J-A19002-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ERIC MARTIN SCHLIER : : Appellant : No. 206 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 7, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-13-CR-0000786-2016
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 07, 2020
Eric Martin Schlier appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in
the Carbon County Court of Common Pleas after a jury found him guilty of
resisting arrest, see 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5104. On appeal, Schlier asserts the
evidence was insufficient to establish that he resisted arrest. After a thorough
review of the record, we affirm.
Officer Bruce Broyles of the Lehighton Police Department charged
Schlier with aggravated assault, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, driving
under the influence (“DUI”) - general impairment, two summary traffic
offenses, and escape, after observing Schlier riding his bicycle at night without
proper lighting and ignoring a stop sign.
On February 7, 2019 and February 8, 2019, a jury trial was held. A
review of the parties’ briefs reveals broad agreement on the evidence J-A19002-20
presented at trial; the dispute on appeal centers on the legal consequences of
the evidence.
At trial, Officer Broyles testified that he was patrolling in his cruiser when
he saw Schlier riding his bicycle without proper lighting as he rode through an
intersection without obeying the stop sign at the intersection. Schlier did not
comply when Officer Broyles attempted to stop him, instead claiming he would
stop in a parking lot at the end of the bridge he was on.
However, Officer Broyles testified that once Schlier reached the parking
lot, he did not stop. Rather, Schlier began to accelerate away from the officer.
Officer Broyles maneuvered his cruiser to block Schlier’s exit, and Schlier rode
his bike into it.
After Schlier cursed at him, Officer Broyles instructed Schlier to turn
around and prepare to be handcuffed. Officer Broyles testified that Schlier
would not comply, and ultimately, a scuffle broke out. As Officer Broyles was
placing handcuffs on Schlier, Schlier pulled away and began kicking and flailing
at Officer Broyles. Officer Broyles was forced to call for backup, and then
placed Schlier over the hood of his cruiser in an attempt to subdue him.
Once Schlier was on the hood of the cruiser, Officer Broyles testified that
he was able to finish placing the handcuffs on Schlier. However, even
handcuffed, Schlier continued to struggle. After Schlier kicked his shin hard
enough to leave a bruise, Officer Broyles stated that he took Schlier to the
ground, where he restrained him until backup arrived.
-2- J-A19002-20
During the trial, Schlier made an oral motion for judgment of acquittal
on the charges of aggravated assault, resisting arrest, and escape. The trial
court granted the motion in part, entering a judgment of acquittal on the
charge of escape, and denied the motion as to the other charges.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury acquitted Schlier of aggravated
assault, disorderly conduct, and DUI, but convicted Schlier of resisting arrest.
Additionally, the trial court found Schlier guilty of the two summary traffic
offenses.
Schlier filed a motion for arrest of judgment in which he argued that
because he was found not guilty of all charges except the summary offenses
and resisting arrest, the underlying arrest was unlawful on the basis of the
summary offenses alone. He claimed, as a result, that the Commonwealth
could not prove every element of the resisting arrest charge. After a hearing
was held on the motion, the trial court denied the motion, finding the evidence
was sufficient to sustain Schlier’s conviction for resisting arrest.
On November 7, 2019, Schlier was sentenced to two to twenty-four
months’ incarceration. This timely appeal followed.
Schlier’s sole challenge on appeal is to the sufficiency of the evidence
underlying his conviction for resisting arrest. Specifically, Schlier argues the
evidence was insufficient to support his resisting arrest conviction because his
underlying arrest for escape was unlawful.
-3- J-A19002-20
“We review claims regarding the sufficiency of the evidence by
considering whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light
most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the
fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Commonwealth v. Miller, 172 A.3d 632, 640 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations
omitted). “Further, a conviction may be sustained wholly on circumstantial
evidence, and the trier of fact—while passing on the credibility of the witnesses
and the weight of the evidence—is free to believe all, part, or none of the
evidence.” Id. “In conducting this review, the appellate court may not weigh
the evidence and substitute its judgment for the fact-finder.” Id.
Schlier’s conviction required the Commonwealth to present evidence
that he created a substantial risk of bodily injury with the intent of preventing
Officer Broyles from arresting him:
§ 5104. Resisting arrest or other law enforcement
A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, with the intent of preventing a public servant from effecting a lawful arrest or discharging any other duty, the person creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to the public servant or anyone else, or employs means justifying or requiring substantial force to overcome the resistance.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5104.
Schlier argues the Commonwealth failed to establish he prevented
Officer Broyles from effecting a lawful arrest or discharging any other duty.
