J-S01036-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
EMIL G. BURAK
Appellant No. 1079 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 3, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0014559-2013
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JANUARY 30, 2015
Appellant, Emil G. Burak, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench
trial conviction for summary harassment.1 We affirm.
The trial court opinion sets forth the relevant facts and procedural
history of this case. Therefore, we have no need to restate them.2
Appellant raises one issue for our review:
WAS THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE SUMMARY
HARASSMENT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT WHEN
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1).
2
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on July 3, 2014. On August 1,
2014, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), which Appellant
timely filed on August 22, 2014.
J-S01036-15
[APPELLANT] HAD NO INTENTION TO HARASS, ANNOY, OR
ALARM THE VICTIM DURING THIS ISOLATED AND BRIEF
DISPUTE?
(Appellant’s Brief at 4).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Edward J.
Borkowski, we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The trial court
opinion discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. (See
Trial Court Opinion, filed September 16, 2014, at 3-6) (finding: Appellant
engaged in heated discussion with Victim at township meeting; Appellant
became increasingly agitated and upset with Victim during discussion, at
which time Appellant grabbed Victim’s right elbow and upper arm with both
hands; Victim told Appellant he was hurting her, but Appellant squeezed and
twisted Victim’s arm causing Victim immediate pain, discomfort, and alarm;
Victim had bruising and lump on her right arm as result of Appellant’s
actions; Victim called police and sought medical treatment for her injuries;
Victim’s injuries included numbness in several fingers, and shooting pain and
swelling in her elbow; Commonwealth presented evidence that Appellant
acted with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm Victim when he grabbed,
squeezed, and twisted Victim’s arm, which was sufficient to sustain
Appellant’s summary harassment conviction). Accordingly, we affirm on the
basis of the trial court’s opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-2-
J-S01036-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/30/2015
-3-
Circulated 01/05/2015 03:57 PM
~B!~L
I1Qheny Coun~~Il:IS
·Y. ~A.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, CRIMINAL DIVISION
APPELLEE,
V.
EMIL G. BURAK, CC 201314559
APPELLANT.
1079 WDA 2014
a
l.JJ OPINION
--1
l.L.. FILED BY:
THE HONORABLE
EDWARD J. BORKOWSKI
COPIES TO:
Jessica Herndon, Esq.
Office of the Public Defender
400 County Office Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Michael W. Streily, Esq.
Office of the District Attorney
401 County Courthouse
436 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Circulated 01/05/2015 03:57 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, CRIMINAL DIVISION
APPELLEE,
V. CC 201314559
EMIL G. BURAK,
APPELLANT.
OPINION
BORKOWSKI, 1.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant, Emil Burak, was charged by criminal information (201314559)
with one count of simple assault, 1 and one summary count of harassment?
Appellant proceeded to a nonjury trial on June 3, 2014, at the conclusion of
which Appellant was found not guilty of simple assault but found guilty of one
count of summary harassment. Appellant was sentenced that same day to ninety
days probation.
This timely appeal follows.
118 Pa. C.S. § 2701(a)(I).
2 Thecase was reassigned to the Honorable Edward J. Borkowski after the Honorable Randal
Todd recused himself.
2
Circulated 01/05/2015 03:57 PM
STATEMENT OF ERRORS ON APPEAL
Appellant raises the following issue on appeal, and it is set forth exactly as
Appellant framed it:
a. The evidence was not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr.
Burak committed Summary Harassment against Claire Bryce. Specifically,
the Commonwealth did not prove that Mr. Burak intended to harass, annoy,
or alarm Ms. Bryce. Additionally, the Commonwealth did not prove that Mr.
Burak followed Ms. Bryce about a public place or that he engaged in a
course of conduct that served no legitimate purpose.
