J-S07004-26
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MICHAEL JAMES GRIVNER, SR. : : Appellant : No. 507 MDA 2025
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 27, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0002684-2023
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED: MARCH 10, 2026
Michael James Grivner, Sr., appeals from the sentence of six months of
probation and fines arising from his convictions of simple assault, harassment,
and disorderly conduct. We affirm.
The trial court summarized the factual background of this matter thusly:
On July 19, 2023, at approximately 4:00 p.m., the victim, Daniel McCoy, was in the parking lot of the Gateway Shopping Center near the Goodwill Store. Mr. McCoy observed a shopping cart full of items that appeared to be abandoned. As he was about to return the cart to the store, [Appellant] confronted Mr. McCoy and told him not to touch the cart. Although Mr. McCoy asked [Appellant] if it was his cart at least ten times, [Appellant] would not confirm that it was his. As Mr. McCoy attempted to return the cart to the store, [Appellant] ran towards him and [sucker] punched him in the face [from behind. See N.T. Trial, 6/17/24, at 29]. Mr. McCoy did not retaliate. He did call 911 to report the incident.
Trial Court Opinion, 6/2/25, at 1. J-S07004-26
Appellant was subsequently charged with the above-reference offenses.
The matter proceeded to a jury trial as to simple assault, with the trial court
to render a decision concerning the summary offenses. The Commonwealth
called Mr. McCoy, who attested in accordance with the above. Pertinently, he
indicated that the punch from Appellant “hurt” and caused minor swelling
under his beard, but he did not lose any teeth and could not tell if it caused
bruising beneath his facial hair. See N.T. Trial, 6/17/24, at 30, 32. He did
not receive medical treatment.
Mr. McCoy also stated that while he was on the phone with 911,
Appellant began to reapproach him, but backed off when Mr. McCoy expressed
that he was willing to defend himself. Mr. McCoy informed the jury that his
reason for moving the cart was to return it to the Goodwill store, since he did
not believe that the business generally allowed patrons to take carts outside.
Another Commonwealth witness, William Kennedy, recounted that he was
present at Goodwill on the date in question and witnessed Appellant striking
the victim once.
Appellant testified in his defense. On cross-examination, he initially
denied hitting Mr. McCoy in the face, but later relented, indicating that he did
so a single time because he believed the victim was taking his belongings.
Appellant generally attested that he had no intent to cause any injury to Mr.
McCoy, but rather was seeking to protect the items he purportedly purchased
from Goodwill and were in the cart. Appellant stated that the cart was left
near his wife’s vehicle while he waited for her to finish shopping.
-2- J-S07004-26
At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of simple
assault and the trial judge likewise convicted him of harassment and disorderly
conduct. The court subsequently sentenced Appellant as indicated
hereinabove. This timely appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial court
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant presents a single issue for our review: “Did the
Commonwealth present sufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that [Appellant] caused bodily injury and took a substantial step toward
with [sic] the intent to cause or recklessly caused bodily injury to [Mr.] McCoy
under 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 901(a) and 2701(a)(1)?” Appellant’s brief at 2 (citation
altered).
We consider Appellant’s position mindful of the following well-settled
standard:
When reviewing a [sufficiency] claim, we face a question of law. Accordingly, our standard of review is de novo. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the verdict winner, and we draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the Commonwealth’s favor. Through this lens, we must ascertain whether the Commonwealth proved all of the elements of the crime at issue beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the factfinder. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the factfinder, 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.
-3- J-S07004-26
Commonwealth v. Roberts, 293 A.3d 1221, 1223 (Pa.Super. 2023)
(cleaned up).
On appeal, Appellant challenges only his conviction for simple assault,
which occurs if a person “attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or
recklessly causes bodily injury to another.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1). The
Crimes Code defines “bodily injury” as “[i]mpairment of physical condition or
substantial pain.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2301.
Appellant asserts that the Commonwealth failed to prove either bodily
injury to Mr. McCoy or any attempt by Appellant to cause the same. See
Appellant’s brief at 8-17. Since we find it dispositive, we focus on the latter
requirement, i.e., Appellant’s attempt. In that regard, we have stated:
The Commonwealth need not establish that the victim actually suffered bodily injury; rather, it is sufficient to support a conviction if the Commonwealth establishes an attempt to inflict bodily injury. This intent may be shown by circumstances which reasonably suggest that a defendant intended to cause injury.
To show an “attempt” to inflict bodily injury, 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.
Commonwealth v. Hatch, 314 A.3d 928, 932 (Pa.Super. 2024) (cleaned
up).
