Opinion
J-A29034-15 No. 1950 WDA 2014
01-19-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. STEVEN SHICK, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 31, 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County, Criminal Division, No. CP-43-SA-0000043-2014 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BOWES and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Steven Shick ("Shick"), pro se, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following his summary conviction of defiant trespass. We affirm.
The trial court summarized the factual history underlying the instant appeal as follows:
On June 6, 2014, [Shick] attended a Methodist Conference at Grove City College. [Shick's] purpose for being at the conference was to protest the church, and [Shick] stood outside the conference site holding a sign displaying messages of, inter alia, hypocrisy within the Methodist [C]hurch. As [Shick] continued his protest, Lance Tucker ["Officer Tucker"], a security officer for the Methodist Conference, asked [Shick] to leave the premises. [Shick] refused.
In response, [Officer] Tucker informed Kent McFadden ["McFadden"], the Assistant Director of Campus Safety at Grove City College, of the protest and asked for assistance from the college. [] McFadden approached [Shick] and also asked him to leave the campus or [McFadden] would have to call the police.
[Shick] again refused to leave the premises. [] McFadden then contacted the Grove City Police Department. [Grove City Police] Officer [Michael] Allias ["Officer Allias"] responded and arrived to find ... [Shick] still on the premises holding his sign. Officer Allias asked [Shick] to leave twice, but [Shick] refused[,] saying that [Officer Allias] would just have to arrest him. Officer Allias did so, and [Shick] was convicted of defiant trespass[] by Magisterial District Judge Neil McEwen on June 25, 2014.Trial Court Opinion, 1/13/15, at 1-2. The trial court sentenced Shick to seven to fourteen days in jail, and ordered him to pay the costs of prosecution. Thereafter, Shick filed the instant timely appeal, followed by a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal.
[Shick] appealed his conviction to [the trial c]ourt. After a de novo hearing on October 31, 2014, [the trial c]ourt upheld the defiant trespass conviction ....
Shick presents the following issues for our review:
I. Whether trial counsel, William Jack Cline, Esquire ("Attorney Cline"), rendered ineffective assistance by not presenting certain witnesses, who would have testified that Shick had permission to be on the property and protest at the Conference?
II. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Shick's conviction of defiant trespass where (a) the property is not marked as private property; (b) Grove City College does not restrict entry or exit by means of security personnel or gates; (c) Grove City College failed to notify Shick that he is not permitted on the property during the United Methodist Annual Conference, (d) Shick had informed Patricia Priester ("Priester"), the campus events and conference manager, regarding his intention to protest the Conference, and she did not prohibit Shick's presence on the property to protest, and, in fact, delegated the matter to the Methodist Conference for their response and permission; (e) Bishop Thomas Bickerton ("Bishop
Bickerton"), the highest authority attending the conference, granted Shick permission to be on campus and attend the Conference as a visitor and member of the denomination; (f) Shick had registered for the Conference and proof of his registration was worn by Shick at the time he was contacted by security officers; (e) the Reverend Greg Cox ("Reverend Cox"), by email, approved Shick's attendance at the Conference; (g) testimony established that Shick was not bothering anyone or protesting in any building; and (h) contrary to the charges against him, Shick was not protesting the fact of the Conference being held on Grove City College campus?See generally Brief for Appellant at 1-12 (unnumbered).
"Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant." Commonwealth v. Adams , 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citing Commonwealth v. Lyons , 833 A.2d 245, 252 (Pa. Super. 2003)). "To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing." Adams , 882 A.2d at 498 (citing Commonwealth v. Rivera , 685 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1996)). While the defects in Shick's brief are numerous, and warrant dismissal of the appeal, we decline to do so in this instance.
Shick first claims that Attorney Cline rendered ineffective assistance when he failed to present certain witnesses at trial. See id. at 4. According to Shick, he had asked Attorney Cline to subpoena Bishop Bickerton, Reverend Cox, and Bishop Bickerton's executive secretary. Id. Shick claims that the testimony of those witnesses "would have been so important to prove without a doubt their approval of my presence and conduct at this 2014 Annual Conference." Id.
Generally, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be deferred to collateral review under the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). Under the plain language of the PCRA, an appellant is only eligible for post-conviction relief if he is "currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole for the crime." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(1). Our Supreme Court has declined to create an exception to this rule where the appellant was serving a "short sentence." Commonwealth v. O'Berg , 880 A.2d 597, 602 (Pa. 2005). Accordingly, we cannot address Shick's ineffectiveness claim in this direct appeal.
Even if we could address Shick's ineffectiveness claim, we would conclude that he is not entitled to relief for the reasons stated in the trial court's January 13, 2015 Opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/13/15, at 4.
Shick next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his conviction of defiant trespass. In his pro se brief, Shick refers to testimony indicating that he had permission to protest during the conference. Brief for Appellant at 10 (unnumbered). Shick points out that he had informed Officer Tucker that Reverend Cox had granted him permission to protest. Id. Shick further argues that Officer Tucker refused Shick's request to consult with Reverend Cox and Bishop Bickerton. Id. According to Shick, he "was a victim of very poor communication that could have been corrected by a simple call to either Reverend [] Cox or Bishop [Bickerton]." Id.
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we evaluate the record "in the light most favorable to the verdict winner[,] giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence." Commonwealth v. Bibbs , 970 A.2d 440, 445 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted).
Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it established each element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty, and may sustain its burden by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.[] Significantly, [we] may not substitute [our] judgment for that of the factfinder; if the record contains support for the convictions they may not be disturbed.Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted, footnote added). "Any doubt about the defendant's guilt is to be resolved by the factfinder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances." Commonwealth v. Scott , 967 A.2d 995, 998 (Pa. Super. 2009).
"[C]ircumstantial evidence is reviewed by the same standard as direct evidence—a decision by the trial court will be affirmed so long as the combination of the evidence links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Bricker , 882 A.2d 1008, 1014 (Pa. Super. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Upon our review of the parties' briefs, and the certified record, we agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court, as stated in its Opinion, that Shick's claim lacks merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/13/15, at 4-6. We therefore affirm on the basis of the trial court's Opinion with regard to this claim. See id.; see also Commonwealth v. Toland , 995 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating that the trier of fact, while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence); Commonwealth v. Manley , 985 A.2d 256, 262 (Pa. Super. 2009) (recognizing that an appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact).
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/19/2016
Image materials not available for display.