J-S07029-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. WILLIAM TERRY LEDFORD Appellant No. 966 MDA 2013

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of December 6, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County Criminal Division at No.: CP-31-CR-0000260-2011

BEFORE: MUNDY, J., WECHT, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* DISSENTING STATEMENT BY MUNDY, J.: FILED AUGUST 05, 2014

remand for a new trial. In my view, the trial court did not abuse its t for a self-defense instruction.

Traditionally, to receive a self-defense instruction, a defendant must present some evidence from any source that satisfies each of the following three elements.

[A]s provided by statute and as interpreted through our case law, to establish the defense of self-defense it must be shown that[:] a) the slayer was free from fault in provoking or continuing the difficulty which resulted in the slaying; b) that the slayer must have reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that there was a necessity to use such force in order to save ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

J-S07029-14

himself therefrom; and c) the slayer did not violate any duty to retreat or to avoid the danger.

Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 585 A.2d 1069, 1071 (Pa. Super. 1991) (en banc) (emphases added); accord Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 421 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa. 2011). Here, the Commonwealth acknowledges, and the Majority correctly notes that Appellant had no duty to retreat Brief at 30 n.2; Majority Memorandum at 18. However, I must disagree with that the slayer must have reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that there was a necessity to use such force in order to save himself Id. The Majority concludes that there was sufficient evidence from

Specifically, the Majo terrified, that Appellant told Cuff that Shoop had previously threatened to kill them, that they were planning to buy additional locks for the door having

and his friends had shut themselves inside his apartment. N.T, 9/21/12, at 100. They further secured themselves inside by barricading the door and -2- J-S07029-14

securing it with a belt. Id. the belt was getting tighter, there is no evidence in the record to suggest

apartment. Id. pre-emptive, not defensive. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Harris, 281 A.2d 879, 880 (Pa. 1971) (concluding that self-defense did not exist where the defendant shot a milkman through his closed front door after hearing a Commonwealth v. Correa, 648 A.2d [the defendant] could not have

abrogated on other grounds, Commonwealth v. Weston, 749 A.2d 458, 460-462 (Pa. 2000).

Based on the foregoing, I conclude that Appellant did not, as a matter of law, present evide reasonably believed that he was in Hansley, supra. Therefore, Appellant was not entitled to the self-defense instruction in this case.1 s decision to the contrary and from its decision to reverse and remand for a new trial.

____________________________________________ note that as an appellate court, we may affirm the trial court on any legal basis supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451, 456 (Pa. Super. 2012).

-3-