Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-0939 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH Vo ROBERT LEHMAN ' BEAR · NO. 00-0939 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CHARGE: DISORDERLY CONDUCT (SUM.) OLER, J., August 15, 2000. In this summary offense case, Defendant, appearing in propria persona,~ has appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court from a judgment of sentence for disorderly conduct. The citation for disorderly conduct arose out of an incident in which Defendant blocked the egress of two individuals from their place of business for the purpose of creating litigation wherein he could question one of them under oath concerning an old grievance. The basis for the appeal is expressed in an eight-page, single-spaced writing submitted by Defendant in response to the court's order that he file a statement of matters complained of on appeal. The substance of this statement begins with an accusation that the court is part of the criminal conspiracy of covering up how I was lied into the mental hospital. -I say that the Cumberland County Court--is guilty--of the crime of lying me into the mental hospital, attempting to have me declared criminally insane. One of the lies was that I held up a school bus with a loaded gun? The statement proceeds, inter alia, to discuss a 1973 civil case in which Defendant apparently sued the Reformed Mennonite Church and Reformed Mennonite Bishop Glenn Gross to enjoin the practice of shunning, which he felt had caused the estrangement of his wife.3 It indicates that he plans to commit t Defendant declined the appointment of a public defender, either to represent him or to act as standby counsel. N.T. 3-4, Trial, June 6, 2000 (hereinafter N.T. __). 2 Defendant's Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed August 11, 2000, at 1. S Id. at4. another act in the future, directed toward his estranged wife, with a view toward compelling her testimony in front of a jury.4 The statement of matters complained of on appeal criticizes his-estranged - _ .-?~. ... wife's lack of loyalty.5 It contains the observation that "Had Gale [Gross] Bear [Defendant's estranged wife] been forced to prove her dedica.tion to Mennonite satanic sexual sadism shunning by going into a Nazi German.gas chamber and ending up thirty minutes later 'dead, blue, wet with sweat and urine, th~ legs covered with feces and menstrual blood,' she would have come to her senses more than 28 years ago.''6 The statement includes an excerpt from a book written by a survivor of the holocaust, concerning a woman named Alice whom the author of the book had known at Auschwitz and who evidently perished there,v Defendant concludes his statement of matters complained of on appeal as follows: Alice was more woman, more married until death in one night, "without benefit of clergy," than unfortunately "Come not near to me; for ! am holier than thou" (Isaiah 65:5) shunning wife Gale Gross Bear has proven herself to be after our Mennonite "marriage," our six children, and her almost 62 years.8 Defendant's statement of matters complained of on appeal will be construed as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.9 This opinion in 4Id. at 7-8. 5 Id. at 6. 6Id. 7 Defendant's statement of matters complained of on appeal, filed August 11, 2000, at 8. aid. 9 See Commonwealth v. Blain, 47 Cumberland L.J. 270, 270-71 (1998). 2 support of the judgment of sentence is written pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a). STATEMENT OF FACTS. -- :~.:: .. ...: In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a guilty verdict, the court must "vie~v the evidence, and all reasonable inferences therefrom, in 'the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner." Commonwealth v. Modaffare, 529 Pa. 10l, 103, 601 A.2d 1233, 1234 (1992) (citing Commonwealth v. Hughes, 521 Pa. 423,430, 555 A.2d 1264, 1267 (1989)). Viewed in this light, the evidence at Defendant's summary trial before this court showed that on Wednesday, December 1, 1999, at about 9:00 a.m., at a business known as Ashcombe Farm and Greenhouse located in Monroe Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, a maintenance foreman received a call from the receptionist advising that Defendant was on the premises causing trouble.~° The establishment, which sold plants, flowers, vegetables and antiques, inter alia, ~ ~ was open to the public at this hour.~2 The receptionist requested the foreman's assistance. ~ 3 The foreman, who was aware of three prior occasions on which Defendant had been disorderly upon the premises, opened his workshop door and could hear Defendant yelling on a bullhorn.~4 The bullhorn was a device that Defendant had used on prior occasions on the premises.~5 N.T. 7-9. Id. at 18. 12Id. at 11. 13Id. at9. 14Id. at9, 11-12. N.T. 12. The foreman proceeded to Defendant's location, approximately 350 feet away, which was at a loading dock used in connection with wholesale business of the nursery.~6 This was in an area where transactions with wholesale__customers were conducted,i? and Defendant's yelling was such that a number o~-em'pl0yees": heard it.~8 Defendant had positioned his car cross-ways in front of a .truck that xvas backed up to a storage cooler at the dock, effectively trapping the truck.19 Th:e truck was occupied by Glenn and Mary Ellen Gross, husband and wife, who were part owners of the nursery? Mr. Gross was a person with whom Defendant had a long-standing grievance.2~ It was Defendant's purpose on this occasion to cause himself to be arrested in order to involve Mr. Gross in litigation.~ The Grosses xvere attempting to leave the nursery in the truck.~3 Their windo~vs were closed.24 Defendant, who was accurately described by the foreman as "a pretty big man," was walking "all around the truck, yelling and hollering.''25 16 Id. at 9-10. i?Id. at 11. i8Id. at 13. ~9Id. at 13-15,26. 