J-A06027-25
2025 PA Super 88
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
v. :
:
:
PARIS BARTLETT :
:
Appellee : No. 1641 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered May 15, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division
at No(s): CP-39-CR-0003071-2023
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., LANE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. *
OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 16, 2025
The Commonwealth appeals1 from the May 15, 2024 order granting, in
part, the omnibus pre-trial motion for habeas corpus relief filed by Appellee,
Paris Bartlett. After careful review, we reverse the trial court’s order and
remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history of
this case as follows:
[Appellee] was originally charged with aggravated
assault (4 counts), fleeing or attempting to elude
police, accidents involving death or personal injury
while not properly licensed, resisting arrest, recklessly
endangering another person (2 counts), possession of
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 The Commonwealth certified, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(d), that the trial
court’s May 15, 2024 order will terminate or substantially handicap the
prosecution.
J-A06027-25
a controlled substance (3 counts), and thirteen (13)
summary driving offenses. [Appellee] who was the
subject of a drug investigation conducted by a joint
enforcement operation, was arrested after a chase
with members of the Allentown Police Department and
the Pennsylvania State Police. The Commonwealth’s
theory with respect to the aggravated assault charges
(counts 1-3) was that [Appellee] “attempted to cause
bodily injury” to three (3) officers, two Allentown Vice
Detectives and one State Police Trooper. None of the
officers were struck or injured by the vehicle
[Appellee] was driving.
The chase commenced after vice detectives, who were
in an unmarked vehicle, requested uniformed officers,
Trooper Peter Hamati-Attieh and Officer Thomas
Cunningham, to stop the vehicle [Appellee] was
operating. While the vice detectives positioned
themselves behind [Appellee’s] vehicle, the uniformed
officers, who were paired together, pulled their vehicle
“mostly in front of” [Appellee’s] vehicle. The distance
between the two vehicles was “one to two feet.” The
uniformed officers exited their vehicle and approached
[Appellee’s] vehicle. They both barked orders at him,
which he ignored. Officer Cunningham went to the
driver’s side door, and, in an attempt to open it, ripped
the door handle off the vehicle. Trooper Hamati-Attieh “started near the driver’s door, and … ended up
in front of [Appellee’s] vehicle.
A few seconds later, according to Officer Cunningham,
[Appellee] put his vehicle in reverse, which cause him
to strike the unmarked vice detectives’ vehicle. He
then put the vehicle in drive and proceeded forward in
the direction of Trooper Hamati-Attieh. Trooper
Hamati-Attieh’s reaction was to fire two (2) shots from
his service weapon, striking [Appellee’s] windshield.
When the shots were fired, according to Officer
Cunningham, [Appellee] was “trying to get away.”
The video evidence of this event captured from a pole
camera, depicts [Appellee’s] vehicle pull sharply to
the right, traveling over the sidewalk and around the
patrol vehicle. He then fled from the scene, and a
-2-
J-A06027-25
chase ensued through east-side neighborhoods. His
flight included traveling the wrong way across the
Hamilton Street Bridge, and causing numerous
vehicles to swerve to avoid a collision. At other points
during the pursuit, a motorist was struck by
[Appellee’s] vehicle, as was a state police vehicle. He
continued to ignore the pursuing vehicles, who had
activated their lights and sirens, until Trooper Hamati-Attieh executed a PIT maneuver, which brought
[Appellee’s] vehicle to a stop.
Numerous officers responded to the scene to remove
[Appellee] from his vehicle. He did not exit the vehicle
of his own accord, and up to six officers removed him
through the driver’s side window, and then took him
into custody.
Trial court opinion, 7/11/24 at 1-3 (footnotes, citations, and extraneous
capitalization omitted).
On February 16, 2024, Appellee filed an omnibus pre-trial motion for
habeas corpus that sought, inter alia, dismissal of the three aggravated
assault charges because the Commonwealth had presented insufficient
evidence to make a prima facie case. On March 13, 2024, the trial court
conducted an evidentiary hearing on Appellee’s motion, during which the
Commonwealth presented the testimony of Officer Cunningham, the dash
camera video, and photographic evidence. Following the hearing, the trial
court granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss, in part, on May 15, 2024. The
trial court reasoned that the Commonwealth failed to establish a prima facie
case that Appellee intended to cause bodily injury to Trooper Hamati-Attieh,
Vice Detective Jose Ozoa, and Vice Detective Walter Oquendo with his vehicle,
and took substantial steps towards doing so. See trial court order and opinion,
-3-
J-A06027-25
5/15/24 at 4-8. The Commonwealth filed a timely notice of appeal on June
14, 2024.2
The Commonwealth raises the following issue for our review:
Did the trial court manifestly abuse its discretion
and/or commit an error of law in granting [Appellee’s]
motion to dismiss (habeas corpus) when the
evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom,
viewed in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, established a prima facie case with
regards to Aggravated Assault, Counts 1-3 (i.e. one
count 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(4) and two counts 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(3))?
Commonwealth’s brief at 4 (extraneous capitalization omitted).
A pre-trial habeas corpus motion is the proper means for testing
whether the Commonwealth has sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie
case. Commonwealth v. Dantzler, 135 A.3d 1109, 1112 (Pa.Super. 2016)
(citation omitted).
