Opinion
J-S57007-15 No. 75 EDA 2014
11-04-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. TRAVIS GARRETTE Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 2, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011939-2011 CP-51-CR-0011940-2011 CP-51-CR-0011986-2011
BEFORE: MUNDY, J., OTT, J., and STABILE, J. MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.:
Appellant, Travis Garrette, appeals pro se from the December 2, 2013 aggregate judgment of sentence of 8 to 16 years' imprisonment, imposed after Appellant was found guilty of two counts of robbery, and three counts each of possession of instruments of crimes (PIC), and prohibited offensive weapons. After careful review, we affirm.
This Court previously remanded to the trial court for a hearing pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier , 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). The trial court conducted its Grazier hearing on October 27, 2014, at the conclusion of which, the trial court permitted Appellant to proceed pro se on appeal.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701(a)(1)(ii), 907(a), and 908(a), respectively.
The trial court, in its July 23, 2014 opinion, has aptly summarized the factual history of this case, which we need not repeat in full here. See generally Trial Court Opinion, 7/23/14, at 2-6. On October 26, 2011, the Commonwealth filed an information at docket number CP-51-CR-11939-2011, charging Appellant with one count each of firearms not to be carried without a license, attempted theft by unlawful taking, carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia, PIC, and prohibited offensive weapons. That same date, the Commonwealth filed a second information at docket number CP-51-CR-11940-2011, charging Appellant with one count each of robbery, firearms not to be carried without a license, theft by unlawful taking, carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia, PIC, prohibited offensive weapons, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person (REAP). That same day, the Commonwealth filed a third information at docket number CP-51-CR-11986-2011, charging Appellant with one count each of the same eight offenses as at docket number CP-51-CR-11940-2011.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6106(a)(1), 901(a), 6108, 907(a), and 908(a), respectively.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701(a)(1)(ii), 6106(a)(1), 3921(a), 6108, 907(a), 908(a), 2701(a), and 2705, respectively.
Appellant proceeded to a consolidated bench trial on all three docket numbers on September 23, 2013, at the conclusion of which the trial court found Appellant guilty of two counts of robbery, and three counts each of PIC and prohibited offensive weapons. On December 2, 2013, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 8 to 16 years' imprisonment. On December 11, 2013, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied on December 16, 2013. On January 6, 2014, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Specifically, the trial court imposed five to ten years for the robbery count at docket number CP-51-CR-11940-2011 and three to six years for the robbery count at docket number CP-51-CR-11986-2011. The two sentences were to run consecutively to each other. The trial court imposed no further penalty on any of the remaining charges.
Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following five issues for our review.
I. Whether [the] Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to establish [A]ppellant committed the gunpoint robberies that took place on May 18, 2011 and June 2, 2011?
II. Whether [the] Commonwealth erred by instructing [the t]rial [c]ourt to find [A]ppellant guilty of [a]ccomplice [l]iability?
III. Whether [the t]rial [c]ourt erred by finding [A]ppellant guilty of [robbery] in connection with the robbery that happen[ed] on June 2, 2011?
IV. Whether [the] Commonwealth erred under (Pa.R.Crim.P. 564) when [the] Commonwealth instructed [the t]rial [c]ourt to find [A]ppellant guilty of a new alleged criminal act at closing arguments during trial?
V. Whether [A]ppellant was denied due process of law when [the] stenographer failed to follow Rule 1922 of [the] Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure and/or failed to file the accurate transcript by omitting the Commonwealth's direct examination, [A]ppellant's counsel['s] cross examination, [A]ppellant's testimony, and [the t]rial [c]ourt's ruling of the verdict against [A]ppellant?Appellant's Brief at 5.
As the trial court explains, Appellant's first four issues essentially challenge the sufficiency of the Commonwealth's evidence for Appellant's robbery conviction. See generally Trial Court Opinion, 7/23/14, at 8-12. We review a claim regarding the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, as it is a pure question of law, by looking at the record in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner. Commonwealth v. Murray , 83 A.3d 137, 150-151 (Pa. 2013). In his fifth issue, Appellant argues he was denied due process of law because the court reporter omitted certain portions of the trial from the trial transcript. Appellant's Brief at 53. We review such questions of constitutional law de novo. Commonwealth v . Colvita , 993 A.2d 874, 886 (Pa. 2010).
Instantly, the trial court has authored two comprehensive opinions that properly dispose of all of Appellant's claims. In its July 23, 2014 opinion, the trial court explains that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the Commonwealth's conviction for robbery because the evidence established that he "posed as a seller of a computer that did not exist, but which he listed for sale on Craig's List" on May 18, 2011. Trial Court Opinion, 7/23/14, at 10. Appellant then, "[a]rmed with a sawed-off shotgun that he pointed at his victim's face while demanding 'all the f*cking money', ... clearly put Mr. Uyehara in fear of serious bodily injury in the taking of his case and cell phone." Id. The trial court also explained how Appellant was, at a minimum, guilty under an accomplice theory of liability of the June 2, 2011 robbery, because "Appellant's confessed cohort, Jarred, used Appellant's cell phone to set up the robbery, and the same multicolored bag and sawed-off shotgun to perpetuate it -- all of which he promptly returned to Appellant fresh after marauding." Id. Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, the evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant's convictions. See Murray , supra .
In its March 17, 2015 supplemental opinion, the trial court undertook a comprehensive review of the entire trial transcript and illustrated that nothing was missing from the same. The trial court gives a page range for each witness's direct examination, cross examination, as well as any redirect and recross, as well as the parties' closing arguments and the trial court's verdict. Trial Court Opinion, 3/17/15, at 3-4. This more than adequately refutes Appellant's due process claim. See Colvita , supra.
We have reviewed the record in its entirety and have considered the merits of Appellant's claims. Based on our careful scrutiny of the certified record, including the notes of testimony, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court's factual findings were supported by the record, and its legal conclusions were entirely proper. The well-reasoned opinions of the trial court provide a detailed analysis of the law of this Commonwealth as related to the facts of this case. The trial court then wholly refutes each of Appellant's arguments. Accordingly, we conclude that the July 23, 2014 and March 17, 2015 opinions of the Honorable Susan I. Schulman comprehensively discuss and properly dispose of Appellant's claims. Accordingly, we adopt the trial court's opinions as our own and affirm the December 2, 2013 judgment of sentence.
We note that Appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, addressed by the trial court on page 12 of its July 23, 2014 opinion, were not pursued by Appellant on appeal. Therefore, we will not review those claims, and our disposition in this matter pertains solely to Appellant's issues listed in this memorandum.
The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court's July 23, 2014 and March 17, 2015 opinions to this memorandum in the event of further proceedings.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/4/2015
Image materials not available for display.