J-S43034-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
RONALD P. MORENCY, JR.
Appellant No. 3041 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 11, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0002533-2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and OLSON, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JULY 21, 2015
Appellant, Ronald P. Morency, Jr., appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, following his
jury trial convictions for resisting arrest or other law enforcement and
disorderly conduct and his bench trial conviction for the summary offense of
harassment.1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them.
Appellant raises two issues for our review:
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5104, 5503, 2709, respectively.
J-S43034-15
WAS PASSIVE FORCE EMPLOYED BY APPELLANT
SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT APPELLANT OF RESISTING
ARREST?
WAS THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A
CONVICTION FOR MISDEMEANOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT
PURSUANT TO 18 PA.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(1), FOR ENGAGING
IN FIGHTING OR THREATENING, OR IN VIOLENT,
TUMULTUOUS BEHAVIOR WHEN THE ONLY WARNING TO
DESIST WAS GIVEN AFTER THE ALTERCATION WAS OVER
AND THE EVIDENCE, AT MOST, CONSTITUTES A SUMMARY
OFFENSE?
(Appellant’s Brief at 4).
When examining a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our
standard of review is:
[W]hether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the
light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is
sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every
element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In
applying [the above] test, we may not weigh the evidence
and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In
addition, we note that the facts and circumstances
established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every
possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a
defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder 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. The Commonwealth may sustain
its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial
evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire
record must be evaluated and all evidence actually
received must be considered. 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. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal
denied, 613 Pa. 642, 32 A.3d 1275 (2011) (quoting Commonwealth v.
-2-
J-S43034-15
Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super. 2005)).
Section 5104 of the Crimes Code defines the offense of resisting arrest
or other law enforcement 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.A. § 5104. Additionally, a person is guilty of disorderly conduct if,
with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly
creating a risk thereof, he: “engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent
or tumultuous behavior….” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(1).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable C. Theodore
Fritsch, Jr., we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions
presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed December 8, 2014, at 5-9)
(finding: 1) although Appellant did not create substantial risk of bodily injury
to arresting officers, his conduct required officers to use substantial force to
effectuate arrest; when Officer Lawhead informed Appellant he was under
arrest, Appellant assumed fighting stance and challenged officer; Appellant
continually refused to place his arms behind his back; further, Appellant’s
physical resistance caused Officer Lawhead to seek assistance from his
-3-
J-S43034-15
partner to effectuate arrest; 2) Appellant engaged in tumultuous behavior,
which persisted after Appellant received reasonable warnings to desist;
Appellant’s conduct occurred outside market, within earshot of patrons;
Appellant threatened Victim, uttered profanities, and pushed Victim to
ground; Appellant continued his unruly behavior, even after Victim and
Officer Lawhead repeatedly asked Appellant to stop). Accordingly, we affirm
on the basis of the trial court opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/21/2015
-4-
Circulated 07/09/2015 01:31 PM
Circulated 07/09/2015 01:31 PM
Circulated 07/09/2015 01:31 PM
Circulated 07/09/2015 01:31 PM
Circulated 07/09/2015 01:31 PM
Circulated 07/09/2015 01:31 PM
Circulated 07/09/2015 01:31 PM
Circulated 07/09/2015 01:31 PM
Circulated 07/09/2015 01:31 PM
Circulated 07/09/2015 01:31 PM
Com. v. Morency, R.
Combined Opinion