In reviewing a trial court’s order granting a
defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, we
must generally consider whether the record supports
the trial court’s findings, and whether the inferences
and legal conclusions drawn from those findings are
free from error. Further, the evidentiary sufficiency,
or lack thereof, of the Commonwealth’s prima facie
case for a charged crime is a question of law, and the
appellate court’s review is plenary.
Commonwealth v. Little, 305 A.3d 38, 43–44 (Pa.Super. 2023) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted).
____________________________________________
2 The Commonwealth and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-4-
J-A06027-25
A prima facie case consists of evidence, read in the
light most favorable to the Commonwealth, that
sufficiently establishes both the commission of a crime
and that the accused is probably the perpetrator of
that crime.
....
The Commonwealth establishes a prima facie case
when it produces evidence[] that, if accepted as true,
would warrant the trial judge to allow the case to go
to a jury. The Commonwealth need not prove the
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt;
rather, the prima facie standard requires evidence of
the existence of each and every element of the crime
charged. Moreover, the weight and credibility of the
evidence are not factors at this stage, and the
Commonwealth need only demonstrate sufficient
probable cause to believe the person charged has
committed the offense. Inferences reasonably drawn
from the evidence of record which would support a
verdict of guilty are to be given effect, and the
evidence must be read in the light most favorable to
the Commonwealth’s case.
Commonwealth v. Ouch, 199 A.3d 918, 923 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
and mindful that a prima facie case is a low threshold of proof, we find that
the trial court committed an error of law in dismissing the three aggravated
assault charges against Appellee.
To sustain a conviction for aggravated assault under Subsection
2702(a)(4), the Commonwealth must prove that the person “attempts to
cause or intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a
deadly weapon,” in this case a motor vehicle. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(4). The
-5-
J-A06027-25
Crimes Code defines a deadly weapon, in relevant part, as “any other device
or instrumentality which, in the manner in which it is used or intended to be
used, is calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury.” Id.
§ 2301. In Commonwealth v. Thomas, 656 A.2d 514 (Pa.Super. 1995), a
panel of this Court recognized that an automobile may constitute a deadly
weapon if used in manner that is improper and inherently dangerous.
Id. at
519.
Likewise, a person will be found guilty of aggravated assault under
Subsection 2702(a)(3) “if he … attempts to cause or intentionally or knowingly
causes bodily injury to … [an] officer[] … in the performance of duty[.]” 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(3). Bodily injury is defined as “impairment of physical
condition or substantial pain.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301.
Moreover, we note that:
[t]he 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.
-6-
J-A06027-25
Commonwealth v. Hatch, 314 A.3d 928, 932 (Pa.Super. 2024) (citation and
brackets omitted).
Here, the evidence, and the reasonable inferences derived therefrom,
are clear. On June 16, 2023, the Allentown Police Department and the
Pennsylvania State Police were engaged in a joint drug enforcement
investigation in the City of Allentown. Notes of testimony, 3/13/24 at 7-8.
During a traffic stop of Appellee’s vehicle for Motor Vehicle Code violations,
Allentown Vice Detectives Ozoa and Oquendo positioned their vehicle behind
Appellee’s vehicle, and two uniformed law enforcement officers – Pennsylvania
State Police Trooper Hamati-Attieh and Allentown Police Officer Cunningham
– pulled their cruiser at an angle “mostly in front of” Appellee’s vehicle. Id.
at 12-15. The record reflects that after Trooper Hamati-Attieh and his partner
exited their cruiser and repeatedly ordered Appellee to exit his vehicle,
Appellee ignored their commands and abruptly put his vehicle in reverse,
striking the Vice Detectives’ vehicle. Id. at 16-17. Appellee then proceeded
to accelerate his vehicle towards Trooper Hamati-Attieh, who was standing in
directly in front of it at the time, and drove at Trooper Hamati-Attieh before
sharply veering to the right and traveling over the sidewalk. Id. at 17-20.
Trooper Hamati-Attieh reacted by firing two gunshots into the windshield of
Appellee’s vehicle, striking above the steering wheel area and near the driver’s
side A-pillar. Id. This encounter was captured from a video surveillance
-7-
J-A06027-25
camera located on a utility pole at 3rd and Hamilton Streets. Id. at 20-22;
see also Commonwealth Exhibits 2(a) and 2(b).
As noted, it is well-settled in this Commonwealth that the prosecution
“need not prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt; rather,
the prima facie standard requires evidence of the existence of each and every
element of the crime charged.” Ouch, 199 A.3d at 923 (citation omitted).
This evidence clearly establishes a prima facie case that Appellee attempted
to cause bodily injury to Trooper Hamati-Attieh with his vehicle, and
attempted to cause bodily injury to both Vice Detectives Ozoa and Oquendo
while they were engaged in the performance of their duties. Whether the
safety of these law enforcement officers was placed in jeopardy by Appellee’s
actions on the day in question is clearly a question for the jury. Based on the
foregoing, we find that the trial court erred in dismissing the three aggravated
assault charges against Appellee, reverse its May 15, 2024 order, and remand
for further proceedings consistent with opinion.
Order reversed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Date: 4/16/2025
-8-
