Opinion
J-A20033-19 No. 1981 MDA 2018
09-06-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. NOEL VEGA Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 14, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0005092-2017 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.:
Appellant, Noel Vega, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial convictions for two counts of aggravated assault and one count of resisting arrest. We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(3) and 5104, respectively.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
[WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO CONVICT APPELLANT OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND RESISTING ARREST?]
[WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS FOR AGGRAVATED
ASSAULT AND RESISTING ARREST WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?](Appellant's Brief at 2-5).
[WHETHER THE COURT IMPOSED A MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE SENTENCE, WHERE IT FAILED TO CONSIDER APPELLANT'S CRIMINAL HISTORY, BACKGROUND, AND EFFECT OF UNDERLYING OFFENSES ON VICTIMS?]
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable M. Theresa Johnson, 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 March 21, 2019, at 5-17) (finding: (1) evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant of aggravated assault; that police officers did not seek medical treatment or miss time from work is immaterial in light of other trial evidence indicating Appellant caused injury to officers while they were performing their law enforcement duties; further, Appellant did not raise insanity defense at trial, so evidence that one or more officers knew of Appellant's mental illness is irrelevant and inadmissible; to extent Appellant asserts evidence was insufficient to convict him of aggravated assault because he did not do anything to officers until one officer pushed him, it appears Appellant attempts to argue he acted in self-defense; Appellant, however, failed to raise self-defense claim at trial; additionally, record belies Appellant's assertion that he did not consciously intend to cause or attempt to cause injury to officers; evidence demonstrated Appellant attempted to cause and caused bodily injury to Officers Federico and Lower while in performance of their duties as police officers; evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant of resisting arrest; during altercation with police who were attempting to detain Appellant, Appellant attempted to injure and did injure Officers Federico and Lower; officers had to use substantial force to overcome Appellant's resistance; Appellant also repeatedly failed to comply with officers' instructions to place his hands behind his back; officers requested backup due to Appellant's resistance; (2) as set forth in analysis of Appellant's sufficiency claim, verdict was not contrary to evidence; verdict was consistent with evidence and did not shock one's sense of justice; (3) with benefit of PSI, court sentenced Appellant within parameters of guidelines to standard range sentences on all charges; court's application of sentencing guidelines was reasonable; record belies Appellant's claims that sentencing court failed to consider certain factors; court considered all factors that Appellant claims court did not consider). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/6/2019
Image materials not available for display.