Com. v. Hall, B.

J-S23012-19 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. BOBBY HALL, Appellant No. 1027 WDA 2018 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 28, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0005761-2017 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and COLINS, J.* MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 18, 2019 Appellant, Bobby Hall, appeals from the judgment of sentence of an aggregate term of 2 years’ probation, imposed after he was convicted, following a non-jury trial, of simple assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1)) and official oppression (18 Pa.C.S. § 5301(1)). We affirm. Appellant presents the following two issues for our review: I. There was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for simple assault where the medical report stated that Michael Miller did not suffer any injuries and the Commonwealth failed to establish that Hall intended or attempted to cause any injury to Michael Miller, and the trial court erred in denying the post-sentence motion raising this claim. II. There was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for official oppression where the Commonwealth failed to establish that Michael Miller was mistreated by [Appellant] ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S23012-19 in [Appellant’s] capacity as a corrections officer, where: (1) Michael Miller did not appear for trial and offer any supporting testimony; (b) the Commonwealth failed to offer into evidence any written prison policies and procedures to establish [Appellant’s] conduct was unlawful; and (c) the Commonwealth failed to establish whether [Appellant] knowingly and illegally acted in bad faith in response to Michael Miller spitting in his face, and the trial court erred in denying the post-sentence motion raising this claim. Appellant’s Brief at 5. We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law. Additionally, we have reviewed the thorough and well- reasoned opinion of the Honorable Beth A. Lazzara of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. We conclude that Judge Lazzara’s opinion accurately disposes of the issues presented by Appellant. Accordingly, we adopt her opinion as our own and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence for the reasons set forth therein. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/18/2019 -2- Circulated 05/22/2019 12:35 PM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, CC No. 2017-5761 v. JRIGINAL Criminal Division Clopl Of Court necords \l!,·qi1l"'V County, PA BOBBY HALL, · Defendant. OPINION BETH A. LAZZARA, JUDGE Court of Common Pleas Copies Sent To: :-'�·�, .· ...... �"·�·.} Mike W. Streily, Esq. Office of the District Attorney 401 Courthouse 4 1 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 L"]�'.-;;::.,, Diana Stavroulakis, Esq. 262 Elm Court Pittsburgh, PA 15237 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, CRIMINAL DIVISION vs. cc» 2017-5761 BOBBY HALL, Defendant. OPINION This is a direct appeal from the judgment of sentence entered on February 28, 2018, following a non-jury trial that took place on February 28. 2018. The Defendant was charged with Simple Assault (18 Pa. C.S.A. §2701(a)(1)) and Official Oppression ( 18 Pa C.S.A. §5301 ( 1 ). At the conclusion of trial, this court found the Defendant guilty of both charges. The Defendant waived his right to a Presentence Report and proceeded to sentencing immediately following his convictions. The Defendant was sentenced to two (2) years of probation at each count, ordered to run concurrently. A No Contact Order was imposed, prohibiting the Defendant from havlng contact with inmates Michael Miller and Jamie Painter. The Defendant was ordered to pay court costs. A post-sentence motion was filed by the Defendant on March 12, 2018. On March 16, 2018, appellate counsel entered her appearance on the record. On March 23, 2018, the Defendant's trial counsel sought leave to withdraw from representation. His request was granted that same day. A supplemental post sentence motion was filed on May 14, 2018. The motion was heard and denied on June 19, 2018. This timely appeal followed. On August 1, 2018, this court issued an Order pursuant to Pa. R.A. P .1925(b }, directing the Defendant to file a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal ("Concise Statement") no later than August 24, 2018. On August 24, 2018, the Defendant filed a timely Concise Statement and raised the following allegations of error on appeal: a. There was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for simple assault where the medical report stated that Michael Miller did not suffer any Injuries and the Commonwealth failed to establlsh that Hall intended or attempted to cause any injury to Michael Miller, and the trial court erred in denying the post-sentence motion raising this claim. b. There was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for official oppression where the Commonwealth failed to establish that Michael Miller was mistreated by Hall in his capacity as a corrections officer where, (a) Michael Miller dld not appear for trial and offer any supporting testimony; (b} the Commonwealth failed to offer into evidence any written prison policies and procedures to establish Bobby Hall's conduct was unlawful; and (c) the Commonwealth failed to establish whether Hall knowingly and Illegally acted in bad faith in response to Michael Miller spitting in his face, and the trial court erred in denying the post-sentence motion raising this claim. (Concise Statement, pp. 2-4). 2 The Defendant's contentions are without merit. This court respectfully requests that the Defendant's convictions and sentences be upheld for the reasons that follow. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On the evening of December 10, 2016, the Defendant, a Pennsylvania State Department of Corrections Officer ("CO"), was working as a "control booth officer'' (also known as a "bubble control officer'') on the A-200 Block at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh ("SCI Pittsburgh"). (Trial Transcript ("TI"), 2/28/18, pp. 12-14, 100). As a CO, the Defendant was responsible for "provid[ing] security for the prison, inmates, and staff." (TI, p. 11 ). It is also the duty of a CO to ensure inmate compliance with the rules and regulations of the Department of Corrections, as well as ensure staff compliance with the code of ethics. (TI, pp. 11, 12). As a control booth officer, the Defendant was responsible for overseeing that "all passes are issued out, all movements are being made at all times," and that "cell doors are being opened properly at all times." (TT, p. 14). On December 10, 2016, the Defendant was working the same shift as his co-worker, CO John Bezts. (TT, pp. 12-13). The shift began at 14:00 hours (or 2 p.m.). (TI, pp. 12-13). At approximately 6:50 p.m., CO Bezts was preparing to perform cell compliance checks in the pod, which was a therapeutic community for drug and alcohol treatment. (TI, pp. 14-16, 74). The Defendant specifically asked CO Bezts to conduct a compliance check of a cell which belonged to Inmate Michael Miller and his cellmate, 3 Jamie Painter. (TI, pp. 15-16, 31, 55, 57). Unbeknownst to CO Bezts, the Defendant requested the compliance check of Inmate Miiier's cell because the Defendant and Miller had gotten into an argument about "yard time" shortly before the compliance checks. (TT, pp. 56-58). CO Bezts agreed to perform the check. (IT, pp.15-16, 31 ). CO Bezts, along with another corrections officer, CO Mitchell, were inside