Appellant contends that “[t]he facts here suggest the opposite of intent
to inflict bodily injury: the purpose was protection of property, not infliction
of harm.” Appellant’s brief at 14. He highlights his own testimony at trial that
-4- J-S07004-26
he believed Mr. McCoy was attempting to steal his merchandise, as well as
the facts that Appellant only used force against him once to stop him and that
the incident did not progress further. Id. Appellant additionally avers that
“assuming arguendo that [Appellant] struck [Mr.] McCoy, the alleged act of
striking [him] is not the kind of substantial step that demonstrates an attempt
to cause bodily injury.” Id. at 15. He maintains that this matter is “[u]nlike
cases where defendants [hit] more than once, wielded objects, or shoved
victims into walls, [since] there was no continued movement by [Appellant]
that would naturally or probably result in bodily injury.” Id. Appellant
concludes:
The Commonwealth’s evidence failed to demonstrate that [Appellant] possessed the specific intent to inflict bodily injury or that his conduct amounted to a substantial step toward that end.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S07004-26
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MICHAEL JAMES GRIVNER, SR. : : Appellant : No. 507 MDA 2025
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 27, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0002684-2023
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED: MARCH 10, 2026
Michael James Grivner, Sr., appeals from the sentence of six months of
probation and fines arising from his convictions of simple assault, harassment,
and disorderly conduct. We affirm.
The trial court summarized the factual background of this matter thusly:
On July 19, 2023, at approximately 4:00 p.m., the victim, Daniel McCoy, was in the parking lot of the Gateway Shopping Center near the Goodwill Store. Mr. McCoy observed a shopping cart full of items that appeared to be abandoned. As he was about to return the cart to the store, [Appellant] confronted Mr. McCoy and told him not to touch the cart. Although Mr. McCoy asked [Appellant] if it was his cart at least ten times, [Appellant] would not confirm that it was his. As Mr. McCoy attempted to return the cart to the store, [Appellant] ran towards him and [sucker] punched him in the face [from behind. See N.T. Trial, 6/17/24, at 29]. Mr. McCoy did not retaliate. He did call 911 to report the incident.
Trial Court Opinion, 6/2/25, at 1. J-S07004-26
Appellant was subsequently charged with the above-reference offenses.
The matter proceeded to a jury trial as to simple assault, with the trial court
to render a decision concerning the summary offenses. The Commonwealth
called Mr. McCoy, who attested in accordance with the above. Pertinently, he
indicated that the punch from Appellant “hurt” and caused minor swelling
under his beard, but he did not lose any teeth and could not tell if it caused
bruising beneath his facial hair. See N.T. Trial, 6/17/24, at 30, 32. He did
not receive medical treatment.
Mr. McCoy also stated that while he was on the phone with 911,
Appellant began to reapproach him, but backed off when Mr. McCoy expressed
that he was willing to defend himself. Mr. McCoy informed the jury that his
reason for moving the cart was to return it to the Goodwill store, since he did
not believe that the business generally allowed patrons to take carts outside.
Another Commonwealth witness, William Kennedy, recounted that he was
present at Goodwill on the date in question and witnessed Appellant striking
the victim once.
Appellant testified in his defense. On cross-examination, he initially
denied hitting Mr. McCoy in the face, but later relented, indicating that he did
so a single time because he believed the victim was taking his belongings.
Appellant generally attested that he had no intent to cause any injury to Mr.
McCoy, but rather was seeking to protect the items he purportedly purchased
from Goodwill and were in the cart. Appellant stated that the cart was left
near his wife’s vehicle while he waited for her to finish shopping.
-2- J-S07004-26
At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of simple
assault and the trial judge likewise convicted him of harassment and disorderly
conduct. The court subsequently sentenced Appellant as indicated
hereinabove. This timely appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial court
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant presents a single issue for our review: “Did the
Commonwealth present sufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that [Appellant] caused bodily injury and took a substantial step toward
with [sic] the intent to cause or recklessly caused bodily injury to [Mr.] McCoy
under 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 901(a) and 2701(a)(1)?” Appellant’s brief at 2 (citation
altered).
We consider Appellant’s position mindful of the following well-settled
standard:
When reviewing a [sufficiency] claim, we face a question of law. Accordingly, our standard of review is de novo. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the verdict winner, and we draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the Commonwealth’s favor. Through this lens, we must ascertain whether the Commonwealth proved all of the elements of the crime at issue beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the factfinder. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the factfinder, 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.
-3- J-S07004-26
Commonwealth v. Roberts, 293 A.3d 1221, 1223 (Pa.Super. 2023)
(cleaned up).
On appeal, Appellant challenges only his conviction for simple assault,
which occurs if a person “attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or
recklessly causes bodily injury to another.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1). The
Crimes Code defines “bodily injury” as “[i]mpairment of physical condition or
substantial pain.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2301.
