Com. v. Dewald, T.
This text of Com. v. Dewald, T. (Com. v. Dewald, T.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S13010-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : THOMAS ANDREW DEWALD : : Appellant : No. 1178 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 3, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-28-CR-0000293-2022
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: APRIL 23, 2025
Thomas Andrew Dewald appeals from the judgment of sentence entered
in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County after his conviction of
aggravated assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(3), and simple assault, 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1). Dewald challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.
After careful review, we affirm.
On December 27, 2021, Dewald was being held at the Franklin County
Jail. Officer Joseph French ordered Dewald to lock into his cell and to “cuff up.”
When Officer French grabbed Dewald’s wrist to place handcuffs on him,
Dewald attempted to punch Officer French. A scuffle ensued in which Dewald
struck and scratched Officer French’s face. Afterwards, Officer French had
scratches and blood on his face.
On May 29, 2024, a one-day jury trial was held. At the trial, the
Commonwealth presented the testimony of Officer French, Lieutenant Nakota J-S13010-25
Reed, and Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Tristin Deneen. Dewald testified
on his own behalf. The jury found Dewald guilty of aggravated assault and
simple assault. On July 3, 2024, Dewald was sentenced to 12 to 60 months
imprisonment.
Dewald timely appealed. The trial court issued an order for Dewald to
file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Thereafter, Dewald filed his concise statement, and the
trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
On appeal, Dewald challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support
his aggravated assault and simple assault convictions.1 See Appellant’s Brief,
at 5. As a preliminary matter, we address whether Dewald has preserved his
claim.
“It is settled that to preserve a sufficiency claim, the Rule 1925(b)
statement must specify the element or elements upon which the evidence was
insufficient.” Commonwealth v. McFarland, 278 A.3d 369, 381 (Pa. Super.
2022 (citation omitted). A sufficiency claim is deemed waived where an
appellant fails to specify such elements. See id. A review of Dewald’s court-
ordered concise statement reveals that he raised a boilerplate challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence, but failed to specify the element or elements he
claims lacked sufficient evidence. See Concise Statement of Matters ____________________________________________
1 In his concise statement Dewald also raised a challenge to the weight of the
evidence. However, in his brief, Dewald acknowledges that he waived his challenge to the weight of the evidence by not raising the claim before the trial court. See Appellant’s Brief, at 6.
-2- J-S13010-25
Complained Of, 9/3/24, at 1 (stating, “The evidence presented by the
Commonwealth at trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction for Aggravated
Assault and Simple Assault.”). Accordingly, we deem Dewald’s sufficiency
challenge waived.
Even if his issue were not waived, it would lack merit. Our standard of
review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is well-established.
We assess the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdict-winner. We must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to have found every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered.
Commonwealth v. Bowens, 265 A.3d 730, 740-41 (Pa. Super. 2021) (en
banc) (citation omitted).
“A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he: . . . (3) attempts to cause
or intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to any of the officers, agents,
employees or other persons enumerated in subsection (c), in the performance
of duty[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(3). Individuals referred to in subsection (c)
-3- J-S13010-25
include, inter alia, officers or employees of a correctional institution. See 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(c).
“[A] person is guilty of [simple] assault if he: (1) attempts to cause or
intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another[.]” 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1). “The Commonwealth may prove a defendant’s intent
to inflict injury by circumstances which reasonably suggest his intention.”
Commonwealth v. Brown, 212 A.3d 1076, 1084 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).
Instantly, Dewald does not dispute that Officer French was injured, that
Officer French was an enumerated person, or that Officer French was engaged
in the performance of his duties at the time of the incident. See Appellant’s
Brief, at 8. Instead, Dewald argues that the Commonwealth did not present
sufficient evidence that he intentionally or knowingly caused bodily injury to
Officer French. See id. Essentially, Dewald argues that he and Officer French
were “mutual combat[ants].” See id. at 7, 9-10. We disagree.
As aptly explained by the trial court, the evidence supported the jury’s
finding that Dewald intentionally or knowingly caused bodily injury to Officer
French.
Officer French testified that he observed [Dewald] “slipping a note under a disciplinary’s seg wall,” and told [Dewald] to “lock in to his cell.” [N.T., 5/29/24, at 18, 32-33.] According to Officer French’s testimony, [Dewald] stood at the top of the steps of tier two and argued with him for two to three minutes before turning and walking [in] the other direction. [Id. at 24, 34.] Thereinafter, Officer French testified to the following events:
-4- J-S13010-25
[Dewald] told me he wasn’t cuffing up. I took ahold of his wrists. As soon as I did, he swung, tried to punch me, and I flung him towards the wall to get away from me. I went over to subdue him, took him to the ground. He reached up. He was still punching. He took his fingers, clawed into my face. I threw a defensive strike. He stopped.
[Id. at 20-21.]
The jury also received photos of Officer French’s injuries and heard testimony from Lieutenant Reed that detailed [Dewald] refusing to cuff up and swinging at Officer French with a “closed right fist.” [Id. at 34-35; Com.’s Ex. 1-2.]
Trial Court Opinion, 9/18/24, at 6-7 (footnotes omitted).
Based on the foregoing, far from mutual combatants, the evidence
demonstrates Dewald attempted to strike Officer French while Officer French
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Dewald, T., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-dewald-t-pasuperct-2025.