Opinion
251 MDA 2023 J-S32024-23
01-12-2024
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. FLOYD LEE ROBINSON Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 22, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-21-CR-0000507-2022
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.
MEMORANDUM
KUNSELMAN, J.
Floyd Lee Robinson appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after he was convicted of aggravated assault. He challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. Upon review, we affirm.
The trial court summarized the pertinent facts and procedural history as follows:
On February 15, 2022, the victim, [Hodge], had been celebrating his birthday at the home of Stephanie Reeder. He left her house around 9:00 [p.m.] and proceeded to walk to his home a few blocks away. As he got closer to his house, he saw [Robinson] coming around the corner. He knew [Robinson] as Stephanie Reeder's paramour and father of her child. He noticed that [Robinson] had his hand in his pocket as he rounded the corner. Unsure of what [Robinson] was reaching for, [Hodge] attempted to run away from him. [Robinson] chased after him, caught him, and took him to the ground. When [Hodge] got up, he was bleeding from a stab wound in the back.
Officer Hoover was on routine patrol that evening. He had his car window partway down when he heard a commotion to the left of him. He saw two men in hoodies running on B Street. He could
hear one of them calling out for help. He noticed that a man in a black hoodie, who he later identified as [Hodge], was being chased by a man in a blue hoodie, who he later identified as [Robinson]. [Officer Hoover] immediately turned onto B Street and activated his overhead lights. He got out of his car and activated his body camera. He saw the men in the middle of the street. [Robinson] was on top of [Hodge]. Officer Hoover gave them a command to separate. [Robinson] complied by sitting on the curb. [Hodge] approached Officer Hoover stating that [Robinson] had stabbed him. Officer Hoover did a cursory check of the victim and could see that he was injured. He then had [Robinson] lay prone until Officer Mennor arrived to handcuff and arrest him. [Robinson] seemed to have suffered a fresh cut to his right hand.
The officers assisted [Hodge] until he was taken to the hospital by ambulance. They then turned their attention to the scene. They found a bloody knife in the middle of the street near the location of the stabbing. The knife was a large butcher-type knife. Officer Hoover recorded his entire encounter that night on his bodycam, which would later be played for the jury.
As a result of the stabbing, [Hodge] suffered a punctured lung which ultimately collapsed. He had to have a drainage tube inserted into his lung. He could not walk for at least 4 days afterward.Trial Court Opinion, 3/24/23, at 2-5. Robinson was arrested and charged with aggravated assault-serious bodily injury, aggravated assault-bodily injury with a deadly weapon, and simple assault.
On October 18, 2022, a jury convicted Robinson of the two aggravated assault charges but found him not guilty of simple assault. On November 22, 2022, the trial court sentenced Robinson to 8 to 16 years for aggravated assault-serious bodily injury and a concurrent sentence of 2 ½ to 5 years for aggravated assault-bodily injury with a deadly weapon. Robinson filed a post-sentence motion, which the court denied.
Robinson filed this timely appeal. Robinson and the trial court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.
Robinson presents three issues for our review which we have reordered for ease of disposition:
I. Whether the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain Robinson's conviction for all charges where the Commonwealth failed to prove that Robinson, inter alia, was the person who committed the acts and that Hodge suffered serious bodily injury as defined under the law?
II. Whether the trial court erred in denying Robinson's post-sentence motion where his convictions on all charges were against the weight of the evidence so as to shock one's sense of justice wherein the Commonwealth failed to prove that Robinson actually committed the acts alleged for all charges against him?
III. Whether the trial court erred in denying Robinson's post-sentence motion where his aggravated assault conviction was against the weight of the evidence so as to shock one's sense of justice wherein the Commonwealth failed to prove that Hodge suffered serious bodily injury?Robinson's Brief at 7 (excess capitalization removed).
In his first issue, Robinson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him of the aggravated assault offenses claiming that the Commonwealth failed to establish that: 1) he was the perpetrator; and 2)
Hodge's injury was a "serious bodily injury." When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our standard of review is as follows:
In his appellate brief, Robinson also argues that the Commonwealth failed to establish that he intended to cause serious bodily injury and/or bodily injury. See Robinson's Brief at 17-20. However, Robinson did not challenge this element in his post-sentence motion, Rule 1925(b) statement, or statement of questions involved. As such, Robinson waived this argument. See Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted) ("to preserve a sufficiency of the evidence claim for 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.").
