J-S40025-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : BRIAN THOMAS BARNETT : : Appellant : No. 2027 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 17, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0000279-2021
BEFORE: STABILE, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and LANE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED JANUARY 30, 2025
Brian Thomas Barnett appeals from the judgment of sentence following
his convictions for burglary, use or possession of electric incapacitation device,
disarming law enforcement officer, resisting arrest, criminal trespass, firearms
not to be carried without a license, and two counts of aggravated assault. 1
Barnett challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the burglary,
aggravated assault, and firearms convictions. We reverse the judgment of
sentence for firearms not to be carried without a license. We affirm the
judgment of sentence for all other convictions and remand for resentencing.
At Barnett’s March 2023 bench trial, Barnett’s sister, Jennifer Barnett-
Quattlebaum, testified that on December 13, 2020, Barnett called her and
asked where their father was. N.T., Mar. 15, 2023, at 11-12. Barnett- ____________________________________________
118 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3502(a)(1)(i), 908.1(a)(1), 5104.1, 5104, 3503(b)(1)(i), 6106(a), and 2702(a)(3), respectively. J-S40025-24
Quattlebaum did not respond. Id. at 12. Barnett then said, “Well, I need gas
money. I’m coming to your house to get it.” Id. Barnett-Quattlebaum testified
that she told Barnett she would not give him money, and he said, “Well, I’m
going to get gas money from [D]ad.” Id. She testified that Barnett arrived at
her house and was “very demanding and saying that, . . . ‘I know that [D]ad’s
there even though you didn’t answer me.’” Id. She stated that Barnett said
he was going to get the gas money from their father, and “he’s going to give
it to me today, and I’m not going home.” Id. Barnett-Quattlebaum testified
she told Barnett it was not a good time or good idea, but Barnett “[v]ery
forcefully” said, “Nope, I’m going to come. I’m going to get that money and
he’s going to give it to me.” Id. Barnett-Quattlebaum testified that she kept
her father’s location a secret to protect her father because “the week before
that there [had been] an incident that occurred.” Id. at 13.
Barnett-Quattlebaum stated that when Barnett arrived at her house, she
opened the door just enough to see his face and told him to go home. Id. at
15. She said that Barnett repetitively asked where their father was and
whether their father was in the house, and he refused to leave. Id. She
testified Barnett pushed the door open and put his hand inside, at which point
Barnett-Quattlebaum’s husband came over and they pushed the door to try
to get him out. Id. at 16. She stated that Barnett “pushed the door very
forcefully” so that Barnett-Quattlebaum and her husband were pushed back.
Id. After several attempts, they got him back outside. Id. She testified that
she called the police. Id. at 17. Barnett-Quattlebaum testified that when they
-2- J-S40025-24
were outside, she told him to go home, and “[a]t one point he pull[ed] up his
shirt and was like, I’m going to get in your house. I know [D]ad is in there
and you’re hiding him.” Id. at 18. She testified that she saw “in the front of
his pants . . . two handles which were a knife and a gun.” Id. Barnett-
Quattlebaum testified that she felt “[w]orried, nervous, upset, scared,”
because she “didn’t know what to expect from him.” Id. at 20.
Barnett-Quattlebaum testified that at one point during the struggle, her
father came downstairs. Id. at 21. She stated that she yelled at her father to
go back upstairs and that Barnett had a weapon. Id. at 22. She testified that
her father offered Barnett money and said, “Just stop. Go home.” Id. at 28.
She testified her father did not go upstairs immediately, but did go after she
screamed it a few times. Id. at 22.
Barnett-Quattlebaum testified that when the police arrived, she briefly
explained that they had had a fight, Barnett had been trying to get in her
house, and Barnett threatened her with a weapon. Id. at 23. She said that
the police asked Barnett what happened, and he said he was there to see his
father and then ran “to the other side of the house” and across the neighbor’s
yard. Id. at 24. She testified the police caught him “about two houses up in
the middle of the street.” Id. She stated that when the police caught up with
Barnett, there was a struggle and Barnett was trying to flee, and Barnett
wrestled the cops. Id. She stated that other officers arrived and “there’s other
cops rushing in and parking and running up to them. So it’s a whole big crowd
-3- J-S40025-24
of cops in the street surrounding him, and he’s still fighting.” Id. at 25. She
testified that her brother was a former wrestler and rugby player. Id.
