J-S46003-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JAMAL EL PURNELL,
Appellant No. 2538 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 30, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): MC-51-CR-0045891-2013
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 02, 2016
Appellant, Jamal El Purnell, appeals from the judgment of sentence of
two years’ probation, imposed on March 30, 2015, in the Philadelphia County
Municipal Court, following his conviction for resisting arrest, 18 Pa.C.S. §
5104. On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to
sustain his conviction. After careful review, we affirm.
The facts underlying Appellant’s conviction are as follows:
On November 29, 2013, at approximately 9:00 p.m.,
Police Officer Bickel and his partner were on duty performing a
“park and walk” at the Hill Creek Homes housing project. It is a
high crime area; there are drug and narcotic sales, robberies,
and burglaries. In the middle of the development, at 534 Adams
Avenue, the officers encountered Appellant. Appellant was
walking very quickly in a perpendicular direction to the officers.
Officer Bickel yelled “yo” to Appellant. Appellant then stopped
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S46003-16
walking, saw the officers, turned around, and discarded items
into the grass behind him. The officers crossed the street and
walked up to Appellant. Appellant turned around with his hands
out to his sides and became verbally aggressive to the officers.
Appellant asked why the officers were stopping him and
proceeded to yell at them. At this point, Officer Bickel walked
past Appellant to the area where Appellant previously discarded
the items and found drugs, specifically, cocaine, crack cocaine,
and marijuana. While Officer Bickel was picking up the
discarded drugs, his partner told Appellant to put his hands on
his head so that [the officer] could do a frisk for weapons. While
Officer Bickel’s partner was frisking Appellant, Appellant’s hands
kept “coming down” from his head. Officer Bickel’s partner
sought to put Appellant in handcuffs to restrain him. When he
had one handcuff on Appellant, Appellant tried to run. At that
point, the officer grabbed Appellant by the wrist and the two of
them fell to the ground. Appellant was still trying to get away by
pulling himself away from the officer. Officer Bickel saw what
was happening and ran over to Appellant and jumped on his
back while [the officer’s] partner was still wrapped around
Appellant’s waist. At this point, Officer Bickel, his partner, and
Appellant were all on the ground. Officer Bickel yelled, “police,
police, give me your hands, stop resisting.” Officer Bickel and
his partner were eventually able to place Appellant into custody.
None of the officers sustained any injuries. The episode lasted
approximately thirty seconds.
Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 1/13/16, at 1-3 (citations to the record omitted).
Based on these facts, Appellant was charged with resisting arrest,
possession of a controlled substance, and possession of a small amount of
marijuana, 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(16) and (a)(31), respectively. On March
30, 2015, following a non-jury trial before the Philadelphia County Municipal
Court, Appellant was convicted of resisting arrest, but acquitted of the
possession offenses. He was sentenced that same day to two years’
probation. On April 28, 2015, Appellant filed a petition for writ of certiorari
-2-
J-S46003-16
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. On July 27, 2015, the
court denied Appellant’s petition.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal with this Court, and also
timely complied with the court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal. Herein, he presents one
question for our review: “Was not the evidence insufficient as a matter of
law to sustain [A]ppellant’s conviction for resisting arrest, where [A]ppellant
did not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to the police officer, and
where his conduct did not require substantial force to overcome?”
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
Preliminarily, we note that,
[a] lower court's decision on the issuance of a writ of certiorari
will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Certiorari
provides a narrow scope of review in a summary criminal matter
and allows review solely for questions of law. Questions of fact,
admissibility, sufficiency or relevancy of evidence questions may
not be entertained by the reviewing court on certiorari. A
petition for a writ of certiorari provides an aggrieved party an
alternative to a trial de novo in the Court of Common Pleas.
Commonwealth v. Elisco, 666 A.2d 739, 740–741 (Pa. Super. 1995)
(internal citations omitted). Furthermore,
[i]n reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must
determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, as well as all
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light
most favorable to the verdict winner, are sufficient to support all
elements of the offense. Commonwealth v. Moreno, 14 A.3d
133 (Pa. Super. 2011). Additionally, we may not reweigh the
evidence or substitute our own judgment for that of the fact
finder. Commonwealth v. Hartzell, 988 A.2d 141 (Pa. Super.
2009). The evidence may be entirely circumstantial as long as it
-3-
J-S46003-16
links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreno, supra at 136.
Commonwealth v. Koch, 39 A.3d 996, 1001 (Pa. Super. 2011).
The offense of resisting arrest is defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 5104, as
follows:
§ 5104. Resisting arrest or other law enforcement
A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, with
the intent of preventing a public servant from effecting a lawful
arrest or discharging any other duty, the person creates a
substantial risk of bodily injury to the public servant or anyone
else, or employs means justifying or requiring substantial force
to overcome the resistance.
18 Pa.C.S. § 5104 (emphasis added). Moreover, proving the crime of
resisting arrest “does not require the aggressive use of force such as a
striking or kicking of the officer.” Commonwealth v. McDonald, 17 A.3d
1282, 1285 (Pa. Super. 2011). Indeed, even passive resistance, which
requires officers to use substantial force to overcome, has been deemed
sufficient to sustain a conviction for resisting arrest. See Commonwealth
v. Thompson, 922 A.2d 926, 928 (Pa. Super. 2007).
In the present case, Appellant argues that the evidence was
insufficient to prove that he created a substantial risk of bodily injury to the
officers, or that substantial force was required to overcome his resistance.
