Commonwealth v. Goldman
| Decision Date | 14 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 606 EDA 2020,606 EDA 2020 |
| Citation | 252 A.3d 668 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Toriano Chaz GOLDMAN, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Lucas T. Nascimento, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Dennis D. Woody, Assistant District Attorney, Media, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Toriano Chaz Goldman (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his summary conviction of disorderly conduct. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(1). We affirm.
Shortly before midnight on January 11, 2019, Sergeant Robert Bennett of the Upper Darby Police (Officer Bennett or Sergeant Bennett) responded to a report of an intoxicated man causing a disturbance at an Exxon convenience store. Officer Bennett parked his police vehicle in the store's lot and encountered the witness who had called 911 to report the disturbance. This witness remained seated in her vehicle but pointed Officer Bennett in the direction of the convenience store, indicating that Appellant was inside.
Upon entering the store, Officer Bennett first encountered the store clerk, who was also calling 911 at that time based on Appellant's behavior. The clerk pointed Officer Bennett toward the rear of the store, where Officer Bennett found Appellant standing and staring at the wall with his hands in his pockets. Appellant appeared dazed, unsteady on his feet, and smelled of alcohol. Officer Bennett approached Appellant and asked him to turn around and remove his hands from his pockets. Though Appellant eventually complied, Officer Bennett stated that Appellant became agitated and combative, and told Officer Bennett, "get the fuck away from me" and "you don't have to talk to me, fuck you." N.T., 4/15/19, at 10; see also N.T., 10/21/19, at 12, 64. Appellant walked away from Officer Bennett, who stated he was not finished questioning Appellant. Appellant ignored Officer Bennett and continued walking to the store's exit. Officer Bennett repeatedly asked Appellant to stop and followed Appellant to the door. Appellant continued to ignore Officer Bennett and slammed the door on him while exiting the store.
Several backup officers responded to the scene and encountered Appellant in the parking lot. These officers also ordered Appellant to stop; he refused to comply. The officers then informed Appellant he was under arrest. Appellant resisted and became physically aggressive; he kicked at the officers and swung his elbows to evade arrest. The officers employed a taser and canine unit to subdue Appellant and eventually placed him in handcuffs.
Law enforcement subsequently obtained surveillance video from outside of the store on the night of the incident. Officer Bennett explained:
The videos showed [Appellant] in the parking lot of the Exxon, walking -- for a good half an hour, walking in circles. At one point he fell completely flat on his face. At another point he got up and was waving his arms in the air. At one point he laid down in the parking lot for about five minutes, got back up, walked around in circles again, fell on his face again.
The Commonwealth originally charged Appellant with resisting arrest, public drunkenness, and two counts of disorderly conduct.1 In April 2019, the Commonwealth amended the charges to include three additional counts of disorderly conduct.
On June 13, 2019, Appellant filed an omnibus pre-trial motion, including a motion to suppress evidence. Appellant claimed Sergeant Bennett lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop and arrest Appellant. The trial court conducted a suppression hearing on October 21, 2019. On November 22, 2019, the court entered an opinion and order denying suppression.
Prior to trial, the Commonwealth withdrew all charges against Appellant other than one count each of disorderly conduct and public drunkenness, graded as summary offenses. At a bench trial on January 14, 2020, the court found Appellant guilty of disorderly conduct and not guilty of public drunkenness. The court sentenced Appellant to 48 hours in jail – with immediate discharge – and imposed a fine of $300. Ten days later, Appellant filed a "notice of appeal for trial de novo ," which the trial court denied.
On February 11, 2020, Appellant timely appealed. The trial court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to which Appellant filed an 8-page statement that was not concise and consisted of 38 paragraphs. On appeal, Appellant presents the following seven issues for review:
We simultaneously address Appellant's first three issues challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his sole conviction, the summary offense of disorderly conduct.
Our standard of review is settled:
When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, and we must determine if the evidence, thus viewed, is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the factfinder. If the record contains support for the verdict, it may not be disturbed. Moreover, a jury may believe all, some or none of a party's testimony.
Commonwealth v. Burns , 765 A.2d 1144, 1148 (Pa. Super. 2000) (citations omitted). "[A]ny doubt about the 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. Rodriguez , 141 A.3d 523, 525 (Pa. Super. 2016).
Appellant argues the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of disorderly conduct under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a). See Appellant's Brief at 29-36. He claims:
the Commonwealth presented no evidence of a physical altercation, obscene gestures or language, nor were any loud or abusive words or behaviors accompanied by actual physical aggression. Despite Officer Bennett's characterization of Appellant's behavior as erratic, agitated, or intoxicated, nothing was directed physically at the police officer, nor was there cause for concern for any public danger, annoyance or alarm.
Id. at 30 (citation omitted).
Appellant further asserts:
Officer Bennett largely positioned his theory of disorderly conduct based on a few mere epithets and the accusation of "slamming of the door," which was thoroughly proven to be untrue at all stages of the proceedings.
Id. at 31 (citation omitted).
Appellant also contends the surveillance video constituted incontrovertible evidence of his innocence by showing he "did not ‘slam the door’ in Officer Bennett's face nor delay him from exiting the convenience store." Id. at 54-55.
Finally, Appellant asserts the epithets he directed at Officer Bennett did not constitute criminal conduct because he was exercising his right of protected free speech. See id. at 57-59. Appellant states his "behavior was alleged to be minimal – just a few epithets – and not directed in any aggressive or dangerous way at the police officer, and not harassing or disturbing any public bystanders." Id. at 57.
The relevant statute provides:
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a). The statute further provides that conduct is considered "public" if it affects or is likely to affect "persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access"; among these places are, inter alia , "places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises which are open to the public." Id. § 5503(c) (emphasis added). Our Supreme Court has explained:
whether a defendant's words or acts rise to the level of disorderly conduct hinges upon whether they cause or unjustifiably risk a public disturbance. The cardinal feature of the crime of disorderly conduct is public unruliness which can or does lead to tumult and disorder.
Commonwealth v. Hock , 556 Pa. 409, 728 A.2d 943, 946 (1999) (citation omitted).
Here, the trial court found no merit to Appellant's sufficiency challenge, reasoning:
To continue reading
Request your trial