Detective James Chieffo testified that on December 13, 2020, he and
Officer Jennifer Schreiber were working a patrol shift and were dispatched to
a domestic dispute with a suspect armed with a knife. Id. at 62-63. When he
arrived, he saw Barnett-Quattlebaum and her husband standing outside their
residence in a “defense posture where they were in fear for their own safety”
and Barnett standing in front of them. Id. at 64. Detective Chieffo testified
that he approached Barnett, who backed away, turned, and ran. Id. at 64-65.
He stated that he and Officer Schreiber chased Barnett, and he told Officer
Schreiber to deploy her taser. Id. at 65. He testified that it appeared both
prongs of Officer Schreiber’s taser struck Barnett, but it did not have an effect.
Id. Detective Chieffo testified he caught up to Barnett in the street and a
“tussle occurred.” Id. He testified that as he was grabbing Barnett’s hoodie,
Barnett pulled back and Detective Chieffo’s left foot and leg bent underneath
him. Id.
Detective Chieffo said he realized he was injured, looked up, and saw
Officer Schreiber struggling with Barnett. Id. at 66. He stated he jumped up
and grabbed Barnett and was able to take him to the ground. Id. He testified
that Barnett did not comply with orders to put his hands behind his back. Id.
Detective Chieffo testified he was trying to keep Barnett’s hands away from
his waist area because he knew Barnett had a knife. Id. He told Officer
Schreiber to deploy her stun gun, which she did, but it did not have any effect
-4- J-S40025-24
on Barnett. Id. He testified that Officer Schrieber then told him that Barnett
had the taser. Id. Detective Chieffo testified that he saw Barnett’s hand in
control of the taser, and he grabbed Barnett’s hand to try to “smash it, grab
it, keep hitting his hand on the ground getting him to drop the taser and he
didn’t.” Id. at 66-67. Barnett nonetheless raised the taser in Officer
Schreiber’s direction. Id. at 67. Detective Chieffo testified that “[o]nce backup
arrived it took several officers to subdue [Barnett] and put handcuffs on him.”
Id. at 68. Detective Chieffo testified that one of the officers was able to
dislodge the taser from Barnett’s hand, and during the “tussle,” Barnett’s shirt
lifted and the officers found a firearm in his waistband. Id. at 69.
Detective Chieffo testified that he described the encounter as a fight
because “[t]here was no complying[.]” Id. He said, “The fact that [Barnett]
had disarmed or taken Officer Schreiber’s [taser] from her and had that
pointed in her direction and was not complying, that was not a simple resisting
arrest. That was willing to do whatever he had to.” Id. He further testified
that while resisting, Barnett was trying to get to his waist, and the detective
feared he was trying to reach for a weapon because he knew Barnett had a
knife. Id. at 71.
Detective Chieffo testified that he sustained a torn ligament in his left
ankle that did not heal and he has had numerous surgeries and procedures in
his ankle. Id. He also had pain nerve block injections in his foot and spinal
cord. Id. He was diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome, “which is
an injury to the nerve that runs down into [his] foot.” Id. at 71-72. He has a
-5- J-S40025-24
spinal cord stimulator, which helps control the nerve pain. Id. at 72. He
testified that he can no longer be a police officer, does not think he can do
other work in the foreseeable future, and uses a cane to walk. Id.
Detective Chieffo testified that Barnett pushed and shoved him and
“continued physical contact the whole time.” Id. at 74. The detective stated
that “[t]here was aggression behind trying to get away,” noting “the pushing
and the shoving and then the down on the ground trying to get his hands
behind his back.” Id. at 76. Detective Chieffo explained, “The force that he
was using to prevent that from happening was probably the most resistance
of force that I’ve had in some time in my career, if ever.” Id.
Officer Jennifer Schreiber testified that Detective Chieffo made contact
with Barnett first. Id. at 102. She stated she observed a “knife sheath type
landing off [Barnett’s] right hip area in front of the hip area[.]” Id. She
testified Barnett backed away, and then turned and ran from the officers. Id.
