Opinion
J-A05010-17 No. 790 WDA 2016
03-08-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. CHRISTIAN CONSTANTINI Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 22, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0001446-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and MOULTON, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, Christian Constantini, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial convictions for simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, official oppression, and criminal conspiracy. We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a)(1); 2705; 5301(1); 903(c), 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 [TRIAL] COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY IGNORING ACT 49 OF 2009 TITLE 44, AND THE CONSTABLE'S AUTHORITY TO
TAKE [VICTIM] INTO CUSTODY AND TRANSPORT FORTHWITH[?](Appellant's Brief at 5).
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY IGNORING PENNSYLVANIA CRIMES CODE TITLE 18 § 508(A)(1)(I)[?]
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY IGNORING PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULE 431(B)(1)(A-C)[?]
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY IGNORING OR THE MISAPPLICATION OF FACT[?]
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY IGNORING THE POWER OR THE ABILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL OFFICER'S DISCRETION[?]
The statute at 18 § 508(a)(1)(i) refers to the use of force in law enforcement, allowing use of force in lawful arrest where necessary to effect the arrest but limiting the use of deadly force; Pa.R.Crim.P. 431(B)(1)(A-C) covers the procedure for enforcing an arrest with a warrant in a summary case. --------
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Beth A. Lazzara, 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 April 29, 2016, at 12-33) (finding: while constables possess power to arrest for unpaid parking tickets, Appellant and co-defendant's convictions stem from egregious manner in which they executed arrest, as well as gross abuse of power they demonstrated in connection with what was ultimately unnecessary arrest; constable handbook expressly provides that constables must accept payment if defendant is able to pay; constables shall take defendants into custody only when payment cannot be made; nothing in constable handbook restricts constables' ability to accept payment by cash or check; constables often take personal checks and many have "swipe cards" on their cell phones which allow payment by credit card; constables may also transport defendant to ATM to collect payment on warrant; arrest warrant itself gave Appellant and co-defendant ability to accept payment at Victim's home; Rule 431 also states constables' authority to transport defendant to court is restricted only to situations where defendant is unable to make payment of any type; Appellant and co-defendant had direct financial motive to take Victim into custody and bring her to court because they are paid more if they physically bring defendant to court, and they do not get paid until personal check offered from defendant clears; Appellant and co-defendant violated procedure outlined in Rule 431 and their convictions stem not only from Victim's unnecessary arrest, given her ability to pay, but also from Appellant and co-defendant's hyper-aggressive conduct and gross mistreatment of Victim; Victim and her daughter both testified they made numerous attempts to pay via various methods, and Appellant and co-defendant refused to tell them amount owed; Appellant and co-defendant also refused to produce paperwork or actual warrant at issue to Victim or her daughters; Victim's daughters said Appellant crumpled up check and confirmed Victim's statements that co-defendant grabbed Victim's foot and dragged Victim out of house; Appellant handcuffed Victim, pushed her several times towards the front door, and pulled Victim backwards and down to the ground using handcuffs; Appellant and co-defendant deliberately placed Victim improperly into police vehicle because she was positioned on her side and no attempt was made to sit her upright, which violates mandated policy and could have caused serious bodily injury to Victim; testimony from Victim and her family members was consistent, highly credible, and worthy of belief; court rejected Appellant's version of events as unbelievable or incredible, Appellant's version of events was contrived, self-serving, and completely unworthy of belief; Appellant came across as disingenuous, sarcastic, combative, and arrogant; court also personally witnessed co-defendant Lowman's temper flare during trial; Appellant's testimony was also inconsistent with notes he prepared on day following incident; evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant's convictions, and verdict was not against weight of evidence). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 3/8/2017
Image materials not available for display.