NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 
 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 
           PENNSYLVANIA 

             

: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 

v. 

ANNY RUIZ       

 

 

     

    D

   

J-S05025-23  

 

Appellant 

 No. 929 WDA 2022 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 20, 2022 
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s):  
CP-25-CR-0002610-2021 

EFORE:  BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: 

 

 

FILED:  March 17, 2023 

Danny Ruiz appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the Court 

of Common Pleas of Erie County.  We affirm. 

Following trial, a jury convicted Ruiz of  one count each of aggravated 

assault—attempt  to  cause  serious  bodily  injury,1  simple  assault,2  recklessly 

endangering another person,3 disorderly conduct,4 and harassment.5  At trial, 

the victim testified that Ruiz kicked and punched her in the head, face, and 

mouth  while  she  was  on  the  ground.    The  assault  was  captured  on  video, 

____________________________________________ 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1). 

 Id. at § 2701(a)(1). 

 Id. at § 2705. 

 Id. at §5503(a)(1). 

 Id. at § 2709(a)(1). 

 

 

  B

 

 

  2

  3

  4

  5

  

J-S05025-23 

which the jury viewed.  At some point during the altercation, the victim was 

rendered  unconscious,  and  she  later  went  to  the  hospital.    The  victim 

sustained facial and dental injuries.   

Following Ruiz’s  conviction, the  court sentenced Ruiz to ten to twenty 

years’  incarceration.    Ruiz  filed  a  post-sentence  motion,  which  was  denied, 

followed by this timely appeal.  Both Ruiz and the trial court have complied 

with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 

On  appeal,  Ruiz  raises  one  issue:  “Did  the  Commonwealth  present 

sufficient  evidence  to  sustain  [his]  conviction  for  aggravated  assault?”  

Appellant’s Brief, at 2.  Ruiz argues that in order to sustain his conviction, the 

jury  would  have  had  to  have  found  that  he  either  actually  caused  serious 

bodily  injury  or  attempted  to  cause  bodily  injury.    Id.  at  11.    This  claim  is 

meritless. 

A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law. 
In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, we must determine whether 
the evidence, and all reasonable inferences deducible from that, 
viewed  in  the  light  most  favorable  to  the  Commonwealth  as 
verdict[]winner, are sufficient to establish all the elements of the 
offense  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.  We  may  not  weigh  the 
evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. 
Issues of witness credibility are the province of the fact-finder, not 
the  appellate  court.  However,  where  the  evidence  offered  to 
support  the  verdict  is  in  contradiction  to  the  physical  facts,  in 
contravention to human experience and the laws of nature, then 
the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law.  

Commonwealth  v.  Heater,  899  A.2d  1126,  1131  (Pa.  Super.  2006) 

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).   

- 2 - 

J-S05025-23 

 

A person may be convicted of aggravated assault, graded as a felony of 

the  first  degree,  if  that  person  “attempts  to  cause  serious  bodily  injury  to 

another, or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly[,] or recklessly under 

circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.” 

18 Pa.C.S.A.  § 2702(a)(1).   “Serious bodily injury” is defined as “bodily injury 

which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent 

disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily 

member or organ.”  18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301.  “For aggravated assault purposes, 

an ‘attempt’ is found where the accused, with the required specific intent, acts 

in a manner which constitutes a substantial step toward perpetrating a serious  

bodily injury upon another.”  Commonwealth v. Gruff, 822 A.2d 773, 776  

(Pa. Super. 2003).  “Intent can be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence; 

it may be inferred from acts or conduct or from the attendant circumstances.” 

Id. (citation omitted).  

After our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the relevant law, 

we  affirm  the  judgment  of  sentence  based  on  the  opinion  authored  by  the 

Honorable John J. Mead.  See Trial Court Opinion, 9/21/22, at 4 (“Sufficient 

evidence, as found by the jury, existed to prove [Ruiz] intentionally acted in 

a  manner  which  constituted  a  substantial  or  significant  step  toward 

perpetrating serious bodily injury upon [the victim].”).   

The parties are directed to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of 

further proceedings. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

- 3 - 

- 4 - 

oseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 
Prothonotary 

ate:  3/17/2023 

    J

  D

Judgment Entered. 

 

 

J-S05025-23