She stated she tased Barnett “directly in the back,” and although she believed
both prongs made contact, she did not observe any effect on Barnett. Id. at
103. She stated she tried to get Barnett’s hands above his body, and Barnett
was pushing himself off the ground and “appeared [to be] slamming Detective
Chieffo on the ground,” and she then used the “dry stun” 2 portion of the taser
____________________________________________
2 Officer Schreiber explained that a “dry stun” is where the cartridge is out of
the taser and the taser has only electrical connection, so that “when you press down . . . the front of the barrel essentially of the taser is what tased them.” N.T., Mar. 15, 2023, at 106.
-6- J-S40025-24
in Barnett’s back area. Id. at 105-06. She again observed no effect on Barnett.
Id. at 107.
Officer Schreiber testified that Barnett seized the taser from her. Id.
She said that she was able to maintain some contact with it and shoved his
hand back on the asphalt, as she attempted to get the taser back. Id. She
testified that as they were fighting over the taser, Barnett deployed it and
shocked her hand. Id. She stated she finally was able to “forcefully twist” the
taser out of his hand, and, after it was removed, Barnett attempted to reach
back to his waistband. Id. at 110. She stated she knew he had a knife on him
and believed he could have other weapons. Id. She testified that after back-
up arrived, she was able to handcuff Barnett and, as she was doing so, his
shirt lifted and she saw the holster for the knife and a firearm. Id. at 112.
Barnett’s father, Thomas Draper, testified for the defense. He stated he
was living with his daughter on the night of the arrest. N.T., Mar. 20, 2023,
at 11-12. He said he had been at his daughter’s house for about two weeks,
and prior to that he lived at his home with his wife and Barnett. Id. 11-13.
Draper testified that his wife was hospitalized and he went to his daughter’s
house because he needed some time away from Barnett. Id. at 13. He stated
that he came downstairs when Barnett was at the door because he “was going
to . . . give him the money, whatever he wanted.” Id. at 15. Draper testified
that he knew Barnett was running out of money, because he had “put food
and stuff on the table before [he] left, . . . and was worried about him.” Id.
at 16. He stated Barnett had not threatened to harm anyone that night. Id.
-7- J-S40025-24
The parties stipulated that in December 2020, Barnett did not have a
valid license to carry a firearm. N.T., Mar. 15, 2023, at 94-95; Exh. C-7. The
defense admitted into evidence a gun license check that showed that a firearm
license had been issued to Barnett in October 2016, was set to expire in
October 2021, and had been updated twice. However, the printout also
showed the license had been revoked twice, once on August 10, 2017 and
again on February 1, 2018. N.T., Mar. 20, 2023, at 8. 3
The trial court found Barnett guilty of the crimes listed above. It court
sentenced him in all to six and a half to 13 years’ incarceration. Barnett filed
a timely appeal.4, 5
Barnett raises the following issues:
I. Was sufficient evidence presented to find [Barnett] guilty of burglary, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(A)(a)(i), considering the Commonwealth did not prove [Barnett] had the intent to commit a crime in the home? ____________________________________________
3 The exhibits from March 20, 2023 are not in the certified record. However,
the court described the exhibit at trial and neither party disputes the contents of the exhibit.
4 Counsel filed a petition to withdraw as counsel in the trial court, which the
trial court granted. This Court remanded for a Grazier hearing. See Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). The trial court clarified that when it granted the petition to withdraw it orally appointed the Public Defender as counsel, but the appointment was not docketed. It therefore concluded a Grazier hearing was unnecessary, reappointed the Public Defender, and ordered counsel to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal. Tr.Ct.Op., filed Sept. 20, 2023 at 1 (unpaginated).
5 The trial occurred before the Honorable Louis Mincarelli. Judge Mincarelli left
the bench prior to issuance of a Rule 1925(a) opinion. The case was reassigned to the Honorable Patrick Carmody, who issued an opinion.
-8- J-S40025-24
II. Was sufficient evidence presented to find [Barnett] guilty of aggravated assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(A)(3), with respect to Detective Chieffo considering the Commonwealth did not prove [Barnett] had the intent to injure the detective’s leg or, in the alternative, that [Barnett] attempted to cause bodily injury to Detective Chieffo?
III. Was sufficient evidence presented to find [Barnett] guilty of aggravated assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(A)(3), with respect to Officer Schreiber considering the Commonwealth did not prove [Barnett] had the intent to cause bodily injury the when the officer’s hand was shocked or, in the alternative, that [Barnett] attempted to cause bodily injury to Officer Schreiber?