Appellant explains that his “conduct consisted of letting his elbow drop from
his head while being frisked; trying to get away from the police; and while
on the ground with police on top of him, keeping his hand near his waist for
less than thirty seconds.” Appellant’s Brief at 7. Appellant stresses that he
-4-
J-S46003-16
“did not strike the officers” or cause injury to either officer. Id. For these
reasons, he maintains that this conduct did not create a risk of bodily injury
to the officers, nor require substantial force to overcome.
We disagree, as we deem the evidence - viewed in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth - sufficient to prove that Appellant’s
resistance required substantial force to quell. The following two cases
support our decision. First, in Thompson, this Court upheld the defendant’s
resisting arrest conviction based on the following facts:
Officer Ewing testified that she struggled to pull [Thompson]
apart from her husband with whom she had interlocked her arms
and legs. Although Officer Canfield verbally commanded
Appellant several times to put her hands behind [her] back, she
refused to obey and held her arms tightly beneath [her]. Officer
Canfield testified that his attempts to restrain the couple to place
them under arrest left him “exhausted.”
Thompson, 922 A.2d at 928.
Second, in Commonwealth v. Clark, 761 A.2d 190 (Pa. Super.
2000), an officer tried to arrest Clark, at which point Clark “took a fighting
stance,” and “the officer had to pepper-spray” him. Id. at 193. The officer
then had to “chase [Clark] down traffic lanes before apprehending him. Upon
attempting to apprehend [Clark] there was a struggle, and the arresting
[o]fficer had to roll [Clark] over on the ground to handcuff him.” Id. This
Court concluded that “[s]ubstantial force was thus required to overcome
[Clark’s] resistance to the arrest.” Id. at 193-94.
-5-
J-S46003-16
Here, as in Clark, Appellant tried to escape an officer’s attempts to
arrest him. While no pepper spray was used, the officer did have to wrap
his arms around Appellant’s waist and drag Appellant to the ground.
Nevertheless, Appellant’s resistance did not cease; instead, he continued to
struggle to free himself from the officer’s grasp, requiring Officer Bickler to
assist his partner by jumping on Appellant’s back. As in Thompson,
Appellant ignored Officer Bickler’s verbal commands to stop resisting, and
continued to keep his free, un-cuffed hand at his waist rather than bringing
it to his back to allow the officer to handcuff him. Also similar to
Thompson, and more egregious than in Clark, it took the efforts of two
officers to overcome Appellant’s resistance and handcuff him. In light of
Appellant’s conduct, and this Court’s decisions in Thompson and Clark, we
conclude that substantial force was required to overcome Appellant’s
resistance.
The cases on which Appellant relies do not compel the opposite result.
First, in Commonwealth v. Rainey, 426 A.2d 1148 (Pa. Super. 1981), a
police officer attempted to arrest the defendant, who was intoxicated. Id. at
1148. The defendant “began to shake himself violently, to wiggle and
squirm” in an effort to escape the officer’s grasp. Id. at 1148-1149. It
ultimately took three officers to subdue him. Id. During the incident, one
officer sustained a knee injury. Id. In concluding that the defendant’s
conduct did not amount to resisting arrest, we stressed that his “actions in
attempting to escape were no more than efforts ‘to shake off the
-6-
J-S46003-16
policeman's detaining arm.’ [The defendant] neither struck, nor struck out
at the arresting officers; nor did he kick or push them. At most this was a
‘minor scuffle’ incident to an arrest.” Id. at 1150 (citation omitted).
Notably, the Rainey panel did not explicitly discuss the ‘substantial
force’ element of section 5104. Therefore, Rainey does not offer much
guidance to our decision herein.1 Additionally, the other two cases on which
Appellant relies are inapplicable. For instance, in Commonwealth v.
Eberhardt, 450 A.2d 651 (Pa. Super. 1982), we discussed why the evidence
was insufficient to prove that the defendant risked substantial injury to the
arresting officers, but we did not address the substantial force aspect of
resisting arrest because the defendant “was not charged with this part of
section 5104 in the information.” Id. at 653. In Commonwealth v.
Wertelet, 696 A.2d 206 (Pa. Super. 1997), this Court vacated the
defendant’s resisting arrest conviction because his arrest was illegal; we did
not discuss the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the defendant caused a
substantial risk of injury, or that substantial force was required to subdue
____________________________________________
1
Moreover, not long after Rainey, this Court characterized, without
specificity, the above-quoted language of Rainey as “dictum” that should
not be read as suggesting that “an essential element of the crime of
resisting arrest [is] that the actor strike or kick the arresting officer.”
Commonwealth v. Miller, 475 A.2d 145, 146 n.4 (Pa. Super. 1984). Thus,
while Rainey can be read as supporting that a ‘minor scuffle’ is insufficient
to constitute resisting arrest, the precedential impact of the remainder of the
Rainey decision is questionable.
-7-
J-S46003-16
him. Id. at 208. Clearly, neither Eberhardt nor Wertelet control our
decision herein.
In sum, Thompson and Clark support our conclusion that Appellant’s
resistance required substantial force to overcome.2 The cases on which
Appellant relies to challenge his resisting arrest conviction are either
inapplicable or unconvincing regarding that aspect of section 5104. Because
Appellant does not dispute the legality of his arrest, the elements of resisting
arrest were satisfied in this case.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/2/2016
____________________________________________
2
Accordingly, we need not address whether the evidence proved that
Appellant’s conduct caused a substantial risk of bodily injury to the arresting
officers.
-8-
J-S46003-16
-9-