Opinion
J-S58044-15 No. 516 MDA 2015
09-30-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. KURT JAMES OSTRANDER Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 18, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0005785-2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Kurt James Ostrander, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial conviction for resisting arrest or other law enforcement. We affirm.
The trial court opinion fully sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE ADMITTED AT TRIAL WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION FOR THE CHARGE OF RESISTING ARREST?(Appellant's Brief at 5).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Paul M. Yatron, we conclude Appellant's issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed May 18, 2015, at 2-5) (finding: Appellant was aware of officers' presence; patrol car lights were activated and officers shined flashlights in Appellant's direction; Appellant ignored officers' repeated commands to descend fire escape; officer heard Appellant say, "Let me in, the police are coming"; when officers ascended fire escape, Appellant refused to comply with officers' orders to show his hands; when officers rushed Appellant, he continued to resist by clenching his hands underneath his body and refusing to be handcuffed; Appellant's actions were intended to prevent officers from effecting lawful arrest or discharging other duty; Appellant's failure to comply required officers to ascend narrow fire escape several stories above ground; broken glass was strewn about landing where Appellant struggled with officers; even "mere scuffle" in these circumstances put officers at substantial risk of bodily injury; evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction for resisting arrest). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/30/2015
Image materials not available for display.