Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-0130 CRIMINALCOMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DENNIS ANTHONY BUCK 02-0130 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925 Bayley, J., June 11, 2002:-- On April 16, 2002, defendant, Dennis Anthony Buck, was found guilty of summary disorderly conduct in violation of the Crimes Code at 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5503, that provides: (a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating risk thereof, he: (4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor. (Emphasis added.) Section 5503(c): As used in this section the word "public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises which are open to the public. (Emphasis added.) On April 16, 2002, defendant was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution and a fine of $300. He filed a direct appeal from the judgment of sentence to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. In a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, 02-0130 CRIMINAL TERM defendant avers that his conviction was "against the sufficiency of the evidence." The evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth is as follows. Defendant was divorced from Michelle Dirge in 1998. On October 8, 2000, Michelle was living at 2801 Market Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County. A little before 10:00 p.m., she was in her bedroom with Michael Dirge, who is now her husband. She heard a scraping sound on glass in the back ground floor bedroom. It was the same type of sound she had heard the night before around midnight. She called the police. Michael Dirge went outside. He saw a figure of a person standing at the bedroom window in the yard in back of the apartment. That person saw him, and walked toward Market Street. Dirge followed the person on Market Street, and then onto 29th Street. Dirge had gone outside when the scraping sound was heard the night before. On that occasion, he followed a person he saw in the yard to where the person got into a "blackish type car." He was unable to get the license plate number before the person drove away. He then examined his own van and discovered that it was scratched. As Dirge followed the person on October 8th, he was aware that this was "the same man by figure that I had followed the previous night." When they reached 29th Street, the person went to a car that Dirge recognized as the same car he had seen the night before. This time, Dirge got the license plate number. When he was about fifteen feet away from the person, a man "mumbled some words to the effect of you don't know who you are messing around with." Dirge had a clear view of his face. He did not want a confrontation, so he returned to 2801 Market Street, and wrote down the -2- 02-0130 CRIMINAL TERM license plate number, Pa. DGZ3076. Dirge had never seen Dennis Buck before. Michelle showed him some family pictures, and he recognized Dennis Buck, as the person he saw that evening. Officer James McNaughten of the Camp Hill Police responded to 2801 Market Street following a call at 9:55 p.m. He checked the license plate number provided by Dirge with PennDOT. It was registered to defendant. McNaughten went back to the police station and called defendant who lives in Dauphin County. At the officer's request, defendant came to the station later that evening. At trial, Dirge identified defendant as the person he saw outside of 2801 Market Street, Camp Hill, on the evening of October 8, 2000, and then followed to the car on 29th Street.~ DISCUSSION Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence that he recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm by creating a physically offensive condition by an act which served no legitimate purpose to him. Defendant's conduct of scraping the glass on the ground floor bedroom window of his ex-wife created a physically offensive condition which served him no legitimate purpose. The issue is ~ Defendant testified that he had worked in Reading on October 8, 2000, and then returned to his home in Susquehanna Township, Dauphin County, around "8:00 p.m. I would guess." He testified that he then never left his home until after he received the phone call from Officer McNaughten. His home is about a twenty-one minute drive from 2801 Market Street, Camp Hill. Defendant testified that he owned a black Oldsmobile with Pennsylvania registration DGZ3076. Richard A. Devoe testified that he went to defendant's home on the evening of October 8, 2000, to do some work with him. He remembered returning home "somewhere in the neighborhood of 9:30 that -3- 02-0130 CRIMINAL TERM whether, in doing so, he recklessly created the risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm. Michelle Dirgo's ground floor apartment is on Market Street in Camp Hill, a main thoroughfare of the Borough. By going onto her property, and scraping on a ground floor window, defendant, acting ike a Peeping Tom, created a risk of public annoyance, inconvenience or alarm. This was not an act in a rural isolated area, see Commonwealth v. Coon, 695 A.2d 794 (Pa. Super. 1997), nor was it an act committed within the confines of his ex-wife's apartment. See Commonwealth v. Lawson, 759 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2000). Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction of summary disorderly conduct in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5503(a)(4) of the Crimes Code. (DATE) Edgar B. Bayley, J. David Freed, Esquire For the Commonwealth Stephen O. Fugett, Esquire For Defendant :saa evening." -4-