IV. Was sufficient evidence presented to show mens rea necessary to convict [Barnett] of firearms not to be carried without a license, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(A)(1), considering [Barnett] previously had a valid license to carry a firearm and the Commonwealth did not present evidence [Barnett] was notified the license was revoked at the time of the incident.
Barnett’s Br. at 2.
Barnett challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. When reviewing a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “our standard of review is de novo
[and] our scope of review is limited to considering the evidence of record, and
all reasonable inferences arising therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable
to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner.” Commonwealth v. Rushing,
99 A.3d 416, 420-21 (Pa. 2014). Evidence is sufficient where it proves every
element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v.
Webber, 306 A.3d 921, 925 (Pa.Super. 2023). The Commonwealth may
prove each element of a crime with wholly circumstantial evidence.
Commonwealth v. Hall, 199 A.3d 954, 960 (Pa.Super. 2018).
-9- J-S40025-24
Barnett first argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the
burglary conviction because the Commonwealth did not prove he had an intent
to commit a crime in the home. He states that Barnett-Quattlebaum did not
want Barnett entering her home and interacting with their father, but
maintains that those facts “do not make this situation a [b]urglary.” Barnett’s
Br. at 22. He claims there was “no evidence that [Barnett’s] intent upon entry
was to harm anyone inside the home,” or that his intent “was to force or
attempt to force his father to do anything once he gained access to the inside.”
Id. at 25. Barnett concedes that his sister’s testimony showed that he “gained
entry by force,” but argues that “this alone . . . does not automatically give
rise to intent to commit a crime inside.” Id. He further maintains that Barnett-
Quattlebaum’s testimony that he said he was “going to get in the house
regardless” did “not insinuate[e] he was going to commit a crime inside the
house.” Id. Barnett testified that his father came downstairs to offer Barnett
money and that his father had voluntarily given him money in the past. In
Barnett’s view, the evidence only showed that he wanted to enter the
residence to ask his father for money and that his father was offering money.
A person is guilty of burglary “if, with the intent to commit a crime
therein, the person . . . enters a building or occupied structure . . . that is
adapted for overnight accommodations in which at the time of the offense any
person is present and the person commits, attempts or threatens to commit
a bodily injury crime therein[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a)(1)(i). A “bodily injury
crime” is defined as
- 10 - J-S40025-24
An act, attempt or threat to commit an act which would constitute a misdemeanor or felony under the following:
Chapter 25 (relating to criminal homicide).
Chapter 27 (relating to assault).
Chapter 29 (relating to kidnapping).
Chapter 31 (relating to sexual offenses).
Section 3301 (relating to arson and related offenses).
Chapter 37 (relating to robbery).
Chapter 49 Subch. B (relating to victim and witness intimidation).
Id. at 3502(e).
The intent to commit a crime “may be established by the defendant’s
words or inferred from his conduct or from the attendant circumstances.”
Commonwealth v. Russell, 460 A.2d 316, 321-22 (Pa.Super. 1983).
Pennsylvania courts have rejected “a per se assumption that evidence of a
forced opening into an occupied structure automatically gives rise to an
inference of intent to commit a crime inside.” Commonwealth v. Alston,
651 A.2d 1092, 1094 (Pa. 1994) (emphasis omitted). Therefore, “more than
merely breaking a door or window is required to support an inference of intent
to commit a crime inside.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Rather, we must apply a
totality of the circumstances test to determine whether an intent to commit a
crime existed. Commonwealth v. Wilamowski, 633 A.2d 141, 144 (Pa.
1993).
We conclude sufficient evidence supported the burglary conviction.
Barnett arrived at the home when told not to come and then used force on
- 11 - J-S40025-24
the individuals inside the home to gain entry. Barnett’s physical confrontation
with the homeowners as he forced the door open, coupled with the evidence
that Barnett possessed weapons, supported a finding that he possessed an
intent to commit a crime in the house.
