Com. v. Hartley, M., Com. v. Hartley, M. No. 1248 WDA 2016

Background

At ~2:00 A.M. on March 21, 2015, Michael Hartley and at least one accomplice assaulted Mitchell Davis in a bar parking lot; Davis was struck, punched, stomped, and forcefully kicked in the face while on the ground.
Bystander testimony described Davis gurgling blood and being rendered unconscious; he was flown by Life Flight to a hospital, underwent reconstructive facial surgery, received a tracheotomy for crushed nasal passages (tube in place ~6 weeks), and suffered ongoing vision and psychological effects.
A jury convicted Hartley of aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1)) and simple assault; he was sentenced July 27, 2016 to 5–10 years’ imprisonment.
Hartley filed post-sentence motions (denied), appealed raising sufficiency-of-evidence, evidentiary, photographic, and sentencing-gravity-score claims; the trial court and parties complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
The Superior Court reviewed sufficiency (viewing evidence in Commonwealth’s favor), evidentiary preservation, and discretionary-sentencing standards in deciding to affirm.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Hartley)	Held
1. Sufficiency: Did evidence prove attempt/intention to cause serious bodily injury?	The forceful repeated blows, stompings, and a punting kick to a smaller victim on the ground permit inference of intent or reckless conduct showing extreme indifference.	Hartley argued he did not escalate, made no statements showing intent, and a single kick cannot establish intent given multiple actors.	Held: Evidence sufficient; jury could infer intent or extreme indifference from the conduct.
2. Sufficiency: Did evidence prove serious bodily injury occurred?	Medical records, surgery, tracheotomy, ICU stay, and lasting impairment demonstrate serious bodily injury.	Hartley argued Commonwealth needed medical testimony and likened injuries to non-serious precedent (Alexander).	Held: Evidence showed serious bodily injury; medical testimony not required where records and testimony establish severity.
3. Admission of victim’s mother testimony about injuries/impact	Testimony was probative of hospitalization, surgery, and injuries relevant to serious bodily injury element.	Hartley argued testimony was prejudicial, cumulative, and like an improper victim-impact statement in guilt phase.	Held: Issue waived for lack of contemporaneous objection; alternatively, admission was within trial court discretion.
4. Admission of close-up hospital photograph	Photograph was probative of nature and extent of facial/head injuries supporting serious bodily injury.	Hartley argued the photo was inflammatory and lacked probative value.	Held: Issue waived for failure to preserve; alternatively, the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a single probative photo.
5. Sentencing offense gravity score (11 v. 10)	The record contained sufficient evidence of actual serious bodily injury to justify using OGS 11 even absent an express oral finding at sentencing.	Hartley argued the court should have used OGS 10 because no express finding of serious bodily injury was made at sentencing.	Held: Claim preserved and substantial; evidence supported serious bodily injury, so use of OGS 11 was not an abuse of discretion.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Tukhi, 149 A.3d 881 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for sufficiency)
Commonwealth v. Scott, 146 A.3d 775 (Pa. Super. 2016) (credibility and weight reserved to factfinder)
Commonwealth v. Patrick, 933 A.2d 1043 (Pa. Super. 2007) (recklessness/extreme indifference standard for aggravated assault)
Commonwealth v. Alexander, 383 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1978) (single punch causing broken nose not serious bodily injury)
Commonwealth v. Glover, 449 A.2d 662 (Pa. Super. 1982) (group assault on smaller victim supports inference of intent)
Commonwealth v. Rodriquez, 673 A.2d 962 (Pa. Super. 1996) (similar holding on intent inference from group violence)
Commonwealth v. Matthew, 909 A.2d 1254 (Pa. 2006) (intent may be inferred from conduct)
Commonwealth v. Cain, 29 A.3d 3 (Pa. Super. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admission of evidence)
Commonwealth v. Dennis, 460 A.2d 255 (Pa. Super. 1983) (hospital photos admissible when relevant and not inflammatory)
Commonwealth v. Caterino, 678 A.2d 389 (Pa. Super. 1996) (OGS 11 requires a finding that conduct actually resulted in serious bodily injury)
Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203 (Pa. Super. 1998) (misapplication of Guidelines is a discretionary sentencing challenge)
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for reviewing sentencing discretion)
Commonwealth v. Samuel, 102 A.3d 1001 (Pa. Super. 2014) (factors for invoking jurisdiction over discretionary-sentencing claims)
Commonwealth v. Thoeun Tha, 64 A.3d 704 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to contemporaneously object waives evidentiary claims)