trial Court Opinion, 5/23/14, at 3-5 (internal citations omitted).
The procedural history of this case is as follows. Appellant was
charged via criminal complaint with endangering the welfare of a child1 and
disorderly conduct.2 A criminal information charging those same offenses
was filed on October 23, 2013. Prior to trial, the Commonwealth withdrew
the child endangerment charge and amended the disorderly conduct charge
to a summary offense from a misdemeanor offense. At the conclusion of a
bench trial on February 5, 2014, the trial court found Appellant guilty of
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304(a)(1).
2
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(1).
-2-
J-S53027-14
disorderly conduct. She was immediately sentenced to pay a fine of
$100.00. This timely appeal followed.3
Appellant raises one issue for our consideration:
Was Appellant's conviction of summary disorderly conduct . . .
not supported by sufficient evidence . . .?
Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict her
verdict is a question of law; thus, our standard of review is de novo and our
Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66
(Pa. 2014) (citation omitted). In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence
in the light most favorable to the [Commonwealth], there is sufficient
evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond
Commonwealth v. Kearney, 92 A.3d 51, 64 (Pa.
3
On February 19, 2014, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise
See
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On March 14, 2014, Appellant filed her concise
statement. On May 23, 2014, the trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion.
We note, however, that the concise statement fails to comply with Rule
1925(b)(4). In particular, the concise statement is not concise. Instead,
the concise statement contains over four pages of material prior to stating
ounsel frequently
practices before this Court. We, therefore, remind him that concise
statements should fully comply with Rule 1925(b)(4). Despite this technical
violation, we decline to find waiver.
-3-
J-S53027-14
preclude every possibility of innocence. . . . [T]he fact-finder is free to
Commonwealth v. Trinidad,
90 A.3d 721, 728 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).
As we have explained:
on is
guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public
inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk
thereof, [s]he: (1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in
in
Section 5503 or elsewhere in the Crimes Code. Commonly,
Collegiate Dicti
Id. at 1271 [12]72.
Commonwealth v. Love, 896 A.2d 1276, 1285 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal
denied, 940 A.2d 363 (Pa. 2007) (footnote omitted).
encouragement to her
5/23/14, at 4. We conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the
conduct. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the
evidence produced at trial included a video which showed Appellant walking
around the perimeter of the fight for approximately 30 seconds. N.T.,
-4-
J-S53027-14
2/5/14, at 20-21. On the video, Appellant can be heard shouting something
to her daughter. Id. at 9, 20-21. Officer Dicenzo testified that the shouting
Id. at 10. The trial court watched the
whole video during trial and then had the video replayed in smaller
segments. It determined that the individual on the video was Appellant and
that the shouting from Appellant was encouragement towards her daughter.
This inference is supported by other evidence presented at trial.
follow [Ap Id. at 18. A reasonable inference
her, is that Appellant was shouting encouragement to her daughter during
the fight.
she was attempting to break up the fight
involving her daughter, not encourage her daughter, is without merit. On a
sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the Commonwealth. Viewed in this light, Appellant was
not attempting to break up the fight, but rather was encouraging her
supported by the record.
Having determined that Appellant encouraged her daughter in the
fight, we turn to whether such encouragement is disorderly conduct. As the
trial court noted in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, this case is very similar to
-5-
J-S53027-14
Commonwealth v. Fedorek, 946 A.2d 93 (Pa. 2008). In Fedorek, the
defendant urged her
Id. at 95. Our Supreme Court
concluded that this was sufficient to convict the defendant under section
5503(a)(1). Id. at 99. Our Supreme Court then went on to hold that not
only did the d
rose to the level of misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Id. at 102. Appellant
does not attempt to distinguish Fedorek in her brief before this Court, nor
could she. In this case, as in Fedorek, Appellant encouraged an individual
to engage in a violent fight. In Fedorek, our Supreme Court concluded that
such conduct supported a conviction under section 5503(a)(1). We do so as
vidence
to support her conviction for disorderly conduct is without merit.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/8/2014
-6-