Opinion
J-S96040-16 No. 534 WDA 2016
03-14-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JAMEELE HAKEEM'ALI WILLIAMS Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Dated March 9, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0000815-2015 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SOLANO, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY SOLANO, J.:
Appellant, Jameele Hakeem'ali Williams, appeals from the judgment of sentence following a jury trial and convictions for possession of an instrument of crime, carrying firearms without a license, and reckless endangerment. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his firearms conviction, the weight of the evidence for all his convictions, and the discretionary aspects of his sentence. We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S. § 2705. --------
The trial court's opinion accurately sets forth the facts and procedural history. Appellant timely filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and raises the following issues on appeal:
The evidence in this case was insufficient to support the firearms not to be carried without a license charge since the Commonwealth did not present testimony of the actual barrel length of the alleged firearm.Appellant's Brief at 3.
The verdict in this case was against the weight of the evidence in that the evidence did not prove that [Appellant] was the individual who actually discharged the firearm[.]
The sentence in this case was manifestly excessive and clearly unreasonable when the court's sentence fell within the aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines and the specific traits of [Appellant].
Our standard of review as it pertains to Appellant's sufficiency argument follows:
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 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. . . . Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the finder 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. Roberts , 133 A.3d 759, 767 (Pa. Super.) (citation omitted), appeal denied , 145 A.3d 725 (Pa., Sep. 6, 2016).
A weight claim must be preserved by raising it with the trial court. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A). When properly preserved, our standard of review of a weight claim is:
A motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. An appellate court, therefore, reviews the exercise of discretion, not the underlying question whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. The factfinder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. The trial court will award a new trial only when the jury's verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice. In determining whether this standard has been met, appellate review is limited to whether the trial judge's discretion was properly exercised, and relief will only be granted where the facts and inferences of record disclose a palpable abuse of discretion. Thus, the trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial based on a weight of the evidence claim is the least assailable of its rulings.Commonwealth v. Ramtahal , 33 A.3d 602, 609 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted).
Finally, the law governing our review of a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence is well-settled:
Our jurisdiction to hear such a challenge is discretionary, and we may not exercise our discretion to review such an issue unless we first determine that: (1) the appeal is timely; (2) Appellant preserved his issue; (3) Appellant's brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of an appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of his sentences, as required by Rule 2119(f) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure; and (4) that concise statement raises a substantial question that the sentences were inappropriate under the Sentencing Code.Commonwealth v. Flowers , 149 A.3d 867, 870 (Pa. Super. 2016) (footnote and citation omitted).
Instantly, after careful review of the record, the parties' briefs, and the opinion of the Honorable Robert A. Sambroak, Jr., we affirm based on the trial court's opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., 7/13/16, at 9-14 (holding evidence established barrel length of Appellant's firearm was less than fifteen inches because, among other things, a witness testified the gun was approximately ten inches in length and Appellant withdrew the gun from his pants pocket; Appellant failed to preserve his weight claim; and the court complied with the Sentencing Code in sentencing Appellant). Accordingly, having discerned no abuse of discretion, or error of law, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
In the event of further proceedings, the parties shall attach a copy of the trial court's July 13, 2016 opinion to this memorandum.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 3/14/2017
Image materials not available for display.