Com. v. Nelson, T.
2749 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 3, 2017Background
- Appellant Troy L. Nelson was convicted after a bench trial of aggravated assault, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person (REAP) for an October 2015 attack on his ex‑girlfriend, Jennifer Santana.
- Facts: Nelson dragged Santana into his home in violation of a PFA order, choked her, banged her head on the floor, bit her fingers, and rendered her unconscious twice while their 7‑year‑old daughter was present; Santana suffered bruises, a neck strain, and other injuries.
- Trial court sentenced Nelson to 6–12 years’ imprisonment (aggravated assault) plus probation and imposed a concurrent 5–10 year sentence after revoking his probation from an earlier PWID/conspiracy case; sentences run concurrently.
- Nelson appealed, raising (1) insufficiency and weight challenges to the aggravated assault conviction, (2) discretionary‑sentencing claims for the assault sentence, and (3) claims that the probation‑revocation sentence was illegal or excessive because the underlying probation sentence was unlawful.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether the evidence established attempt or serious bodily injury, whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, whether the trial court abused its sentencing discretion, and whether collateral attack on the prior probation sentence was permissible in the revocation appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Nelson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault (attempt to cause serious bodily injury) | Evidence (choking, head‑banging, loss of consciousness, threats, size disparity) supports finding of attempt and intent | Injuries were not "serious bodily injury"; Nelson argued he refrained from further harm and thus lacked intent to attempt serious injury | Conviction affirmed: circumstantial evidence and totality of circumstances support attempt and intent to cause serious bodily injury |
| Weight of the evidence as to aggravated assault | Evidence was credible and the fact‑finder properly weighed it | Verdict shocks conscience because injuries were minor and intent lacking | Weight claim denied: trial court did not abuse discretion; appellate court will not reweigh evidence |
| Discretionary aspects of sentencing for aggravated assault | Sentence within standard range, based on PSI, defendant’s extensive criminal history, and protection of victim/public | Sentence unduly harsh; court failed to consider mitigating factors and relied on improper factors | Sentence affirmed: court considered applicable factors, rejected reliance on withdrawn charges, and did not abuse discretion |
| Legality/excessiveness of sentence on probation revocation (attacking prior probation as illegal) | Collateral attack on underlying sentence not permitted in revocation appeal; must pursue PCRA | Underlying probation sentence was illegal, so revocation sentence is illegal | Challenge rejected: revocation court lacked jurisdiction to entertain collateral attack; issue must be raised via PCRA and was untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fortune, 68 A.3d 980 (Pa. Super. 2013) (totality‑of‑circumstances test for intent to inflict serious bodily injury in aggravated assault attempts)
- Commonwealth v. Alexander, 383 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1978) (list of factors for inferring intent from conduct in aggravated assault cases)
- Commonwealth v. Matthew, 909 A.2d 1254 (Pa. 2006) (reaffirming Alexander and totality‑of‑circumstances approach)
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 830 A.2d 537 (Pa. 2003) (finder of fact may infer intent from the actor’s conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403 (Pa. 2003) (standard for weight‑of‑evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (sentencing court must consider statutory factors; review for unreasonableness)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (presumption that sentencing court considered PSI and relevant factors when imposing guideline sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Beasley, 570 A.2d 1336 (Pa. Super. 1990) (collateral attack on underlying conviction/sentence not available in probation revocation appeal; must use PCRA)