When presented with a claim that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction, an appellate court, viewing all of the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, must determine whether the evidence was sufficient to enable the fact-finder to find that all elements of the offense were established beyond a reasonable doubt.Commonwealth v. Woody, 939 A.2d 359, 361 (Pa. Super. 2007). "The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by proving the crime's elements with evidence which is entirely circumstantial and the trier of fact, who determines credibility of witnesses and the weight to give the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence." Id. at 361-362 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). "As an appellate court, we do not assess credibility, nor do we assign weight to any of the testimony of record." Commonwealth v. Vogelsong, 90 A.3d 717, 719 (Pa. Super. 2014). Therefore, we will not disturb the verdict "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." Commonwealth v. Bruce, 916 A.2d 657, 661 (Pa. Super 2007) (citation omitted). "Additionally, we may not reweigh the evidence or substitute our own judgment for that of the factfinder." Commonwealth v. Walker, 139 A.3d 225, 229 (Pa. Super. 2016). Because a sufficiency challenge presents a question of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Headley, 242 A.3d 940, 943 (Pa. Super. 2020).
To convict a defendant of aggravated assault-serious bodily injury, the Commonwealth must establish that they:
Attempt[ed] to cause serious bodily injury to another, or cause[d] such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1). Serious bodily injury is defined as, "[b]odily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ." 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301.
To convict a defendant of aggravated assault-bodily injury with a deadly weapon, the Commonwealth must show that they intentionally or knowingly caused bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(4). Bodily injury is the "[i]mpairment of physical condition or substantial pain." 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301. A deadly weapon is "[a]ny firearm, . . . or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or serious bodily injury . . . ." Id.
Robinson first argues that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that he was the one who stabbed Hodge. Robinson's Brief at 15-16. Robinson maintains that the evidence did not demonstrate that he possessed a knife or that he actually stabbed Hodge; no one saw him with a knife or stab Hodge. Instead, according to Robinson, his convictions were based only on his presence at the scene, which was insufficient. Id. at 11, 15. We disagree.
Here, the Commonwealth's evidence showed that Hodge had been at the home of Reeder, with whom Robinson had a relationship. Meanwhile, Robinson was driving around the area in his car. Shortly after Hodge left Reeder's house, Robinson parked his car and left it running. Robinson then chased Hodge down the street, referenced Reeder, and knocked Hodge to the ground. When Hodge got up, he realized had been stabbed in the back and was bleeding. Hodge and Robinson were the only two individuals in the area at the time.
The commotion between Robinson and Hodge caught the attention of Officer Hoover who was on patrol. He saw the confrontation between the two and then Robinson standing over Hodge. When Officer Hoover went over to them, Hodge told him that Robinson stabbed him. A bloody butcher knife, which appeared to have been just put there, was found on the ground near where the attack occurred. Robinson had a fresh cut on his hand. At trial, Hodge testified Robinson stabbed him.
This evidence was sufficient to establish that Robinson stabbed Hodge with a knife. This is so, despite Robinson's arguments that Officer Hoover did not see Robinson actually stab Hodge with the knife; Officer Hoover's body camera did not capture Robinson do this or record the sound of the knife hitting the ground; and the Commonwealth had no scientific evidence to link Robinson to the knife. "'The Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence or establish the defendant's guilt to a mathematical certainty.'" Commonwealth v. Teems, 74 A.3d 142, 144 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Toland, 995 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted)).
Moreover, Robinson cannot rely on Commonwealth v. Goodman, 350 A.2d 810 (Pa. 1976), or Commonwealth v. Crews, 260 A.2d 771 (Pa. 1970), to support his claim that mere presence is insufficient. In Goodman, the only facts tending to show that the defendant participated in the theft were that he was outside the store and that he ran when he saw the police; there was nothing to associate him with the other individual who was apprehended. In Crews, the only evidence presented to link the defendant to the crime was his clothing and that he was with the codefendant that night. The circumstantial evidence in these cases did not sufficiently point toward guilt. Here, unlike Goodman and Crews, there was much more circumstantial evidence to conclusively point toward Robinson as the perpetrator, and notably, direct evidence from the victim who testified that Hodge stabbed him.
Robinson next claims that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that Hodge suffered a "serious bodily injury" as a result of the assault. According to Robinson, a single stab wound requiring eight stiches is insufficient to show a "serious bodily injury." He further argues that Hodge did not feel any pain during the struggle and Hodge did not comply with the recommended follow-up treatment. As such, Robinson maintains Hodge's injury did not constitute "serious bodily injury." See Robinson's Brief at 20. We disagree.
