Opinion
558 MDA 2022 J-A13021-23
07-26-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EDWARD LEE BENTLER Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment Entered November 24, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-58-CR-0000277-2020
BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. [*]
MEMORANDUM
LAZARUS, J.
Edward Lee Bentler appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County. After careful review, we affirm on the basis of the opinion authored by the Honorable Jason J. Legg.
The trial court summarized the facts as follows:
On July 20, 2021, Robert Thatcher, the Chief of the Hallstead Fire Company, was dispatched to a boat launch area off Harmony Road, adjacent to the Susquehanna River in Great Bend Township, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. Thatcher was dispatched for a one-vehicle accident involving a vehicle having left the road and being stuck in a ditch. When Thatcher arrived at the scene, he observed Bentler sitting on a bucket next to a pickup truck. Thatcher asked Bentler if he was okay, and Bentler responded by indicating that he had a lot going on in his life. Bentler was initially in a hunched-over position but sat up straighter as he spoke and Thatcher was able to observe a rifle on Bentler's lap. Because he had observed a weapon, Thatcher removed himself from the scene and called for the State Police to intervene. From a distance,
Thatcher continued to watch Bentler. Bentler remained seated on the bucket until the first state trooper arrived and then Bentler stood up.
Trooper [Taylor] Smith, Trooper [Gregory] Yanochko and Corporal [Nicholas] Nederostek arrived in close proximity to each other- all in separate vehicles, two marked and one unmarked. Trooper Smith arrived prior to the other two troopers and discovered Bentler standing behind the pickup truck such that Trooper Smith could only see Bentler's upper body. Trooper Smith had been informed enroute that Bentler had a rifle. Trooper Smith instructed Bentler to put his hands up. Bentler would put one hand up and then the other but never both hands up at the same time. Bentler made statements that he was seeking help and Trooper Smith indicated that he would provide help but that Bentler had to comply with his commands. Trooper Smith eventually noticed that Bentler was holding a scoped rifle. Bentler continued to refuse to put down the scoped rifle.
Thereafter, Trooper Yanochko and [Corporal] Nederostek arrived on the scene. Trooper Smith attempted to switch from his service handgun to his AR-15 rifle. While positioned behind their vehicles an approximately 50 yards from Bentler, Trooper Yanochko and [Corporal] Nederostek pointed AR-15 rifles at Bentler. Bentler was again ordered to drop the weapon on multiple occasions but refused to comply and told the troopers to drop their weapons instead. Bentler never shouldered his rifle, never looked through the scope or aimed the rifle at the troopers. During the altercation, Bentler remained in a position where the pickup truck provided partial cover, then Bentler flicked his cigarette away and moved suddenly from behind the pickup truck out into the open with the barrel of the rifle facing in the general direction of the state troopers. After Bentler moved into the open area and made a movement to raise the rifle up, he was shot by [Corporal] Nederostek. Bentler was shot prior to Trooper Smith being able to switch weapons. [Corporal] Nederostek shot Bentler three times.Trial Court Opinion, 3/9/22, at 4-6 (citations omitted).
Bentler was charged with, inter alia, three counts each of terroristic threats, aggravated assault, and simple assault, and one count of possession of firearm prohibited. A jury convicted Bentler of the aforementioned charges and the court sentenced him to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 5-20 years. Bentler filed a timely post-sentence motion for judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied. This timely appeal followed. Both Bentler and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Id. at § 2702.
Id. at § 2701.
Id. at § 6105. This count was not initially presented to the jury as the trial court had granted Bentler's request to bifurcate so as to avoid prejudice that might have resulted had the jury learned of Bentler's prior felony conviction before reaching a verdict on the other counts. After the verdict, the Commonwealth presented evidence of Bentler's prior felony conviction, and the jury deliberated and convicted him of possession of a firearm prohibited. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/9/22, at 3 n.1.
Bentler raises the following issues for our review:
1. Did the trial court err by denying [Bentler's] motions for judgment of acquittal for sufficiency of the evidence for charges of aggravated assault, terroristic threats, and simple assault where the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was uncontradicted [sic] and insufficient as a matter of law to establish the elements of the crimes?
2. Did the trial court err by denying the [Bentler's] motions for judgment of acquittal for sufficiency of the evidence for the charge of possession of a firearm by a person not to possess where the Commonwealth's only "proof" of []Bentler's prior enumerated conviction was a docket sheet [that] was improperly certified, was not the best evidence, and was
only admitted a sidebar without any witness testimony or presentation?Appellant's Brief, at 3-4.
Our standard of review regarding sufficiency of the evidence claims is well-established: "[W]hether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, is sufficient to enable a reasonable jury to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Laird, 988 A.2d 618, 624 (Pa. 2010), citing Commonwealth v. Watkins, 843 A.2d 1203, 1211 (Pa. 2003). Under this standard, this Court
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 trier 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. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574, 582 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citations omitted). As such, it is within the province of the jury as fact-finder to make credibility determinations and reasonable inferences from the evidence presented, believe some, all, or none of the evidence, and ultimately determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Id. See also Commonwealth v. Gooding, 818 A.2d 546, 549 (Pa. Super. 2003).
After reviewing the parties' briefs, the relevant case law, and the record on appeal, we conclude that Judge Legg has properly disposed of Bentler's claims, and we rely upon Judge Legg's opinion to affirm Bentler's judgment of sentence. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/9/22, at 7-15. We instruct the parties to attach a copy of the trial court's opinion in the event of further proceedings in the matter.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
[*] Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.