Com. v. Dones, D.
708 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2016Background
- At ~4:00 a.m. on Dec. 21, 2014, police responded to 310 Hummel St.; Dones was verbally aggressive, covered in blood, and yelling threats including “I’m going to f*&king kill you.”
- Dones was transported to a hospital; while restrained on a gurney he thrashed, spat on officers/EMT, and delivered at least one forceful kick to Officer Powell that knocked him back despite a vest.
- A jury convicted Dones of aggravated assault of a police officer (18 Pa.C.S. §2702(a)(3)) and disorderly conduct (18 Pa.C.S. §5503(a)(4)).
- Sentencing: court imposed 18–84 months’ imprisonment for aggravated assault and concurrent 12 months’ probation for disorderly conduct; ran the aggravated assault sentence consecutively to an aggravated-range sentence in an unrelated case.
- Dones appealed, arguing (1) verdicts were against the weight/insufficient as to intent/bodily injury for aggravated assault and (2) consecutive aggravated-range sentences were an abuse of discretion, in part because of his mental-health condition.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated-assault (intent/attempt to cause bodily injury to officer) | Dones: mental-health episode; kick landed on vested area and caused no injury, so no intent to cause bodily injury | Evidence of kicking, thrashing, winding up to kick, and testimony that kick knocked officer back supports intent/attempt to cause bodily injury | Affirmed — sufficient evidence to prove attempt to cause bodily injury under §2702(a)(3) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for disorderly conduct (public inconvenience/annoyance or alarm) | Dones: involuntary mental-health commitment subjectivity; argues conduct not qualifying | Continuous threats, spitting, loud obscenities, and public disturbance satisfied public, physically offensive, and alarm elements | Affirmed — sufficient evidence under §5503(a)(4) |
| Discretionary aspects of sentencing — imposition of consecutive aggravated-range sentences | Dones: consecutive aggravated-range terms manifestly excessive; court ignored mitigating mental-health factor | Court considered criminal history, repeated violent episodes, lack of remorse, public protection, gravity, and rehabilitation; medication noncompliance did not outweigh public safety concerns | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; trial court adequately reasoned and considered relevant factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 947 A.2d 800 (Pa. Super. 2008) (credibility determinations lie with the factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. Marti, 779 A.2d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2001) (aggravated-assault statute requires only attempt to inflict bodily injury)
- Commonwealth v. Galindes, 786 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Super. 2001) (definition of attempt and intent for assault)
- Commonwealth v. Pringle, 450 A.2d 103 (Pa. Super. 1982) (shouting profane insults at police in public constitutes disorderly conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Karkaria, 625 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1993) (distinction between weight and sufficiency claims)
- Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (four-part test for appellate review of discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2014) (procedural requirements for discretionary-aspect sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (when extreme sentences may raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Super. 2003) (failure to consider mitigating factors can present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (sentencing court reliance on impermissible factors raises substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Hermanson, 674 A.2d 281 (Pa. Super. 1996) (standard for reviewing sentencing for abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Stewart, 867 A.2d 589 (Pa. Super. 2005) (sentencing court may consider any legal factor in imposing aggravated-range sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 489 A.2d 906 (Pa. Super. 1985) (defendant's prior arrests are proper sentencing considerations)