Opinion
J-S29041-18 No. 3032 EDA 2017
06-28-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ERIC DILLARD Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 7, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0003372-2016 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant Eric Dillard appeals from the judgment of sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County after the trial court convicted Appellant of two counts of first-degree murder, attempted murder, four counts of criminal conspiracy, three counts of robbery, and other related offenses. We affirm on the basis of the trial court's well-reasoned opinion.
We adopt the thorough and comprehensive summary of the detailed factual background and procedural history of this case as set forth in the Opinion of the Honorable Rea B. Boylan, for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion (T.C.O.), 1/19/18, at 3-14. Therefore, we will briefly summarize the facts of this case.
The Commonwealth's evidence established that Appellant and two other men, Anthony King and Demetrius Baker, entered a residence located in Bristol, Pennsylvania and robbed Lamel Duffy, Joshua Johnson, and Terrance Moss. Appellant cruelly pushed Duffy from his wheelchair and burnt Duffy's forearm with a butter knife that Appellant had heated on the stove. Appellant and his cohorts made the victims lie on the floor and restrained the victims' hands behind their backs with zip ties.
After stealing the victims' money, drugs, jewelry, cell phones, clothes, and gaming system, Appellant and King used two different firearms to shoot at least four bullets at the victims' heads. Johnson and Moss did not survive their injuries; medical examiners determined that Johnson's cause of death was a gunshot wound to the head and Moss's cause of death was a gunshot wound to the neck. Duffy was fortunate to survive near fatal gunshot wounds to his head and clavicle.
At trial, Baker testified to Appellant's involvement in the aforementioned crimes. Baker indicated that he participated in the robbery, took some of the stolen property, and was waiting in his car for King and Appellant when the fatal shots were fired; Baker recalled that, upon leaving the crime scene, King and Appellant were noticeably happy and Appellant stated that he was "going to take money for the rest of his life." Notes of Testimony (N.T.), Trial, 7/31/17, at 97-98. The men split the money and the victims' belongings.
King did not participate in Appellant's trial as he was murdered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania shortly after the robbery and shootings in this case.
Appellant, King, and Baker were all eventually connected to the robbery and shootings after officers recovered one of the murder weapons from a silver Lexus illegally parked in a Philadelphia Parking Authority lot; the officers observed that one of the vehicle's windows was rolled down and noticed a black handgun sticking out from underneath a sweatshirt in the back seat. Officers discovered the vehicle belonged to the wife of Christopher Wright, a friend of Appellant's, who eventually identified the firearm as belonging to Appellant. Wright testified that Appellant had admitted his involvement in the robbery, flaunted a watch that he had stolen from one of the victims, and showed Wright the black handgun in his possession that was later found in Wright's vehicle. Ballistics subsequently determined that the bullets that had caused Johnson and Moss's fatal head wounds were fired from the firearm that had been connected to Appellant.
Moreover, Kyle Stallworth, an inmate who was incarcerated with Appellant after the murders had occurred, testified that Appellant admitted his involvement in the Bristol robberies and murders. Appellant gave Stallworth specific details about the crimes, including that he burned one of the victims with a butter knife heated on the stove and shot one of the victims in the head. N.T. Trial, 8/1/17, 88-91.
At the conclusion of the three-day bench trial, the trial court convicted Appellant of two counts of first-degree murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, three counts of robbery, burglary, possession of an instrument of crime, and four counts of conspiracy. After the penalty phase of Appellant's trial, the lower court sentenced Appellant to consecutive terms of life imprisonment without parole for the murder convictions and a concurrent term of twenty to forty years' imprisonment for the attempted murder conviction. No further penalties were imposed.
Appellant filed a timely appeal and complied with the trial court's direction to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant presents the following issues for our review on appeal:
1. Did the lower court err in its determination that the Commonwealth adduced sufficient evidence to support Appellant's convictions for murder in the first degree and conspiracy to commit murder in regard to Counts 1 through 4 of the criminal information?Appellant's Brief, at 7.
2. Did the lower court err in its determination that the Commonwealth adduced sufficient evidence to support Appellant's conviction for criminal attempt, murder in the first degree in regard to count 5 of the criminal information?
In reviewing these sufficiency challenges, we observe:
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is 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. In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for [that of] the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the trier of fact while passing upon the
credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.Commonwealth v. Smith , 181 A.3d 1168, 1184-85 (Pa.Super. 2018) (quoting Commonwealth v. Graham , 81 A.3d 137, 142 (Pa.Super. 2013) (quotation marks and quotation omitted)).
As an initial matter, we note that the trial court found that Appellant waived all of his sufficiency claims as he failed to identify with any specificity in his Rule 1925(b) statement the elements he wished to challenge with respect to each conviction. We agree. It is well established that:
In order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, an appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement must state with specificity the element or elements upon which the appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient. Commonwealth v. Gibbs , 981 A.2d 274, 281 (Pa. Super. 2009). "Such specificity is of particular importance in cases where, as here, the appellant was convicted of multiple crimes each of which contains numerous elements that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 281 (internal citation omitted).Commonwealth v. Brown , ___ A.3d ___, 1161 WDA 2017 (Pa.Super. May 4, 2018). In Commonwealth v. Garland , 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa.Super. 2013), this Court found that the appellant had waived his sufficiency claim by failing to specify in his Rule 1925(b) statement which of the elements of his convictions that he wished to challenge.
In the same manner, we conclude that Appellant has waived his challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting five of his convictions due to his failure to state his claims with specificity. Nevertheless, even assuming arguendo that Appellant had not waived these challenges, Appellant's claims are clearly meritless. After reviewing Appellant's brief, the certified record, the relevant law, and the trial court's opinion, we find there has been no error in this case and that Judge Boylan's opinion, entered January 19, 2018, accurately disposes of Appellant's issues on appeal. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Boylan's thorough opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge Boylan's opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 6/28/18
Image materials not available for display.