Com. v. Butler, K. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S64033-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. KYREEM DEMARIUS BUTLER Appellant No. 1109 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 12, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0007733-2012 BEFORE: GANTMAN, J., DONOHUE, J., and OLSON, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 03, 2013 Appellant, Kyreem Demarius Butler, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial conviction of resisting arrest.1 We affirm. In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Appellant raises the following issue for our review: WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF RESISTING ARREST WHERE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED AT TRIAL REVEALS [NOTHING] MORE THAN THAT [APPELLANT] ESSENTIALLY ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5104. J-S64033-13 FLED THE SCENE WHEN THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER ATTEMPTED TO DETAIN HIM. (Appellant s Brief at 7). When examining a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, our standard of review is as follows: 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 [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. Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super. 2005)). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable James P. Bradley, we conclude Appellant s issue merits no relief. -2- The trial court J-S64033-13 opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, dated June 18, 2013, at 3-5) (finding: Appellant was under official detention at time he elected to flee scene; officer approached Appellant and informed Appellant that he was under arrest for loitering, which qualifies as any other detention for law enforcement purposes pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5121(e) (defining official detention ); totality of circumstances indicates no ambiguity that Appellant knew he was under arrest and, therefore, under official detention; pursuing officer was compelled to chase Appellant though parking lot, across heavily traveled road, through various backyards, and over fences, at high rate of speed and in dark; Appellant s actions exposed public and pursuing officers to substantial danger; Appellant s actions created substantial risk of bodily injury to pursuing officer or member of public; evidence at trial was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Appellant was guilty of resisting arrest). The record supports the trial court s decision; therefore, we see no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court s opinion. Judgment of sentence affirmed. -3- J-S64033-13 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/3/2013 -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
