Opinion
J-S45012-17 No. 2480 EDA 2016
09-06-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. SAGE NATHANIEL LEE KENT Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 11, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0008036-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. --------
Appellant, Sage Nathaniel Lee Kent, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial convictions of two counts each of robbery and aggravated assault, and one count each of recklessly endangering another person ("REAP"), firearms not to be carried without a license, and possessing instruments of crime ("PIC"). We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701(a)(1), 2702(a), 2705, 6106(a)(2), and 907(b), respectively.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DETERMINING THAT APPELLANT'S CONVICTION WAS NOT CONTRARY TO THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, WHERE IT WAS MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO BASE APPELLANT'S CONVICTION UPON CONTRADICTORY, SELF-SERVING TESTIMONY OF ONE IDENTIFICATION WITNESS?(Appellant's Brief at 5).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Gail A. Weilheimer, we conclude Appellant's issue on appeal merits no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed January 11, 2017, at 6-13) (finding: Victim and Detective Leeds credibly explained reason for Victim's delayed identification of Appellant as shooter; Victim testified he did not initially identify Appellant for fear of being labeled "snitch" in community and alerting police to his involvement in drug activity; Victim explained he eventually chose to identify Appellant as shooter because Victim feared for his safety and safety of his family; Corporal Gergel also testified for Commonwealth at trial; specifically, Corporal Gergel stated Victim's initial description of shooter was consistent with Victim's later identification of Appellant as shooter; additionally, Danielle Hawkins' description of men fleeing crime scene was consistent with Victim's initial description of shooter and subsequent identification of Appellant as shooter; further, Victim's identification of Appellant in photo array, recognition of Appellant's accent, and recollection of Appellant's gold teeth, lent credibility to Victim's implication of Appellant as shooter; in light of this evidence, court determined Victim's identification of Appellant as shooter was highly credible; in contrast, court found Appellant's testimony about incriminating text messages highly incredible; as finder of fact, court was free to disbelieve Appellant's explanation; under these circumstances, Appellant's conviction was not against weight of evidence, and court properly denied Appellant's post-sentence motion challenge to weight of evidence). The record supports the trial court's reasoning, and we see no reason to disturb its decision to deny relief on Appellant's challenge to the weight of the evidence. See Commonwealth v. Champney , 574 Pa. 435, 444, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939, 124 S.Ct. 2906, 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004) (stating where trial court has ruled on weight claim, appellate court's review is limited to whether trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on weight claim). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/6/2017
Image materials not available for display.