Opinion
J-S80043-17 No. 1601 EDA 2017
02-27-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. PAUL LINNEY, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 14, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0006608-2016 BEFORE: BOWES, J., SHOGAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Paul Linney ("Linney") appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his convictions of driving under the influence ("DUI") - general impairment, DUI - highest rate, and harassment. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1), (c); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(4). We affirm.
In its Opinion, the trial court has set forth an extensive recitation of the factual and procedural history, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/7/17, at 1-12.
On appeal, Linney raises the following questions for our review:
I. Did the [trial] court erroneously preclude the defense from introducing photographs depicting the injuries sustained by [Linney] during his 2012 arrest, where: (1) the photos were probative of the affiant officer's credibility, and (2) the true extent of [Linney's] prior injuries was relevant to substantiate [Linney's] testimony that, during the ensuing 2016 incident, he acted out of fear and anger but without a specific intent to harass?
II. Was the evidence insufficient to make out the necessary elements of the crime of harassment, where the evidence did not establish that [Linney] engaged in any of the behaviors proscribed by 18 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 2709 with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm the complainant[?]Brief for Appellant at 5.
In his first claim, Linney contends that the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing the admission of photographs depicting Linney's injuries after his 2012 arrest. Id. at 11. Linney argues that the photographs were relevant to attack the credibility of Officer Thomas Nyman ("Officer Nyman"). Id. at 11, 14; see also id. at 11 (wherein Linney claims that the evidence would have rebutted Officer Nyman's statement that Linney had not been beaten during the 2012 arrest). Linney asserts that the injuries in the photographs would substantiate his testimony that he acted in fear of another beating while harassing Officer Nyman. Id. at 11, 14. Linney claims that he did not act with the required intent to harass, annoy, or alarm, and that he should be awarded a new trial. Id. at 14.
The trial court set forth the relevant law, addressed Linney's first claim, and determined that it is without merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/7/17, at 16-18. Upon review, we agree with the trial court's reasoning and adopt the Opinion rejecting Linney's claim for the purpose of this appeal. See id.
In his second claim, Linney contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his harassment conviction. Brief for Appellant at 15. Linney argues that the evidence did not establish an intent to harass, annoy, or alarm Officer Nyman. Id. Linney asserts that "transitory anger" or "spur-of-the-moment anger" negates specific intent. Id. at 17, 18. Linney claims that because he was handcuffed, alone and defenseless in the patrol car, with an officer he believed had previously beaten him, Linney's actions did not demonstrate he intended to harass Officer Nyman. Id. at 17-18.
The trial court set forth the relevant law, addressed Linney's second claim, and determined that it is without merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/7/17, at 12-16. We agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court, and affirm on the basis of the trial court's Opinion. See id.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 2/27/18
Image materials not available for display.