of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior.” 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5503(a)(1). The focus is on the defendant’s behavior, not the public impact of that behavior. Commonwealth v. Fedorek, 596 Pa. 475, 946 A.2d 93, 101 (2008). The statute defines “public” as “affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access,” including “places of business” and “any premises which are open to the pub-lie.” 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5503(c). For there to be “public inconvenience,” there need not be multiple persons affected by the conduct — one affected person will suffice. See Fedorek, 946 A.2d at 100 (<HOLDING>). A person has the state of mind necessary to
holding that the challenged conduct or statement must be directed at the familial relationship with knowledge that the statements or conduct will adversely affect that relationship internal quotation marks omitted holding that uncharged conduct may be considered at sentencing when that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence holding that the career offender guideline could not directly apply when there was an unsentenced conviction but allowing the district court on remand to consider departing from the guidelines in order to sentence a defendant whose conduct delayed his convictions as if the career offender provision applied holding that reduced career offender status was nonetheless based the career offender guidelines holding that when an offender engages in fighting or threatening or in violent or tumultuous behavior in a public arena even when that conduct is directed at only one other person the offender may be subject to conviction for disorderly conduct original emphasis