Com. v. Stevens, D.

J-S25027-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

v. :

:

:

DAVID V. STEVENS :

:

Appellant : No. 3009 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 30, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division

at No(s): CP-46-CR-0004691-2021

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED JANUARY 31, 2025

David V. Stevens appeals from the judgment of sentence entered

following his convictions for two counts of aggravated assault and two counts

of simple assault.1 The convictions stemmed from Stevens’ altercation with

two corrections officers, Corrections Officer Matthew Poplawski and

Corrections Officer Dominic Pennypacker. Stevens argues the evidence was

insufficient to sustain his conviction for aggravated assault of Officer

Pennypacker. We affirm.

The testimony at trial established the following. Corrections Officers

Pennypacker and Poplawski were performing cell inspections at Montgomery

County Correctional Facility, where Stevens was an inmate. Trial Court

Opinion, filed 1/2/24, at 2-3, 11. Officer Pennypacker stood by Stevens’ cell

____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(3) and 2701(a)(1), respectively.

J-S25027-24

door while Officer Poplawski checked it for forbidden items. Id. at 3, 11. When

Officer Pennypacker asked Officer Poplawski to check Stevens’ bed, Stevens

suddenly punched Officer Poplawski twice in the face. Id. at 3, 6, 11.

Officer Pennypacker immediately tried to restrain Stevens. They both

fell to the floor, with Officer Pennypacker on his back and Stevens on top of

him. Id. at 3, 5-6, 12. Officer Poplawski placed his hand on Stevens’ shoulder,

and Stevens bit Officer Poplawski’s finger nearly to the bone, causing it to

gush blood, until Officer Pennypacker applied pressure to Stevens’ neck. Id.

at 4, 5, 68, 90. Stevens continued aggressively hitting and kicking “whoever

he could, trying to resist restraint.” Id. at 3-4, 6, 12. After several minutes,

and with the help of six others, the officers were able to maneuver Stevens’

arms behind his back. Id. at 3, 12. Portions of the incident were recorded by

Officer Pennypacker’s body camera and played for the jury. Id. at 5, 12.

After the altercation, Officer Pennypacker noticed he had injured his

hand by striking it on a metal bedpost and had twisted his right knee while

trying to take down Stevens. Id. at 4, 12. Officer Pennypacker obtained

medical treatment, which determined that his hand was bruised to the bone.

His knee injury prevented him from working for several months. Id. at 4-5,

12. Officer Poplawski sustained injuries to his head, finger, and knee. Id. at

6.

Stevens testified in his own defense. He said that he instinctively

punched Officer Poplawski out of fear for his own safety. He claimed that he

had not intended to injure either officer. Id. at 6-7, 12.

-2-

J-S25027-24

The jury found Stevens guilty of aggravated assault and simple assault

of both officers. The court sentenced him to an aggregate of three to six years’

imprisonment. This appeal followed.

Stevens raises the following issue:

Was the evidence insufficient to sustain [Stevens’] conviction for

Aggravated Assault (F2) at Count 1 (Complainant: Dominic

Pennypacker) where the evidence failed to establish that the

corrections officer’s injuries were knowingly or intentionally

inflicted, since the injuries were sustained inadvertently when the

officer was attempting to restrain [Stevens] during his scuffle with

the corrections officer’s partner?

Stevens’ Br. at 3.2

____________________________________________

2 After the appeal was commenced, Stevens sent several pro se letters to this

Court, raising issues related to the proceedings below and claims of trial and

appellate counsel ineffectiveness. Six months after the parties submitted

briefs, Stevens sent a letter to this Court requesting to proceed pro se. We

remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a hearing pursuant to

Pa.R.Crim.P. 121 and Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).

The trial court scheduled a hearing, but Stevens refused to be transported to

Montgomery County. In so doing, he forfeited his request to represent himself.

Moreover, once appointed counsel has filed an appellate brief, a request to go

pro se on appeal is untimely. Commonwealth v. Rogers, 645 A.2d 223, 224

(Pa. 1994); accord Commonwealth v. Cox, 204 A.3d 371, 391 n.23 (Pa.

2019). We therefore deny Stevens’ request to proceed pro se.

Furthermore, we cannot entertain any substantive issues Stevens has

attempted to raise pro se, as pro se documents filed by an appellant

represented by counsel are legal nullities. Commonwealth v. Williams, 151

A.3d 621, 623 (Pa.Super. 2016).

