Opinion
J-S09023-17 No. 3144 EDA 2015
05-24-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ROSCOE WILLIAMS Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 18, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0010480-2014 BEFORE: SHOGAN, STABILE, and PLATT, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant Roscoe Williams appeals from the September 18, 2015 judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County ("trial court"), following his jury convictions for robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. Upon review, we affirm.
The facts and procedural history of this case are undisputed. As summarized by the trial court:
On August 12, 2014, Timothy Matthews left his place of employment on City Avenue and took a "hack cab" to his home. The driver of the hack cab identified himself as "Major." Matthews instructed Major to take him to 1611 West Loudon Street where Matthews resided at the time. Major drove on City Avenue toward Matthews' home, but then drove past where he needed to turn for Matthews' home. Matthews became suspicious because Major drove past where he needed to turn to get to his house. Matthews asked Major what was happening, to
which Major responded that he needed to stop briefly to take care of his child.Trial Court Opinion, 3/7/16, at 1-2 (record citations omitted). A jury ultimately found Appellant guilty of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. On September 18, 2015, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 10 to 20 years' imprisonment. Appellant timely appealed.
After parking on the 5200 block of Hutchinson Street, Major entered a residence located at 5235 Hutchinson Street. While waiting for Major to return, two individuals—later identified as [Appellant] and co-defendant Jamal Wilson—aggressively approached Matthews. Matthews described the two individuals as a tall, skinny male wearing sweat pants and a white t-shirt and a fat male wearing a red hoody. Matthews observed [Appellant] exit the residence at 5235 Hutchinson Street—the same house Major entered—prior to [Appellant] approaching him. As [Appellant] and co-defendant Wilson approached, Matthews backed up onto a nearby porch. After backing Matthews onto the porch, co-defendant Wilson produced a small handgun from his waist and pointed it inches away from Matthews' midsection. While co-defendant Wilson pointed the gun at him, Matthews removed $302 from his pockets and handed it to [Appellant], who was next to co-defendant Wilson.
After handing over the money, Matthews fled on foot and called 911. As he was running away, Matthews observed Philadelphia Police Officer Bacon, who was responding to the 911 call. Officer Bacon returned with Matthews to the scene of the robbery where he had identified [Appellant] to Officer Bacon as the skinny male who took his money while co-defendant Wilson pointed the gun at him. Matthews identified co-defendant Wilson to Officer Bacon as the fat male who pointed the gun to his midsection.
On appeal, Appellant raises a single issue for our review. Appellant argues that the conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery was unsupported by the record. After careful review of the record and the relevant case law, we conclude that the trial court accurately and thoroughly addressed the merits of Appellant's claim. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/7/16, at 4-5. We agree with the trial court's conclusion that Appellant conspired with co-defendant to rob Matthews under the circumstances of this case. As the trial court reasoned "both approached Matthews and without the need to communicate with each other, co-defendant Wilson pointed the gun at Matthews' midsection while [Appellant] took his money. See Commonwealth v. Poland , 26 A.3d 633, 518, 523 (Pa. Super. 2011) (holding that "the actors' relationships and their conduct before, during and after the criminal episode established a unity of criminal purpose sufficient for the jury to find conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt."). Accordingly, we affirm Appellant's September 18, 2015, judgment of sentence. We further direct that a copy of the trial court's March 7, 2016 opinion be attached to any future filings in this case.
Our review of a sufficiency claim is governed by the following well-settled standard of review:
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, was sufficient to enable the fact finder to conclude that the Commonwealth established all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Further, the trier of fact is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence.
To the extent Appellant asks us to discredit Matthews' identification of him, we decline to do so. "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) (citation omitted), appeal denied , 102 A.3d 985 (Pa. 2014). --------
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/24/2017
Image materials not available for display.
Commonwealth v. Taylor , 137 A.3d 611, 614 (Pa. Super. 2016)
A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he ... agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime ... or ... agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime[.]18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903(a).