Opinion
J-S33034-16 No. 1621 WDA 2015
05-17-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JAMES MATTHEW STRUNK Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 21, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-07-CR-0002700-2014 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and FITZGERALD, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, James Matthew Strunk, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Blair County Court of Common Pleas, following his conviction for the summary offense of public drunkenness. We affirm.
Although Appellant purports to appeal from the order finding him guilty of public drunkenness, the appeal properly lies from the judgment of sentence imposed following his bench trial conviction for that offense. See Commonwealth v. W.H.M., Jr., 932 A.2d 155 (Pa.Super. 2007) (stating direct appeal in criminal proceeding properly lies from judgment of sentence).
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. At approximately 12:50 p.m. on October 15, 2014, Sergeant Robert Archey and Patrolman Erik Stirk responded to a dispatch regarding a person lying in an alley. The officers arrived on the scene within minutes. Sergeant Archey was the first to arrive. As he approached the reported location, a woman pointed at the alley. From the street, Sergeant Archey observed Appellant leaning against a van in a parking area adjacent to the alley. Appellant was unstable and unsteady on his feet. As Sergeant Archey spoke to Appellant, the officer noticed that Appellant appeared "out of it," "a little confused," and "smiling." (N.T. Trial, 9/15/15, at 7). Appellant also said he was "just a little high." Id. Appellant walked to the other end of the van in a swaying and unsteady manner. Sergeant Archey observed a hypodermic needle on the ground where Appellant had originally been standing. When Patrolman Stirk arrived on the scene, he observed Appellant had an unsteady gait and slurred speech. After Sergeant Archey brought Patrolman Stirk's attention to the hypodermic needle, Patrolman Stirk arrested Appellant. At that point, Patrolman Stirk detected an odor of alcohol on Appellant's breath.
Following a bench trial, the court convicted Appellant of public drunkenness. On September 21, 2015, the court sentenced Appellant to pay a $200.00 fine plus costs of prosecution. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on October 6, 2015. The court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely complied.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
DID THE [TRIAL] COURT COMMIT REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE COMMONWEALTH HAD MET
ITS BURDEN [OF] PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AS THE [TRIAL] COURT CONCLUDED THAT...APPELLANT WAS "MANIFESTLY UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND/OR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE" AS REQUIRED BY THE STATU[T]E?(Appellant's Brief at 4).
Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims implicates the following legal principles:
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 or none of the evidence.Commonwealth v. Jones , 874 A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super. 2005) (quoting Commonwealth v. Bullick , 830 A.2d 998, 1000 (Pa.Super. 2003)).
The Crimes Code defines the offense of public drunkenness in pertinent part as follows:
§ 5505. Public drunkenness and similar misconduct18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505.
A person is guilty of a summary offense if he appears in any public place manifestly under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance...to the degree that he may endanger himself or other persons or property, or annoy persons in his vicinity.
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Timothy M. Sullivan, we conclude Appellant's issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed October 28, 2015, incorporating its Opinion and Order, filed September 18, 2015, at 2-5) (finding: Officers Archey and Stirk testified credibly; location where officers confronted Appellant constituted "public place"; evidence established that Appellant was person who was reported lying in alley; responding officers testified that Appellant was unsteady and unstable on his feet, swayed with staggered gait, slurred his speech, and had odor of alcohol on his breath; officers recovered hypodermic needle from area where Appellant had been standing; officers' observations established beyond reasonable doubt that Appellant was manifestly under influence of alcohol and/or controlled substance to extent he might have posed danger to himself or others, or annoyed persons in his vicinity). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/17/2016
Image materials not available for display.