FACTS
Claire Bryce, who was elected to the Board of Commissioners for Elizabeth
Township, attended a general meeting on September 16, 2013, regarding the
takeover of the Elizabeth Township Sanitary Authority. Appellant attended the
meeting as a concerned citizen of Elizabeth Township. (T.T. 6-8).3 During the open
meeting Appellant made it clear through heated discussion that he disagreed with
Bryce's position on the issue. (T.T. 8, 31, 62, 77-78).
Following the general meeting, there was a short recess before a closed
executive session was to begin. During this recess Appellant and Bryce found each
other in close proximity to one another. (T.T. 8, 18, 78). Appellant and Bryce
continued their heated discussion about the sanitary authority. Appellant became
increasingly agitated and upset at Bryce and grabbed Bryce's right elbow and
3 The designation "T.T." followed by numerals refers to pages of the Non-Jury Trial Transcript, -
June 3, 2014.
3
Circulated 01/05/2015 03:57 PM
upper arm with both hands. Bryce told Appellant that he was hurting her, and
Appellant squeezed and twisted her arm, which caused Bryce immediate pain,
discomfort, and alarm. (T.T. 9-10, 25-26, 32, 78-79). Once Appellant released
Bryce's arm, Bryce retreated to her desk at the front of the room, and Appellant
left the premises. (T.T. 9,48).
The following day Bryce had a bruise and lump on her right arm where
Appellant had grabbed and twisted it. Bryce called the police and subsequently
sought medical treatment for her arm. (T.T. 10-11, 20-21). Bryce's injuries
sustained by Appellant's assault caused numbness in several fingers, as well as
shooting pain and swelling in her elbow. Bryce remained under doctor's care at the
time of trial. (T.T. 15-16,25; see also T.T. 79-82). Appellant was charged as noted
hereinabove.
DISCUSSION
Appellant alleges in his sole claim that the evidence was insufficient to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant harassed Claire Bryce. This claim
is without merit.
The applicable standard of review that applies to sufficiency claims has been
stated thusly:
Our standard when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is
whether the evidence at trial, and all reasonable inferences
derived therefrom, when reviewed in the light most favorable to
the Commonwealth as verdict-winner, are sufficient to establish
4
Circulated 01/05/2015 03:57 PM
all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We may
not weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of
the fact-finder. Additionally, the evidence at trial need not
preclude every possibility of innocence, and the fact-finder is
free to resolve any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt 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. When evaluating the credibility, and weight of
the evidence, the fact-finder is free to believe all, part or none
of the evidence. For purposes of our review under these
principles, we must review the entire record and consider all the
evidence introduced.
Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493, 499 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations
omitted).
Here, Appellant alleges that the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Appellant intended to annoy, harass, or alarm Bryce. 4 Intent
to harass may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances. Commonwealth v.
Cox, 72 A.3d 719, 721 (Pa. Super. 2013). The evidence presented at trial was
4 Appellant also alleges that the Commonwealth failed to prove that Appellant followed Bryce
about a public place or engaged in a course of conduct that served no legitimate purpose. This
second argument is moot. Appellant was charged with 18 Pa. C.S. § 2709(a)(I), (2), or (3), but
Appellant was convicted under 18 Pa. C.S. § 2709(a)(I). (T.T. 80). These sections are distinct
with separate elements which need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt:
(a) A person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass,
annoy or alarm another, the person:
(l) strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects the other
person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to
do the same;
(2) follows the other person in or about a public place or
places; [or]
(3) engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits
acts which serve no legitimate purpose.
18 Pa. C.S. § 2709(a)(l)-(3).
5
Circulated 01/05/2015 03:57 PM
sufficient to establish that under these circumstances Appellant acted with the
intent to harass, annoy or alarm Bryce when he grabbed, squeezed, and twisted her
arm. See Commonwealth v. Blackham, 909 A.2d 315,319-320 (Pa. Super. 2006)
(evidence sufficient to establish summary harassment where defendant grabbed
victim's arm and victim had a bruise the next day).
Appellant's claim is without merit.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, the judgment of sentence imposed by the Trial
Court should be affirmed.
By the Court,
6