In his second and third issues, Barnett challenges the aggravated
assault convictions. He concedes there was sufficient evidence Detective
Chieffo sustained bodily injury but argues the Commonwealth did not prove
Barnett had caused the injury intentionally or knowingly. He claims that
Detective Chieffo was injured when he pulled on Barnett’s hoodie and Barnett
pulled back, and argues there was no testimony Barnett attempted to cause,
or was aware of, the injury. He points out that Barnett did not kick or stomp
on Detective Chieffo’s leg. He further maintains that Detective Chieffo did not
see a knife or gun until Barnett was handcuffed, and Barnett did not pull out
“any object . . . to threaten” anyone. Barnett’s Br. at 34. Citing Detective
Chieffo’s testimony that he did not give Barnett an opportunity to reach for
the knife, Barnett argues that the lack of opportunity means he did not take
a substantial step to commit assault. He further argues that Detective Chieffo
testified he prevented Barnett from using the taser and therefore Barnett
could not have taken a substantial step when holding the taser.
Barnett adds that although Officer Schreiber testified that Barnett used
the taser on her hand, Detective Chieffo testified Barnett had been unable to
use it, and Officer Schreiber did not testify as to physical impairment as a
result of being shocked. He notes that Officer Schreiber testified that Barnett
- 12 - J-S40025-24
began to reach for his waistband and she thought he would shoot her, but
points out that Detective Chieffo testified Barnett could not get to his
waistband. He claims the Commonwealth thus failed to show Barnett had the
intent to assault Officer Schreiber or took a substantial step towards causing
her bodily injury. He maintains the struggle described was consistent with
conduct encompassed by the resisting arrest statute.
Under the charged subsection, a person is guilty of aggravated assault
if he “attempts to cause or intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to”
a police officer “while in the performance of duty[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
2702(a)(3), (c)(1). Accordingly, to support the conviction, the Commonwealth
must prove the defendant “(1) attempted to cause or intentionally or
knowingly caused (2) bodily injury (3) to a police officer (4) in the
performance of his duties.” Commonwealth v. Marti, 779 A.2d 1177, 1180
(Pa.Super. 2001). “The Commonwealth need not establish the victim actually
suffered bodily injury.” Commonwealth v. Hatch, 314 A.3d 928, 932
(Pa.Super. 2024) (quoting Commonwealth v. Richardson, 636 A.2d 1195,
1196 (Pa.Super. 1994)). Rather, it need establish only an attempt to inflict
bodily injury, which can be shown by “circumstances which reasonably
suggest that a defendant intended to cause injury.” Id. (citation omitted). For
an attempt “it must be shown that the actor had a specific intent to cause
bodily injury[.] A person acts intentionally with respect to a material element
of an offense if it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature
or to cause such a result[.]” Id. (citation omitted) (alterations in Hatch).
- 13 - J-S40025-24
Here, the Commonwealth presented evidence that Barnett fought the
police officers with “aggression,” taking Officer Schreiber’s taser, and
repeatedly reaching toward his waistband, which had a knife and gun. During
the encounter Detective Chieffo sustained permanent injury and Officer
Schreiber was tased in her hand. Based on the totality of the circumstances,
the evidence supports a finding that Barnett intended to inflict bodily injury,
as he engaged in conduct of the nature that would cause such a result.
Detective Chieffo’s testimony that he prevented Barnett from reaching his
weapons does not mean that Barnett lacked the intent to use them. Both
officers testified that Barnett attempted to reach his waistband, and Detective
Chieffo and Officer Schreiber each testified as to their struggle with Barnett.
Detective Chieffo in particular described the force used by Barnett as force
that “was probably the most resistance of force that I’ve had in some time in
my career, if ever.” N.T., Mar. 15, 2023, at 76. The evidence supported a
finding that Barnett had the intent to cause bodily injury to both officers.
In his last issue, Barnett argues the Commonwealth did not provide
sufficient evidence to support the firearms to be carried without a license
conviction. He stresses that he previously had a license to carry a firearm and
the Commonwealth did not present evidence Barnett knew the license was
revoked. Barnett notes the parties stipulated that he did not have a valid
license to carry firearm issued under Section 6109 or valid sportsman firearm
permit issued under Section 6106. However, he points out that he admitted
into evidence a gun license check that indicated he had a valid license at one
- 14 - J-S40025-24
point. The license was issued in October 2016 and expired in October 2021,
and had two updates – one on August 10, 2017 indicating the license was
revoked and one on February 1, 2018, again indicating the license was
revoked. Barnett maintains the Commonwealth had to prove Barnett was
given statutory notice of the revocation to prove he intentionally, knowingly,
or recklessly carried the firearm. He argues it was error to rely on the passage
of time to find he was aware. He argues the Commonwealth did not establish
he received the statutory notice of revocation or any other evidence of notice.
