J-S48042-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
DERRICK MADDOX, :
:
Appellant : No. 171 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 22, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County,
Criminal Division, No(s): CP-26-CR-0001430-2015
BEFORE: BOWES, DUBOW and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JULY 08, 2016
Derrick Maddox (“Maddox”) appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed following his convictions of aggravated assault and harassment.
See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(3), 2709(a)(1). We affirm.
On the night of August 1, 2015, Officer Alexis Metros (“Officer
Metros”), of the Masontown Borough Police Department, and her partner
responded to a call regarding a disturbance at Fort Mason Village. Upon
arriving at the scene, she was directed to the disturbance and heard yelling.
Officer Metros then witnessed a male, later identified as Maddox, pushing
and shoving a female. Officer Metros, in uniform, identified herself as a
police officer and ran towards the scene. When Officer Metros attempted to
end the altercation, Maddox punched Officer Metros in the face and put her
in a headlock, thus cutting off her oxygen. Thereafter, Maddox and Officer
Metros fell to the ground, after which Officer Metros’s partner was able to
J-S48042-16
handcuff Maddox. Officer Metros sustained a dislocated jaw, abrasions on
her knees, and swelling to her face and arm as a result of Maddox’s assault.
After a jury trial, Maddox was convicted of the above-mentioned
crimes. The trial court sentenced Maddox to 36 months to 72 months in
prison, after which Maddox filed a timely Notice of Appeal.
On appeal, Maddox raises the following questions for our review:
1. Did the Commonwealth fail to present sufficient evidence to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [Maddox] attempted to
cause bodily injury to [] Officer [] Metros [,] so as to sustain
[his] conviction of [a]ggravated [a]ssault, 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 2702(a)(3)?
2. Did the Commonwealth fail to present sufficient evidence to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [] Officer [] Metros
suffered “bodily injury” [,] as defined by 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301 [,]
so as to sustain [his] conviction of [a]ggravated [a]ssault, 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(3)?
Brief for Appellant at 7 (some capitalization omitted).
We will address Maddox’s claims together; as they are related.
Maddox argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his aggravated
assault conviction. Id. at 10-12. Maddox asserts that he was unaware that
Officer Metros was a police officer. Id. at 13. Maddox also claims that the
Commonwealth failed to provide sufficient evidence that he attempted to
cause Officer Metros “bodily injury.” Id. at 14, 15-16. Maddox contends
that Officer Metros suffered only minor bruising and scratches, consistent
with trivial contacts with everyday life. Id. at 14, 15. Maddox further
contends that Officer Metros did not sustain any “bodily injury”, since she
-2-
J-S48042-16
waited two hours before going to the hospital, and later returned to finish
her shift. Id. at 16.
We apply the following standard of review when considering a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence:
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence is whether[,] 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
finder of fact[,] while passing upon the credibility of witnesses
and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all,
part of none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 39-40 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation
omitted).
The Crimes Code defines aggravated assault as follows:
(a) Offense defined.—A person is guilty of Aggravated Assault
if he:
* * *
(3) attempts to cause or intentionally or knowingly causes bodily
injury to any of the officers, agents, employees or other persons
enumerated in subsection (c), in the performance of duty;
-3-
J-S48042-16
* * *
(c) Officers, employees, etc., enumerated.—The officers,
agents, employees and other persons referred to in
subsection (a) shall be as follows:
(1) Police officer.
* * *
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702.
“Bodily injury” is defined as the “impairment of physical condition or
substantial pain.” Id. § 2301. “The Commonwealth need not establish the
victim actually suffered bodily injury; rather, it is sufficient to support a
conviction if the Commonwealth establishes an attempt to inflict bodily
injury. This intent may be shown by circumstances, which reasonably
suggest that a defendant intended to cause injury.” Commonwealth v.
Martuscelli, 54 A.3d 940, 948 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted).
Here, Officer Metros, in full uniform, responded to a call regarding a
disturbance at Fort Mason Village. N.T., 1/14/16, at 9. Officer Metros
observed Maddox pushing and shoving a female. Id. at 11. When Officer
Metros attempted to end the altercation, Maddox punched Officer Metros and
put her in a headlock, cutting off her oxygen. Id. at 13. Maddox and Officer
Metros then fell to the ground, where Maddox continued to punch Officer
Metros in the face. Id. Maddox continued his assault until Officer Metros’s
partner handcuffed Maddox. Id. at 14.
-4-
J-S48042-16
Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is
sufficient to sustain Maddox’s aggravated assault conviction. See
Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544, 560-61 (Pa. Super. 2011)
(concluding that defendant’s action of throwing a police officer to the ground
and striking the officer on the arm and mouth was sufficient to support
conviction under section 2707(a)(3)); see also Commonwealth v.
Rahman, 75 A.3d 497, 502 (Pa. Super. 2013) (concluding that evidence
was sufficient to demonstrate that appellant intended to cause officer bodily
injury where appellant punched the officer several times and shoved him
with both hands). Accordingly, we cannot grant him relief on this claim.1
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/8/2016
1
Maddox does not raise any issue with his harassment conviction.
-5-