Appellant asserts that the Commonwealth failed to prove either bodily
injury to Mr. McCoy or any attempt by Appellant to cause the same. See
Appellant’s brief at 8-17. Since we find it dispositive, we focus on the latter
requirement, i.e., Appellant’s attempt. In that regard, we have stated:
The Commonwealth need not establish that the victim actually suffered bodily injury; rather, it is sufficient to support a conviction if the Commonwealth establishes an attempt to inflict bodily injury. This intent may be shown by circumstances which reasonably suggest that a defendant intended to cause injury.
To show an “attempt” to inflict bodily injury, 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.
Commonwealth v. Hatch, 314 A.3d 928, 932 (Pa.Super. 2024) (cleaned
up).
Appellant contends that “[t]he facts here suggest the opposite of intent
to inflict bodily injury: the purpose was protection of property, not infliction
of harm.” Appellant’s brief at 14. He highlights his own testimony at trial that
-4- J-S07004-26
he believed Mr. McCoy was attempting to steal his merchandise, as well as
the facts that Appellant only used force against him once to stop him and that
the incident did not progress further. Id. Appellant additionally avers that
“assuming arguendo that [Appellant] struck [Mr.] McCoy, the alleged act of
striking [him] is not the kind of substantial step that demonstrates an attempt
to cause bodily injury.” Id. at 15. He maintains that this matter is “[u]nlike
cases where defendants [hit] more than once, wielded objects, or shoved
victims into walls, [since] there was no continued movement by [Appellant]
that would naturally or probably result in bodily injury.” Id. Appellant
concludes:
The Commonwealth’s evidence failed to demonstrate that [Appellant] possessed the specific intent to inflict bodily injury or that his conduct amounted to a substantial step toward that end. His actions were directed at reclaiming his property, not at harming [Mr.] McCoy. At most, the evidence established a solitary, impulsive blow delivered in the course of a property dispute. That act, unaccompanied by evidence of continued aggression, serious risk of harm, or circumstances strongly corroborating a purpose to injure, falls short of establishing an attempt to cause bodily injury. The Commonwealth’s proof supports, at most, harassment—not an attempted assault.
Id. at 17.
In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court posited that even if the punch
in question did not cause bodily injury to Mr. McCoy, “there is no doubt that
[the strike] was an attempt to cause bodily injury.” Trial Court Opinion,
6/2/25, at 6. It further explained that this intent was demonstrated by the
fact that the punch occurred in the face without warning. Id. at 6-7.
-5- J-S07004-26
For its part, the Commonwealth likewise maintains that there is
sufficient circumstantial evidence supporting an intent to cause bodily injury.
Specifically, it notes that while Mr. McCoy was on the phone with 911,
Appellant “advanced towards him again, stopping only when Mr. McCoy said
he would defend himself.” See Commonwealth’s brief at 8. The
Commonwealth argues:
If Appellant’s intent was merely to get the cart back, he had accomplished that goal when Mr. McCoy moved away to call 911. Instead, Appellant showed his true colors, and his true intent, by advancing on Mr. McCoy while he was on the phone and would be somewhat defenseless. Therefore, sufficient evidence supports Appellant’s conviction.
Id.
Upon review, we conclude that there was sufficient circumstantial
evidence supporting the conviction for simple assault. Viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the testimony bore out that
Appellant attempted to cause bodily injury to Mr. McCoy during the altercation.
That Appellant “sucker punched” the victim, striking him in the face from
behind, provided the jury with grounds to conclude that Appellant intended to
cause such injury. Indeed, a single punch of that nature, under certain
circumstances, may constitute the more momentous crime of aggravated
assault, which requires an attempt to cause serious bodily injury. See, e.g.,
Commonwealth v. Bruce, 916 A.2d 657, 662 (Pa.Super. 2007); 18 Pa.C.S.
§ 2702. Furthermore, striking someone, even once, satisfies the requisite act
-6- J-S07004-26
in furtherance of that goal, regardless of whether bodily injury was actually
inflicted. See Hatch, 314 A.3d at 932.
While Appellant devotes a significant portion of his brief to arguing that
his intent was actually to stop a perceived theft, that is not enough to defeat
the conviction. Simply, the jury was free to disbelieve Appellant’s account.
See Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 282 (Pa.Super. 2009) (“It is
for the fact-finder to make credibility determinations, and the finder of fact
may believe all, part, or none of a witness’s testimony.” (citation omitted)).
This is especially plausible in light of the fact that Appellant initially testified
on the stand that he never struck the victim in the face, despite the victim
and an unrelated eyewitness witnesses directly contradicting him, and then
reversed course. Further, Mr. McCoy attested that during the incident, he
asked Appellant at least ten times if the merchandise belonged to him, and
Appellant refused to answer the question before attacking from behind.
In sum, we conclude that the Commonwealth adduced sufficient
evidence to sustain a conviction for simple assault. Therefore, we affirm the
judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-7- J-S07004-26
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 03/10/2026
-8-