He maintains there was insufficient evidence that he intentionally, knowingly,
or recklessly carried a firearm concealed on his person without a valid license.
Pursuant to Section 6106 a person cannot carry a firearm in his vehicle
or concealed on his person without a “valid and lawfully issued license.” 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a). The Commonwealth “must establish that a defendant
acted ‘intentionally, knowingly or recklessly’ with respect to each element” of
Section 6106. Commonwealth v. Scott, 176 A.3d 283, 291 (Pa.Super.
2017).
“A license to carry a firearm shall be for the purpose of carrying a firearm
concealed on or about one’s person or in a vehicle throughout this
Commonwealth.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6109(a). Once a license has been issued, it
may be revoked for good cause, and when revoked, notice of revocation must
be sent in writing and by certified mail:
A license to carry firearms may be revoked by the issuing authority for good cause. A license to carry firearms shall be revoked by the issuing authority for any reason stated in
- 15 - J-S40025-24
subsection (e)(1) which occurs during the term of the permit. Notice of revocation shall be in writing and shall state the specific reason for revocation. Notice shall be sent by certified mail to the individual whose license is revoked, and, at that time, notice shall also be provided to the Pennsylvania State Police by electronic means, including e-mail or facsimile transmission, that the license is no longer valid. An individual whose license is revoked shall surrender the license to the issuing authority within five days of receipt of the notice. An individual whose license is revoked may appeal to the court of common pleas for the judicial district in which the individual resides. An individual who violates this section commits a summary offense.
Id. at § 6109(i) (emphasis added).
Here, the parties stipulated that Barnett did not have a license to carry
a firearm at the time of the offense. Further, neither party disputes that
Barnett had been issued a license to carry a firearm in October 2016 that was
set to expire in October 2021, and that the license documentation had two
notations of revocation, one on August 10, 2017 and one on February 1, 2018.
We conclude the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence
that Barnett acted intentionally, knowingly or recklessly regarding whether his
license to carry a firearm had been revoked.6 The evidence included a license
6 At the trial, the trial court did not set forth its reasoning for finding Barnett
guilty of carrying a firearm without a license. In the 1925(a) opinion, issued by a second judge, the court found Barnett liable based on the passage of time between the second revocation and the crime:
The incident in question occurred just under two (2) years after the second update showing that the license was revoked. Based on the passage of time of almost two (2) years from the last update, it is reasonable to conclude that (Footnote Continued Next Page)
- 16 - J-S40025-24
set to expire in October 2021, with two notices of revocation. The
Commonwealth presented no evidence that Barnett received notice of the
revocation.
The Commonwealth claims that the evidence was sufficient because
“[h]is license had been revoked (and presumable remedied) in August of
2017[, and ] revoked again four months later.” Commonwealth’s Br. at 29-
30. The Commonwealth argues we should “presume” Barnett resolved the
issues with his license in 2017, which allegedly “shows [Barnett] was aware
of the first license revocation, allowing the court to infer that he was receiving
proper notice of his status of his license.” Id. at 30. The Commonwealth,
however, presented no evidence to support a finding that, even if he had
received notice of and fixed the first revocation, he was aware of the second
one.
The Commonwealth further claims we should view the concealment of
the firearm and his flight as indicative of consciousness of guilt. However, the
license at issue is a license to carry the firearm concealed on his person.
Therefore, if a person believed he had such a license, carrying a concealed
firearm would not indicate consciousness of guilt. Further, additional crimes
occurred on the night of the arrest, and the Commonwealth provides no
appellant was aware of the fact that his license had been revoked and that he no longer possessed a valid license to carry.
Tr.Ct.Op. at 6 (unpaginated).
- 17 - J-S40025-24
reason why his flight would be based on the concealed firearm rather than the
other crimes.
Because the Commonwealth presented no evidence regarding Barnett’s
knowledge of the revocation of the license to carry a firearm, we conclude it
failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Barnett acted
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, with respect to the element that
requires that Barnett have a license to carry a firearm.
Judgment of sentence affirmed in part and reversed in part. Case
remanded for resentencing. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Date: 1/30/2025
- 18 -