Com. v. Chesonis, C., 332 EDA 2016

On June 14, 2014, during a rugby sevens tournament, Christopher Chesonis punched opponent Liam Gibbons in the left eye during a ruck, pinned him, and attempted additional punches.
Gibbons required immediate surgery for a left orbital floor blowout fracture with an entrapped inferior rectus muscle and later a second surgery with a titanium mesh plate; he continues to suffer double vision and facial numbness.
Tournament officials red-carded and banned Chesonis; later he returned, engaged in profane “trash talk,” and was removed from the grounds.
Chesonis waived a jury, was convicted after a bench trial of simple assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1)), disorderly conduct, and harassment, and sentenced to an aggregate of 2 to 12 months’ imprisonment plus anger management, fines, and restitution.
Chesonis appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence of intent for assault and harassment, and (2) that the trial court abused its sentencing discretion by failing to weigh mitigating factors favoring probation. The Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Chesonis)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence as to intent for simple assault and harassment	Evidence (victim and witnesses) showed intentional punching causing serious injury; credibility for factfinder to resolve	The punch was a reflex in the rough play of rugby or self-defense; witness accounts conflicted and were unreliable	Affirmed: evidence sufficient; discrepancies were not so egregious as to render verdict pure conjecture and credibility issues are for the factfinder
Discretionary aspects of sentencing — failure to consider mitigating factors and imposition of incarceration	Sentencing court acted within discretion; no substantial question shown where only claimed inadequate consideration of mitigation	Trial court ignored mitigating factors and should have imposed probation instead of aggravated-range incarceration	Affirmed: claim does not present a substantial question under the Sentencing Code; issue not reviewable (also waiver excused due to no post-sentence advisement)

Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 141 A.3d 523 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review)
Commonwealth v. Tarrach, 42 A.3d 342 (Pa. Super. 2012) (sufficiency review framework)
Commonwealth v. Karkaria, 625 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1993) (convictions based on so unreliable evidence that verdict is conjecture may be reversed)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 1139 (Pa. 2012) (clarifying when inherently unreliable testimony warrants reversal on sufficiency grounds)
Commonwealth v. Moser, 921 A.2d 526 (Pa. Super. 2007) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
Commonwealth v. Bynum-Hamilton, 135 A.3d 179 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discretionary aspects of sentencing review prerequisites)
Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900 (Pa. Super. 2013) (what constitutes a substantial question for sentencing review)
Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (failure to advise of post-sentence motion can excuse waiver)
Commonwealth v. Sohnleitner, 884 A.2d 307 (Pa. Super. 2005) (Rule 2188 dismissal is discretionary)