20 N.T. 15. 21 Id. at 34. 22 Jcl. at 3 3-3 5. 23Id. at 14. 24 Id. at 26. 25 N.T. 11, 16. 4 The Grosses remained mute.26 Defendant "had his bull horn right up against the windshield yelling.''27 The Grosses indicated by nodding their heads to the foreman that they were trying to depart? The foreman asked Defendant to leave.29 Defendant ignored the request and continued to harangue the Grosses with the bullhorn? Ultimately, the foreman got into Defendant's car himself and succeeded i..n moving it away from the front of the truck.3~ He then got out of the car, ~vent over to Defendant, and pushed him away from the exit route of the truck, whereupon the Grosses were able to depart.32 Defendant drove to his home and called the state police? He advised them that he could be arrested at his residence? He expressed disappointment when the investigating state trooper informed him that he would be charged with only a summary offense? At the conclusion of the summary trial, the court found Defendant guilty as charged of disorderly conduct and ordered a presentence investigation report.36 261d. at 13. 27]d. at26. 28Id. at 11,43. 29]d. at 11, 13-14. 3°Id. at 11, 13-14. 3~ Id. at 11-12, 15. 32 I'd. at 12, 16-17. 33 ./d. at 12, 17, 30. 34 Jig. at 30-31. 35 N.T. 32. 36 Order of Court, June 6, 2000. The report indicated that Defendant had, since 1987, been convicted of false imprisonment, simple assault, defiant trespass, disorderly conduct, and trespass? Defendant advised the presentence investigator that several p.sychiatrists - .. !:,~ .. and psychologists had determined that his mental health was fine? The report indicated that Defendant also told the presentence investigator that his intention on the occasion of the present incident had been "to get Glenn (Gross). into Court.''39 When the presentence investigator asked Defendant when he thought thes~ confrontations would end, "Mr. Bear replied that it would be over when he is dead.,'4° The presentence investigation report noted in addition that [t]he defendant's Prior Criminal History is detailed on the Face Sheet of this report. Mr. Bear's current offense is similar in nature to those previously committed, in that it involves a confrontation at Ashcombe's Nursery. It is doubtful that Mr. Bear will discontinue his confrontational approach, with respect to Mr. Glenn Gross and the Reformed Mennonite Church in general. Mr. Bear exhibits a strong belief in his position and seems determined to include the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas in his attempt to change the Reformed Mennonite Church's policy of Shunning.4~ Although the presentence investigator recommended a penalty for the offense in the form of a fine, Defendant had served a term of imprisonment for the 42 and the court was not of the most recent previous summary offenses of ten days, 37 COUrt'S Exhibit 1, Sentencing Proceeding, July 25, 2000. 38 Id. 39 Id. 40 Id. 41Id' 42 Court's Exhibit 1, Sentencing Proceeding, July 25, 2000. 6 view that a fine was commensurate with the seriousness of the offense against the background of Defendant's prior conduct. The following order, from which Defendant has appealed, was entered at the conclusion of the sentencing proceeding: AND NOW, this 25th day of July, 2000,. the Defendant, Robert Lehman Bear, now appearing in court for serit~nce pro .. se, and having previously been found guilty following a :. nonjury trial of summary Disorderly Conduct, and the Court being in receipt of a presentence investigation report upon which it relies, the sentence of the Court is that the Defendant pay the costs of prosecution and undergo imprisonment in the Cumberland County Prison for a period of twenty days. The Defendant is notified of his right to appeal from the judgment of sentence to the Pennsylvania Superior Court within thirty days of today's date.43 The Defendant indicating that he intends to appeal from the judgment of sentence entered herein, his release on his own recognizance is authorized, conditioned upon his timely filing an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered herein. A condition of the Defendant's release on his own recognizance is that he not approach the premises of Ashcombe's Nursery within 500 feet and that he othetwvise be and remain on good behavior. Under Section 5503(a) of the Crimes Code, "Ia] person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; (2) makes unreasonable noise; (3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or (4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of 43 Defendant's statement in his Notice of Appeal that he was not "given Notice that he has a right to appeal" is not correct. 7 the actor." Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, §1, 18 Pa. C.S. §5503(a). According to §5503(c) of the Crimes Code, the word "public" in the provision 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 ... places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises which are open-to the-t:mblic. Id., 18 Pa. C.S. §5503(c). In the present case, although Defendant did not use obscene language or gestures, or engage in physical fighting, it is believed that the evidence was more than sufficient to support a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he had (for the purpose of getting arrested) engaged in physically offensive and tumultuous conduct with an intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, which served no legitimate purpose. It is therefore believed further that the judgment of sentence was properly entered. BY THE COURT, J(~/esley Oler,"J(2J J. Jaime M. Keating, Esq. Chief Deputy District Attorney Robert Lehman Bear 201 Potato Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Defendant, Pro Se