Commonwealth v. Martuscelli, 54 A.3d 940

Appellant was convicted by jury in Luzerne County on aggravated assault, assault of a police officer (Officer Brent Brown), terroristic threats, two counts of simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person.
Appellant was represented by counsel who filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw under Santiago; this Court granted withdrawal after verifying compliance with Anders requirements.
Trial evidence showed Appellant during a 2009 incident in which he fired at neighbors and later at responding officers, with threats and statements suggesting suicidal intent and desire to engage in a forceful confrontation with police.
Witnesses included Appellant’s wife (Ms. Smith), a neighbor (Mr. Grovich), and multiple officers who testified to gunfire, lighting a bright spotlight, and Appellant’s statements and actions during the standoff.
A psychologist testified for the defense that Appellant suffered from depression and PTSD with a suicidal intent, but the expert acknowledged contemporaneous homicidal and suicidal intents could coexist.
The trial court sentenced Appellant to twenty to forty years in prison; no post-sentence motions were filed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the evidence sufficient to support the convictions?	Commonwealth contends the доказательства proves each element beyond a reasonable doubt.	Appellant contends the evidence does not prove intent and element-specific requirements for each offense.	Sufficient evidence supports all convictions.
Did counsel's Anders brief and withdrawal comply with Santiago requirements and permit review?	Commonwealth asserts proper compliance with Anders and Santiago, allowing independent review.	Appellant argues the appeal may be frivolous and questions the withdrawal process.	Counsel's withdrawal granted; appeal deemed frivolous and affirmed.

Commonwealth v. Clark, 746 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2000) (sufficiency standard applies to circumstantial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Sanders, 627 A.2d 183 (Pa. Super. 1993) (circumstantial evidence sufficient if evidence links to crime beyond doubt)
Commonwealth v. Badman, 580 A.2d 1367 (Pa. Super. 1990) (guilt requires more than mere suspicion or conjecture)
Commonwealth v. West, 937 A.2d 516 (Pa. Super. 2007) (jury may believe all, some, or none of the evidence)
Commonwealth v. Gruff, 822 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 2003) (definition of substantial step toward crime)
Commonwealth v. Matthew, 909 A.2d 1254 (Pa. 2006) (intent to cause serious bodily injury may be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Eckrote, 12 A.3d 383 (Pa. Super. 2010) (bodily injury element and permissible inference of intent)
Commonwealth v. Landis, 48 A.3d 432 (Pa. Super. 2012) (en banc standard for 2702.1(a) elements including firearm discharge)
Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (reckless endangerment mens rea conscious disregard; brandishing evidence)