Com. v. Brickhouse, M., 666 EDA 2017

On Jan 17, 2014, Marzel Brickhouse entered a small Citgo convenience store, was denied use of the restroom by the 67‑year‑old clerk (Fleetman), and without warning punched him in the face.
The blow broke the victim’s glasses and nose, knocked him to the floor, caused swelling, bleeding, headaches, blurred vision and breathing difficulty; the victim was treated at a hospital.
While the victim was on the floor, Brickhouse took two trays/drawers of lottery tickets and fled; he later admitted to police the punch and to stealing tickets and cashing winning tickets with accomplices.
Brickhouse was convicted following a non‑jury trial of multiple offenses including robbery (18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii)) and aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1)); convictions for other counts were merged or vacated at sentencing.
At sentencing the Commonwealth sought a mandatory minimum under Pennsylvania’s Three‑Strikes statute (42 Pa.C.S. § 9714); after amended notice the court imposed a mandatory 10–20 year term for the robbery conviction plus consecutive terms, producing an aggregate 12–24 year sentence.
On appeal the Superior Court affirmed the robbery conviction, vacated the aggravated‑assault conviction for insufficient evidence of intent to cause serious bodily injury, and upheld the adequacy of the Commonwealth’s notice but remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Brickhouse's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for robbery (§3701(a)(1)(ii))	Aggressive, unprovoked punch during theft implied threat of immediate serious bodily injury; victim was intimidated and unable to defend	Single punch that broke glasses and nose does not show threat of serious bodily injury; victim never testified he feared death	Affirmed: conviction upheld — a violent, surprise punch in course of theft can imply threat of immediate serious bodily injury
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault (§2702(a)(1))	Circumstances (age/size disparity, confined space, injuries) show intent or attempt to cause serious bodily injury	Single punch intended only to incapacitate to facilitate theft; no weapon, no threats, no escalation — insufficient to show intent to cause serious bodily injury	Reversed/vacated: evidence insufficient to prove intent to cause serious bodily injury or attempt thereof; aggravated‑assault conviction vacated
Adequacy of Commonwealth notice for mandatory minimum (42 Pa.C.S. §9714(d))	Notice (filed day before and corrected day of sentencing) together with prior trial discussions provided reasonable notice; defense had opportunity to request continuance	Late/incorrect notices were not "reasonable notice" required by statute; mandatory minimum thus improper	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion — defendant had sufficient notice and did not request a continuance; mandatory minimum application stood

Commonwealth v. Bragg, 133 A.3d 328 (Pa. Super. 2016) (aggressive nonverbal conduct during robbery can suffice to show placement in fear of serious bodily injury)
Commonwealth v. Farmer, 361 A.2d 701 (Pa. Super. 1976) (punch during purse theft implied threat of serious bodily injury)
Commonwealth v. Davis, 459 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 1983) (aggressive conduct during brief robbery supports implied threat)
Commonwealth v. Matthew, 909 A.2d 1254 (Pa. 2006) (use of Alexander totality‑of‑circumstances factors to infer intent to cause serious bodily injury)
Commonwealth v. Alexander, 383 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1978) (factors to consider when inferring intent from single‑blow assaults)
Commonwealth v. Dailey, 828 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. 2003) (multiple blows and restraint can show intent to cause serious bodily injury)
Commonwealth v. Burton, 2 A.3d 598 (Pa. Super. 2010) (single‑blow surprise attack on smaller/older victim can support aggravated assault where severe injury or additional indicia of intent exist)
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 817 A.2d 1153 (Pa. Super. 2003) (vacating aggravated‑assault conviction where blow aided theft but did not show intent to cause serious bodily injury)