Com. v. Rodriguez, T.

J-S07022-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

v. :

:

:

TONY THOMAS RODRIGUEZ :

:

Appellant : No. 916 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 30, 2025

In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP-01-CR-0001183-2024

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: APRIL 15, 2026

Appellant, Tony Thomas Rodriquez, appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered on June 30, 2025. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the relevant facts of this case as follows.

On the evening of September 13, 2024, Appellant, [Appellant’s

then-girlfriend, S.C., (hereinafter, the “Victim”)], and

Appellant's adult daughter, J.R., were out for approximately

four hours, visited several bars in Gettysburg[, Pennsylvania]

and were drinking. Shortly after midnight on September 14,

2024, Appellant, the Victim and J.R. were walking down

Racehorse Alley in Gettysburg. The Victim testified that

Appellant assaulted her, but she does not have an independent

recollection of the assault. The Commonwealth presented three

separate videos of the assault[.] … The videos clearly illustrate

an unprovoked assault where Appellant runs toward the Victim,

takes at least two steps, winds up his right arm and hand and

strikes the Victim in the face with a closed fist. The Victim

immediately fell backward, and her head and back struck the

roadway. Appellant initially stood over the Victim in a taunting

manner after the assault while the Victim lay unconscious on

the roadway. Appellant stomped away from the Victim and did

not provide any assistance.

J-S07022-26

***

The Victim went to work the morning of September 14, 2025,

but could not perform her duties as manager at Wendy's

restaurant because of pain from the assault. The Victim

continued to have medical issues resulting from the concussion

for one to two weeks. The Victim also suffered severe back pain

from the incident and continued to suffer back pain through the

date of the trial, April 7, 2025.

On September 15, 2024, the Victim received medical treatment

at Wellspan Gettysburg Hospital and was examined by

emergency room doctor Catherine Fraley (hereinafter "Dr.

Fraley"). Dr. Fraley is board certified in emergency medicine

and was qualified as an expert in emergency medicine. Dr.

Fraley testified that she observed a large hematoma, diffuse

tenderness, abrasions and other bruising on the back of the

Victim's head, face and chin. Dr. Fraley reviewed a CT exam of

the Victim's brain and CT images of the Victim's lumbar spine.

Dr. Fraley opined that the Victim suffered from a concussion

and mild traumatic brain injury, which impairs the function of

the brain. The hematoma on the back of the Victim's head

measured 3.1 centimeters wide and 1.1 centimeters in depth.

Dr. Fraley also opined that the Victim suffered a non-displaced

fracture extending through the third and fourth sacral segments

and into the posterior elements of the third sacral segment, as

well as a partial sacralization of the L5 vertebral body. Dr.

Fraley also observed disc bulges noted at L1 - L2 and L4 - L5.

Dr. Fraley identified the sacrum location, right above [] the

tailbone, as part of the spine. Dr. Fraley testified that the

non-displaced fractures of the sacrum are considered spinal

fractures, and the fracture would take six to [12] weeks to heal.

The Commonwealth also presented testimony from Physician

Assistant Andrea Velasquez (hereinafter "P.A. Velasquez"), who

is employed as a Physician Assistant at Family First Health in

Gettysburg. P.A. Velasquez provided follow-up medical care

following the Victim's diagnosis and treatment by Dr. Fraley on

September 15, 2024. … P.A. Velasquez treated the Victim for

her back pain and had appointments with the Victim on

September 24, 2024, October 14, 2024, October 29, 2024 and

March 4, 2025. P.A. Velasquez testified that the Victim

continued to suffer back pain up to and including her last

examination on March 4, 2025. As a result of the back pain,

-2-

J-S07022-26

the Victim was not able to continue employment as manager of

Wendy's.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/20/25, at 1-3.

The matter proceeded to a jury trial on April 7, 2025. That day, the jury

convicted Appellant of aggravated assault – intent to cause serious bodily

injury, simple assault and criminal mischief.1 On June 23, 2025, the trial court

sentenced Appellant to 66 months to 12 years’ incarceration. The trial court

also ordered Appellant to pay $1,155.00 in restitution to the Victim. On June

30, 2025, the trial court amended Appellant’s judgment of sentence, directing

all of Appellant’s restitution payments to “initially go towards restitution until

restitution [was] paid in full.” Trial Court Order, 6/30/25, at 1. Otherwise,

Appellant’s sentence remained unchanged. This timely appeal followed.

