Com. v. Brandon, R. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S49032-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT BRANDON Appellant No. 1823 WDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 24, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-04-CR-0000089-2016 BEFORE: DUBOW, SOLANO, and FITZGERALD,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED AUGUST 14, 2017 Appellant, Robert Brandon, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Beaver County Court of Common Pleas following his jury conviction for resisting arrest.1 He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm. We glean the relevant facts from the certified record. On the night of December 20, 2015, Officer Stahl of the North Sewickley Police Department responded to a domestic disturbance at Appellant’s house. Once he arrived at the home, he encountered Appellant’s adult son, Jerrin Brandon, outside the residence. Jerrin told Officer Stahl that he had gotten into an altercation with Appellant and Appellant had punched him in the face. bruise on his eye. Jerrin had a Officer Stahl proceeded into the residence and * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 5104. J-S49032-17 immediately encountered Appellant in the kitchen. Officer Hanna, also of the North Sewickley Police Department, arrived to assist within two minutes after Officer Stahl’s arrival. Officer Stahl noticed that Appellant was very agitated. Appellant explained to the officers that he had ongoing problems with his son and that he did not want to relinquish his grandson, who was then in Appellant’s custody, to Jerrin. Officer Stahl informed Appellant that he would be receiving charges in the mail due to his role in the physical altercation with Jerrin. Appellant then attempted to leave the residence to confront his son by pushing past both officers but the officers stopped him. Appellant responded by slamming a chair into the kitchen table, but in so doing injured Officer Stahl’s leg. Officer Stahl decided to place Appellant under arrest. Officer Stahl testified that he informed Appellant the he was under arrest and moved toward him. Appellant stepped back from Officer Stahl and yanked his arm away when the officer grabbed it. Appellant stepped back against the refrigerator and tried to hide his hands behind his back. A struggle ensued wherein Appellant flailed his arms.2 Officer Stahl verbally warned Appellant to stop resisting and ordered Appellant to give the officer his hands. However, Appellant continued to flail 2 While this struggle was occurring, Officer Hanna was occupied in an adjacent room with another of Appellant’s sons, Devin. Devin initially was telling Appellant to cooperate, but then began yelling at Officer Stahl to get off of Appellant. Officer Hanna prevented Devin from joining the melee between Appellant and Officer Stahl. -2- J-S49032-17 his arms and struck Officer Stahl in the face. Officer Stahl then forced Appellant to the ground. At that point, Officer Stahl and Appellant were rolling on the ground with Appellant refusing to be handcuffed. According to Officer Stahl, they struggled on the ground for about five minutes until Appellant finally calmed down, sat in a chair, and was handcuffed. Appellant was then transported to the police department. At trial, Appellant testified that he was not trying to prevent Officer Stahl from making an arrest but instead was “attempting to turn away from Officer Stahl to fall forward in order to avoid falling onto his back on which numerous surgeries were performed.” Trial Ct. Op., 10/31/16, at 13. On July 21, 2016, the jury found Appellant guilty of one count of resisting arrest.3 On August 24, 2016, the trial court sentenced Appellant to ninety days of probation. On September 6, 2016, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion requesting, inter alia, an arrest of judgment. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion, and this instant timely appeal ensued. 4 Appellant raises a single issue for review: I. Did the [trial] court abuse its discretion in denying the motion for arrest in judgment insofar as the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the conviction of resisting arrest where the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [Appellant] placed Officer 3 The jury found Appellant not guilty of simple assault. 4 Appellant submitted a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and the trial court issued an opinion adopting its October 31, 2016 memorandum opinion and order denying Appellant’s motion for arrest of judgment. -3- J-S49032-17 Stahl at substantial risk of bodily injury, or that he employed a means of resistance justifying or requiring substantial force to overcome the resistance? Appellant’s Brief at 5. Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for resisting arrest where his conduct did not create a “substantial risk of bodily injury” or require the use of “substantial force to overcome” his resistance. Appellant’s Brief at 24. While he acknowledges that he did not initially cooperate with Officer Stahl, he asserts that he did not intentionally hit the officer and ultimately cooperated by being transported to the police station without incident. Id. at 24, 33. No relief is due. When evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence: [W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth together with all reasonable inferences from that evidence, and determine whether the trier of fact could have found that every element of the crimes charged was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Walker, 836 A.2d 999, 1000 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citations omitted). The Pennsylvania Crimes Code defines resisting arrest as follows: 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. -4- J-S49032-17 Moreover, the crime of resisting arrest can be established without evidence of “aggressive use of force such as striking or kicking of the officer.” Commonwealth v. McDonald, 17 A.3d 1282, 1285 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted). This Court has held that even passive resistance, which requires officers to exert substantial force to overcome, is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for resisting arrest. Commonwealth v. Thompson, 922 A.2d 926, 928 (Pa. Super. 2007). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Harry E. Knafelc, we conclude the trial court’s opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the issue presented. See Trial Ct. Op. at 11-16 (finding that evidence of Appellant’s conduct was sufficient to sustain his conviction for resisting arrest where he refused to remove his hands from behind his back and then required Officer Stahl to exert substantial force in a prolonged struggle on the ground to effectuate an arrest). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. Judgment of sentence affirmed. -5- J-S49032-17 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 8/14/2017 -6- Circulated 07/28/2017 03:39 PM
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.