Here, the Commonwealth's evidence demonstrated that Hodge suffered a deep, penetrating wound where thick, fatty tissue was visible. It bled so profusely that Officer Hoover made Hodge lie down to minimize blood loss until an ambulance arrived at the scene. The knife punctured Hodge's lung, a vital organ, which filled with blood, requiring doctors to insert a chest tube to drain the fluid. The puncture caused his lung to collapse. Hodge needed eight stitches to close the wound. Hodge was hospitalized for four or five days and unable to walk during that time. Although Hodge did not follow up with further treatment as recommended, Hodge explained this was because he did not have transportation, not because his injury was not serious. A victim's credible testimony regarding injuries and treatment is sufficient to prove "seriously bodily injury." See Commonwealth v. Warren, 1446 EDA 2018, 2020 WL 974921, at *5 n.3 (Pa. Super. filed Feb. 28, 2020) (unpublished mem.).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we conclude that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain Robinson's convictions for aggravated assault-serious bodily injury and aggravated assault-bodily injury with a deadly weapon. His first issue merits no relief.
In his second and third issues, Robinson argues that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. When reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, our standard of review is as follows:
The essence of appellate review for a weight claim appears to lie in ensuring that the trial court's decision has record support. Where the record adequately supports the trial court, the trial court has acted within the limits of its discretion.
***
A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. A new trial should not be granted because of a mere conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same facts would have arrived at a different conclusion. Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.
***
An appellate court's standard of review when presented with a weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of review applied by the trial court. Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1054-55 (Pa. 2013) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court's decision will not be disturbed. See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 515 A.2d 865, 869 (Pa. 1986). An abuse of discretion "is not merely an error in judgment. Rather, it involves bias, partiality, prejudice, ill-will, manifest unreasonableness or a misapplication of the law." Commonwealth v. West, 937 A.2d 516, 521 (Pa. Super. 2007). By contrast, a proper exercise of discretion "conforms to the law and is based on the facts of record." Id.
In support of his weight claims, Robinson again argues that the evidence did not demonstrate that he stabbed Hodge or that Hodge suffered "serious bodily injury." He essentially repeats the arguments he made in his sufficiency claim. Robinson's Brief at 21-24. Robinson also argues that the verdict of not guilty on the simple assault count is logically inconsistent with a verdict of guilty on the aggravated assault counts since the former crime is a lesser included offense of the latter. Id. at 24. Thus, Robinson maintains that this should have shocked the court's sense of justice. Robinson's Brief at 24-25.
Initially, we observe that Robinson did not preserve a weight claim relating to identification of him as the perpetrator or the inconsistency of the verdict. Instead, in his post-sentence motion, he only raised a weight claim regarding the nature of Hodge's injury. As such, these other arguments are waived. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607.
Nevertheless, we observe that the trial court, in denying Robinson's weight claims, thoroughly reviewed the evidence presented to support Robinson's convictions. It summarized its analysis as follows:
The jury was presented with testimony from the victim and Officer Hoover who both witnessed the incident firsthand. The victim described seeing the defendant walking toward him with his hand in his pocket. He knew the defendant as the paramour of his friend and the father of her child. Since he had just been at her house and the defendant was approaching him with his hand in his pocket, he ran. He then described being chased by the defendant until he fell to the ground with the defendant on top of him. When they separated, he realized that he had been stabbed by the defendant. The stabbing resulted in a punctured and collapsed lung requiring hospitalization for several days.
Officer Hoover witnessed the same event. His body camera also recorded what happened that night. The defendant was the only person chasing the victim; he was the only person to fall on top of the victim; and he was the only person to have touched the victim from the time he and the victim were on the ground until they separated. When they finally separated, it was apparent that the victim had been stabbed. Further, the defendant had a fresh cut on his right hand, and a large, bloody knife was found on scene. Moreover, this evidence was not only presented in the form of testimony, but it was presented in the form of exhibits that included bodycam footage, a bloody knife, photographs of the victim's stab wound, and the defendant's own cut hand.
We cannot say that the verdict shocked our conscience, nor can we say that the evidence was tenuous, vague, or uncertain. The evidence clearly showed that [Robinson] who was identified by both the victim and the officer chased the victim and then stabbed him in the back with a deadly weapon-a large knife, causing not only "bodily injury" but "serious bodily injury" in the form of a major wound to his back, as well as a punctured and collapsed lung that required extensive medical treatment.Trial Court Opinion, 3/24/23, at 7-9 (emphasis added). Furthermore, appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence or substitute their judgment for that of the fact-finder, which is what Robinson asks us to do. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536, 546 (Pa. Super. 2016).
Upon review of the record and the trial court's rationale, we discern no abuse of discretion on the part of the court in denying Robinson's post-sentence motion challenging the weight of the evidence. Likewise, his second and third issues merit no relief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.