Appellant raises the following issue for our consideration:

Was there sufficient evidence presented at trial to support

[Appellant’s] conviction for aggravated assault?

Appellant’s Brief at 10.

Herein, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting

his conviction for aggravated assault. In reviewing a challenge to the

sufficiency of the evidence, we “determine whether the evidence admitted at

trial and all reasonable inferences therefrom, viewed in the light most

favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, were sufficient to prove

every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1), 2701(a)(1), and 3304(a)(5), respectively.

-3-

J-S07022-26

v. Palmer, 192 A.3d 85, 89 (Pa. Super. 2018). The Commonwealth “need

not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty,” meaning any doubt about a

defendant's guilt “is to be resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so

weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be

drawn from the combined circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Sebolka, 205

A.3d 329, 336-337 (Pa. Super. 2019). This standard is equally applicable to

cases where the evidence is circumstantial rather than direct “so long as the

combination of the evidence links the accused to the crime beyond a

reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Swerdlow, 636 A.2d 1173, 1176

(Pa. Super. 1994). The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of

wholly circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 956 A.2d 926,

932 (Pa. 2008), citing Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873, 977 (Pa.

2008). It is “within the province of the fact-finder to determine the weight to

be accorded to each witness's testimony and to believe all, part, or none of

the evidence.” Palmer, 192 A.3d at 89.

On appeal, Appellant claims that the Commonwealth failed to prove that

he caused or attempted to cause serious bodily injury to the Victim. In

Appellant’s view, the Commonwealth did not demonstrate that, by striking the

Victim once in the face, he caused the victim to suffer serious bodily injury or

that he attempted to cause the Victim to suffer serious bodily injury. We

disagree.

Section 2702(a)(1) of the Crimes Code provides that an individual is

guilty of aggravated assault if he:

-4-

J-S07022-26

attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes

such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under

circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of

human life[.]

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1). The term “serious bodily injury” is defined as

“[b]odily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes

serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss of impairment of the

function of any bodily member or organ.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301. This Court

has held that a bodily injury that impairs the function of the brain, such as a

concussion, “is sufficient evidence of ‘serious bodily injury’ under 18 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 2301.” Commonwealth v. Santiago, 294 A.3d 482, 486 (Pa. Super. 2023)

(holding: “concussing someone during an assault is sufficient evidence of

‘serious bodily injury’ under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301, as a matter of law”).

Herein, the Commonwealth presented video evidence of the incident. In

the video, Appellant runs toward the Victim, “winds up his right arm and hand”

and strikes the Victim “in the face with a closed fist.” Trial Court Opinion,

8/20/25, at 2; see also N.T. Trial, 4/7/25, at 41. The video also depicts the

Victim subsequently falling backward and then striking her lower back and

head on the pavement. Trial Court Opinion, 8/20/25, at 2. Finally, the

Commonwealth presented evidence explaining that, as a result of the attack,

the Victim “suffered a large hematoma on the back of the head with abrasions

and open an open wound, suffered a concussion which resulted in headaches

for several weeks, and suffered several fractures to her spine.” Trial Court

Opinion, 8/20/25, at 8; see also N.T. Trial, 4/7/25, at 57-58, 104-108, and

-5-

J-S07022-26

132. These injuries caused the Victim to “continue to suffer severe back pain”

and be unable to work for approximately six months. Trial Court Opinion,

8/20/25, at 8; see also N.T. Trial, 4/7/25, at 58-61. Undoubtedly, such

evidence is sufficient to prove that Appellant intended and, in fact, caused the

Victim serious bodily injury. See Santiago, 294 A.3d at 486 (concluding that

there was sufficient evidence of serious bodily injury because the victim

suffered from a concussion and missed two weeks of work due to the

appellant’s conduct).

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 04/15/2026

-6-