J-S02018-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DARRELL BELL,
Appellant No. 8 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 16, 2011
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009879-2010
BEFORE: MUNDY, OLSON and WECHT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MARCH 11, 2015
Appellant, Darrell Bell, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered
on June 16, 2011 in the Criminal Division of the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County. We affirm.
The trial court summarized the relevant facts as follows:
On June 8, 2010, Police Officer Jason Shensky was in full
uniform on routine patrol on a bicycle on the 3100 block of West
Berks Street. While on patrol, Officer Shensky observed
[Appellant] holding a pink Cobra .380 semi-automatic handgun
in his right hand. A male standing next to [Appellant] said
something to [Appellant], and [Appellant] then looked toward
Officer Shensky. Upon observing Officer Shensky, [Appellant]
threw the handgun into a nearby trashcan and began to walk
away from [the officer].
Officer Shensky rode his bicycle toward [Appellant] to stop him
for an investigation. As [Officer Shensky] approached
[Appellant], [the officer] ordered [Appellant] to put his hands
against a wall and grabbed [Appellant’s] wrist in an attempt to
handcuff him. As soon as Officer Shensky grabbed [Appellant’s]
J-S02018-15
left wrist, [Appellant] spun around and punched Officer Shensky
in the face with a closed fist. [Appellant] attempted to flee, but
Officer Shensky was able to hold onto [Appellant] by his shirt.
[Appellant] continued to resist the arrest by overpowering the
officer and pushing the officer’s head toward [Appellant’s] knee.
Eventually Officer Shensky forced [Appellant] to the ground and
ordered him to remain there.
[Appellant] refused to follow the order and tried to stand up.
When [Appellant] attempted to stand up, Officer Shensky
[deployed] his taser, and [Appellant] fell to the ground. When
[Appellant] attempted to stand up again, Officer Shensky
threatened to use the taser a second time. [Appellant] finally
complied with the officer’s order to remain on the ground. At
this point, a large crowd had gathered to observe [Appellant’s]
arrest. As Officer Shensky handcuffed [Appellant], he began
yelling, “This is how cops get killed,” and told Officer Shensky he
was going to “get him for that.”
Following a non-jury trial, [Appellant] was convicted of
aggravated assault, terroristic threats, simple assault, recklessly
endangering another person, and resisting arrest.[1] The trial
court sentenced [Appellant] to a guideline sentence of 40 to 80
months of incarceration for the aggravated assault conviction
and a consecutive 18 to 36 months of incarceration for the
terroristic threats conviction. [Appellant] filed a timely appeal[.]
Trial Court Opinion, 6/19/14, at 1-2.
Appellant’s brief raises the following questions for our review:
Was the evidence [sufficient] to support the verdict of guilty of
terroristic threats?
Appellant’s Brief at 7.
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702, 2706, 2701, 2705, and 5104.
-2-
J-S02018-15
Appellant’s sole issue challenges the sufficiency of the evidence offered
in support of his conviction for terroristic threats.2 Our scope and standard
of review over such claims is well established.
A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of
law, subject to plenary review. When reviewing a sufficiency of
the evidence claim, the appellate court must review all of the
evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the
light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the verdict
winner. Evidence will be deemed to support the verdict when it
establishes each element of the crime charged and the
commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of
innocence or establish the defendant's guilt to a mathematical
certainty. Finally, the trier 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. Levy, 83 A.3d 457 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted).
____________________________________________
2
The Crimes Code defines the offense of terroristic threats as follows:
§ 2706. Terroristic threats
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of terroristic
threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly,
a threat to:
(1) commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize
another;
(2) cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or
facility of public transportation; or
(3) otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or cause
terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless
disregard of the risk of causing such terror or
inconvenience.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2706(a)(1)-(3).
-3-
J-S02018-15
Appellant advances three arguments in support of his contention that
the evidence was insufficient to convict him of terroristic threats. First, he
claims that his statements to Officer Shensky did not include a threat to
commit a crime of violence. Next, Appellant claims that he lacked the
requisite intent to terrorize another. Finally, Appellant asserts that his
statements constituted a momentary threat that resulted from anger.
We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties, the
certified record, and the opinion of the trial court. Based upon our review,
we conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief for the reasons expressed
by the learned trial court in its opinion issued pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
Because the trial court adequately and accurately assessed the claims raised
by Appellant in this appeal, we adopt its opinion as our own. Therefore, we
direct the parties to include a copy of the trial court’s opinion with all future
filings concerning our disposition in this appeal.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/11/2015
-4-