Opinion
J-S51029-19 No. 1969 MDA 2018
10-07-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. WAYNE EUGENE BRADLEY Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 1, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-58-CR-0000467-2017 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., GANTMAN, P.J.E., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.:
Appellant, Wayne Eugene Bradley, appeals the judgment of sentence entered in the Susquehanna County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial convictions for terroristic threats, simple assault and his court conviction for disorderly conduct. We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2706(a)(1), 2701(a)(3), and 5503(a)(4), respectively. Appellant does not challenge his disorderly conduct conviction. --------
The trial court opinion set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
WAS THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT APPELLANT COMMITTED THE OFFENSE OF TERRORISTIC THREATS WHERE IT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT APPELLANT COMMUNICATED A THREAT TO COMMIT A CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR POSSESSED THE INTENT TO TERRORIZE?
WAS THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT APPELLANT COMMITTED THE OFFENSE OF SIMPLE ASSAULT WHERE IT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT APPELLANT POSSESSED THE INTENT TO PUT ANOTHER IN FEAR OF IMMINENT SERIOUS BODILY INJURY?(Appellant's Brief at 3).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Jason J. Legg, P.J., we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed November 13, 2018, at 4-6) (finding Commonwealth presented evidence that Appellant initially approached construction site wielding large metal bar; Appellant was yelling, agitated, and threatened one victim; Appellant asked victim if he wanted to see what would happen if victim did not move his truck; Appellant then left scene and returned holding rifle, which Appellant discharged into air; Appellant aimed his rifle at back of truck operated by another victim; when that victim asked Appellant if he was going to shoot members of construction crew, Appellant nodded "yes"; sufficient evidence supported Appellant's terroristic threats and simple assault convictions). Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/7/2019
Image materials not available for display.