Specifically, he first claims Officer Broyles was not effecting a lawful arrest
because he lacked probable cause to arrest Schlier for escape. He further
-4- J-A19002-20
asserts Officer Broyles was not “discharging any other duty” because, as
Schlier contends, Officer Broyles was not taking any steps to issue a summary
traffic citation at the time, and it was not his intent to do so. Schlier does not
contest the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that he created a
substantial risk of injury to Officer Broyles.
Despite Schlier’s claims to the contrary, the resisting arrest statute does
not require that an officer intended to make an arrest for the provisions to
apply; it requires only that a party act with “the intent of preventing ... a
lawful arrest.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5104. Therefore, our courts have found sufficient
evidence to support a resisting arrest conviction in a variety of pre-arrest
situations, even where the police detained the defendant merely for the
purpose of issuing a citation. See Commonwealth v. Miller, 475 A.2d 145,
147 (Pa. Super. 1984) (finding sufficient evidence to support a resisting arrest
conviction where officers only intended to issue a citation to the defendant,
but the defendant forcefully resisted the detention).
Here, Schlier concedes that Officer Broyles could have issued a citation
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A19002-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ERIC MARTIN SCHLIER : : Appellant : No. 206 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 7, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-13-CR-0000786-2016
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 07, 2020
Eric Martin Schlier appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in
the Carbon County Court of Common Pleas after a jury found him guilty of
resisting arrest, see 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5104. On appeal, Schlier asserts the
evidence was insufficient to establish that he resisted arrest. After a thorough
review of the record, we affirm.
Officer Bruce Broyles of the Lehighton Police Department charged
Schlier with aggravated assault, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, driving
under the influence (“DUI”) - general impairment, two summary traffic
offenses, and escape, after observing Schlier riding his bicycle at night without
proper lighting and ignoring a stop sign.
On February 7, 2019 and February 8, 2019, a jury trial was held. A
review of the parties’ briefs reveals broad agreement on the evidence J-A19002-20
presented at trial; the dispute on appeal centers on the legal consequences of
the evidence.
At trial, Officer Broyles testified that he was patrolling in his cruiser when
he saw Schlier riding his bicycle without proper lighting as he rode through an
intersection without obeying the stop sign at the intersection. Schlier did not
comply when Officer Broyles attempted to stop him, instead claiming he would
stop in a parking lot at the end of the bridge he was on.
However, Officer Broyles testified that once Schlier reached the parking
lot, he did not stop. Rather, Schlier began to accelerate away from the officer.
Officer Broyles maneuvered his cruiser to block Schlier’s exit, and Schlier rode
his bike into it.
After Schlier cursed at him, Officer Broyles instructed Schlier to turn
around and prepare to be handcuffed. Officer Broyles testified that Schlier
would not comply, and ultimately, a scuffle broke out. As Officer Broyles was
placing handcuffs on Schlier, Schlier pulled away and began kicking and flailing
at Officer Broyles. Officer Broyles was forced to call for backup, and then
placed Schlier over the hood of his cruiser in an attempt to subdue him.
Once Schlier was on the hood of the cruiser, Officer Broyles testified that
he was able to finish placing the handcuffs on Schlier. However, even
handcuffed, Schlier continued to struggle. After Schlier kicked his shin hard
enough to leave a bruise, Officer Broyles stated that he took Schlier to the
ground, where he restrained him until backup arrived.
-2- J-A19002-20
During the trial, Schlier made an oral motion for judgment of acquittal
on the charges of aggravated assault, resisting arrest, and escape. The trial
court granted the motion in part, entering a judgment of acquittal on the
charge of escape, and denied the motion as to the other charges.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury acquitted Schlier of aggravated
assault, disorderly conduct, and DUI, but convicted Schlier of resisting arrest.
Additionally, the trial court found Schlier guilty of the two summary traffic
offenses.
Schlier filed a motion for arrest of judgment in which he argued that
because he was found not guilty of all charges except the summary offenses
and resisting arrest, the underlying arrest was unlawful on the basis of the
summary offenses alone. He claimed, as a result, that the Commonwealth
could not prove every element of the resisting arrest charge. After a hearing
was held on the motion, the trial court denied the motion, finding the evidence
was sufficient to sustain Schlier’s conviction for resisting arrest.
On November 7, 2019, Schlier was sentenced to two to twenty-four
months’ incarceration. This timely appeal followed.
Schlier’s sole challenge on appeal is to the sufficiency of the evidence
underlying his conviction for resisting arrest. Specifically, Schlier argues the
evidence was insufficient to support his resisting arrest conviction because his
underlying arrest for escape was unlawful.