We also decline to consider any ineffectiveness claims at this juncture. Except

under limited circumstances that are not present here, ineffectiveness claims

must wait until collateral review. Commonwealth v. Watson, 310 A.3d 307,

310-11 (Pa.Super. 2024).

-3-

J-S25027-24

We review a sufficiency challenge de novo. Commonwealth v. Hall,

199 A.3d 954, 960 (Pa.Super. 2018).

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we

must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all

reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in a light

most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, support

the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Where there is

sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element

of the crime has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, the

sufficiency of the evidence claim must fail. This standard applies

equally where the Commonwealth’s evidence is circumstantial.

Commonwealth v. Griffith, 305 A.3d 573, 576 (Pa.Super. 2023) (quotation

marks and citations omitted), appeal denied, No. 67 MAL 2024, 2024 WL

2745472 (Pa. May 29, 2024).

Stevens argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he

intentionally or knowingly inflicted bodily injury on Officer Pennypacker. He

asserts that Officer Pennypacker inadvertently struck his hand on the bed and

twisted his knee while attempting to restrain Stevens. Stevens points out that

Officer Pennypacker was behind him, taking him to the ground, when the

officer’s injuries occurred.

A person is guilty of aggravated assault, under the subsection at issue,

if he “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.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(3).

Persons enumerated in subsection (c) include the “[o]fficer[s] or employee[s]

of a correctional institution, county jail or prison[.]” Id. at § 2702(c)(9).

-4-

J-S25027-24

Attempt requires proof of specific intent. See Commonwealth v.

Sinkiewicz, 293 A.3d 681, 688 (Pa.Super. 2023), appeal denied, 310 A.3d

720 (Pa. 2023). Specific intent exists regarding an element of a crime that

“involves the nature of [the defendant’s] conduct or a result thereof,” where

“it is [the defendant’s] conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature

or to cause such a result[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 302(b)(1)(i).

“A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an

offense” that “involves a result of his conduct,” where “he is aware that it is

practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. §

302(b)(2)(ii).

Like any other element of a crime, the defendant’s intent may be

established by circumstantial evidence. Griffith, 305 A.3d at 576; see

Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544, 560 (Pa.Super. 2011) (en banc)

(stating a defendant’s intent to inflict bodily injury may be shown by the

circumstances). A defendant’s violent resistance to an arrest is sufficient to

prove the intent to cause injury to the arresting officers. See Commonwealth

v. Rahman, 75 A.3d 497, 502 (Pa.Super. 2013) (finding evidence was

sufficient to show defendant attempted to cause officer bodily injury where

defendant shoved and punched officer who was arresting him); Brown, 23

A.3d at 560 (finding evidence sufficient to prove that the defendant intended

to cause injury to arresting officers “by throwing [one officer] to the ground

and then striking [the other officer] repeatedly by wildly flailing his arms as

he resisted arrest”).

-5-

J-S25027-24

Here, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the

evidence establishes that Stevens punched Officer Poplawski in the face. When

Officer Pennypacker attempted to restrain him, Stevens violently resisted by

toppling Officer Pennypacker, biting Officer Poplawski, and hitting and kicking

both officers for several minutes. The circumstances surrounding the incident

— especially Stevens’ violent response to the officers’ actions — were

sufficient to enable the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Stevens

had the specific intent to inflict bodily injury on Officer Pennypacker or

intentionally or knowingly caused bodily injury to him. See Rahman, 75 A.3d

at 502; Brown, 23 A.3d at 560.

Stevens likens his case to Commonwealth v. Wertelet, 696 A.2d 206

(Pa.Super. 1997), and Commonwealth v. Smith, 305 A.3d 1 (Pa.Super.

2023), appeal granted, No. 17 EAL 2024, 2024 WL 3506692 (Pa. July 23,

2024). He claims that in those cases, this Court found the evidence insufficient

to establish that the defendant knowingly or intentionally inflicted injuries

during the scuffle of an arrest.

Neither decision affords him relief. In Wertelet, we did not consider

whether there was sufficient evidence of intent, but whether there was

sufficient evidence of bodily injury. 696 A2d at 210-13. In Smith, we found

the specific evidence there failed to make out a prima facie case for simple

assault because it did not sufficiently show that the defendant, a police officer,

intentionally injured the victim while trying to arrest him. 305 A.3d at 11.

Here, in contrast, the evidence establishes that Stevens hit Officer Poplawski

-6-

J-S25027-24

in the face and then engaged in a ferocious struggle with both Officer

Poplawski and Officer Pennypacker while trying to stop them from restraining

him. That evidence was sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove the mens

rea.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 1/31/2025

-7-