Opinion
J-A17017-16 No. 3218 EDA 2014
08-04-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ANDREW THOMAS WALKER Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 9, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0015522-2013 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Andrew Thomas Walker appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County following his convictions for theft by unlawful taking and criminal conspiracy to commit theft. Upon review, we affirm Walker's judgment of sentence.
The charges in this matter relate to the theft of equipment from the Bartram High School Annex in Philadelphia on November 30, 2013. Officers witnessed two men matching flash information from a burglary radio call enter a pick-up truck, one in the driver's seat and one in the passenger's seat. An officer attempted to stop the truck, and it fled across a grass field. After a chase, the truck crashed into a utility pole. The passenger then fled the crash scene and was eventually located, hiding in a residence's tool shed. In the bed of the pick-up truck, the officers observed tools, equipment, copper pipes, and a sink, which were later identified by the facility coordinator of the Bartram Annex as being similar to the items that had been stolen from the school.
Following a non-jury trial on June 9, 2014, the Honorable Daniel McCaffery found Walker, along with his co-defendant Marvin Thornton, guilty of the aforementioned charges. Walker was sentenced to three years' probation and ordered to pay restitution. His post-sentence motions were denied on October 6, 2014.
Walker filed a timely notice of appeal and court-ordered concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On appeal, Walker raises one issue for our review:
Was the evidence presented at trial by the Commonwealth insufficient to sustain Defendant's convictions for theft by unlawful taking or disposition, 18 Pa.C.S.A. [§ 3921] and criminal conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903?Brief for Appellant, at 7.
The main thrust of Walker's appeal is that all of the Commonwealth's evidence is circumstantial, and therefore cannot sustain the convictions. This Court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence according to the following standard:
[The] standard of review of sufficiency claims requires that we evaluate the record in the light most favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty. Any doubt about the defendant's guilt is to be resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.Commonwealth v. Lynch , 72 A.3d 706, 707-08 (Pa. Super. 2013) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Walker contends the officers merely observed him entering the passenger side of a pick-up truck that contained various copper piping and porcelain sinks, and that they never observed him carrying any goods. Therefore, he claims no evidence exists to show he had control or possession of the materials in the truck. Moreover, Walker asserts that the Commonwealth failed to establish that he and Thornton formed an agreement to take items from the Bartram Annex.
We have reviewed the transcripts, the briefs, the relevant law, and the record as a whole. We find that opinion authored by Judge McCaffery thoroughly, comprehensively and correctly disposes of the issue raised by Walker on appeal and, for that reason, we affirm based on the trial court's opinion. Counsel is directed to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of further proceedings in this matter.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 8/4/2016
Image materials not available for display.