-3- J-A19002-20
“We review claims regarding the sufficiency of the evidence by
considering whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light
most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the
fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Commonwealth v. Miller, 172 A.3d 632, 640 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations
omitted). “Further, a conviction may be sustained wholly on circumstantial
evidence, and the trier of fact—while passing on the credibility of the witnesses
and the weight of the evidence—is free to believe all, part, or none of the
evidence.” Id. “In conducting this review, the appellate court may not weigh
the evidence and substitute its judgment for the fact-finder.” Id.
Schlier’s conviction required the Commonwealth to present evidence
that he created a substantial risk of bodily injury with the intent of preventing
Officer Broyles from arresting him:
§ 5104. Resisting arrest or other law enforcement
A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, with the intent of preventing a public servant from effecting a lawful arrest or discharging any other duty, the person creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to the public servant or anyone else, or employs means justifying or requiring substantial force to overcome the resistance.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5104.
Schlier argues the Commonwealth failed to establish he prevented
Officer Broyles from effecting a lawful arrest or discharging any other duty.
Specifically, he first claims Officer Broyles was not effecting a lawful arrest
because he lacked probable cause to arrest Schlier for escape. He further
-4- J-A19002-20
asserts Officer Broyles was not “discharging any other duty” because, as
Schlier contends, Officer Broyles was not taking any steps to issue a summary
traffic citation at the time, and it was not his intent to do so. Schlier does not
contest the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that he created a
substantial risk of injury to Officer Broyles.
Despite Schlier’s claims to the contrary, the resisting arrest statute does
not require that an officer intended to make an arrest for the provisions to
apply; it requires only that a party act with “the intent of preventing ... a
lawful arrest.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5104. Therefore, our courts have found sufficient
evidence to support a resisting arrest conviction in a variety of pre-arrest
situations, even where the police detained the defendant merely for the
purpose of issuing a citation. See Commonwealth v. Miller, 475 A.2d 145,
147 (Pa. Super. 1984) (finding sufficient evidence to support a resisting arrest
conviction where officers only intended to issue a citation to the defendant,
but the defendant forcefully resisted the detention).
Here, Schlier concedes that Officer Broyles could have issued a citation
for a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code (“MVC”) if he chose to do so. See
Appellant's Brief, at 10. While he contends that Officer Broyles lacked probable
cause to arrest him for the escape or DUI charges, that is ultimately irrelevant.
Schlier’s subsequent actions of continuing to ride away while Officer Broyles
attempted to effectuate a traffic stop, disobeying orders, fleeing on his bike,
-5- J-A19002-20
and struggling with the officers can be properly categorized as actions made
with “the intent of preventing ... a lawful arrest.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5104.
Also, we find there was sufficient evidence that Schlier prevented the
officer from “discharging any other duty.” As this Court has explained, “[t]he
provisions of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5104 are clearly disjunctive.” Commonwealth
v. Karl, 476 A.2d 908, 911 (Pa. Super. 1984). “To be convicted under the
first provision of § 5104,” we have held, “it is essential that there be a lawful
arrest.” Id. (citation omitted). However, even where the parties agree that
there was no basis for a lawful arrest, § 5104 also provides that an individual
may be convicted of resisting arrest where the individual prevents a public
servant from “discharging any other duty.” Id. This provision
covers physical interference in a host of circumstances in which public servants discharge legal duties other than arrest. These include, for example, a policeman executing a search warrant, a fireman putting out a blaze, a forest or agricultural official making required inspections, an election official charged with monitoring balloting, and the like.
Id. (citation and emphasis omitted). In contrast, a mere investigatory motive
does not qualify a stop as a discharge of a public duty under § 5104. See id.
Our review of the record reveals that Officer Broyles witnessed Schlier
commit multiple traffic violations. Therefore, when Officer Broyles attempted
to pull Schlier over, he was clearly “discharging [his] duty” of initiating a traffic
stop to issue a citation to Schlier for these violations. See N.T., 2/7/2019, at
77 (“I had verbally told him to stop. He was in detention, a lawful detention
at that point for a traffic stop”). Officer Broyles’s observations were sufficient
-6- J-A19002-20
to issue the citations without further investigation. See Commonwealth v.
Ibrahim, 127 A.3d 819, 824 (Pa. Super. 2015). Schlier’s subsequent decision
to not stop his bike and struggle with Officer Broyles prevented Officer Broyles
from “discharging [his] duty” of enforcing the MVC.
The record therefore reflects the Commonwealth presented sufficient
evidence to establish Schlier, “with the intent of preventing a public servant
from ... discharging any other duty,” created a “substantial risk of bodily injury
to the public servant or anyone else, or employs means justifying or requiring
substantial force to overcome the resistance.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5104.
Accordingly, we cannot grant Schlier relief on his challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence underlying his conviction of resisting arrest.
We find the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support
Schlier’s conviction for resisting arrest under § 5104.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 10/7/2020
-7-