Opinion
J. S64010/15 No. 475 MDA 2015
12-16-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RAYMARR DAQUAN ALFORD, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, November 19, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County
Criminal Division at No. CP-41-CR-0001969-2012 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., WECHT AND FITZGERALD, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Raymarr Daquan Alford appeals from the judgment of sentence of November 19, 2014, following his conviction of first-degree murder and related charges. We affirm.
On July 9, 2012, Kevan Connelly was shot in Flanagan Park in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. He died later that same day. On April 30, 2014, a jury found [appellant] guilty of First Degree Murder, Conspiracy to Commit Murder, Possessing an Instrument of Crime, Recklessly Endangering Another Person, and Firearms not to be Carried without a License. For First Degree Murder, the Court used 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102.1 and sentenced [appellant] to incarceration for a minimum of 50 years and a maximum of life. For Conspiracy to Commit Murder, the Court sentenced [appellant] to incarceration for a minimum of 9.5 years and a maximum of 40 years. The sentence for conspiracy is consecutive to the sentence for murder.Opinion and order, 3/3/15 at 1 (footnotes omitted).
Post-sentence motions were denied on March 3, 2015, and this timely appeal followed. Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P., Rule 1925(b), 42 Pa.C.S.A., and the trial court filed an opinion.
Appellant has raised the following issues for this court's review:
A. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL ON FIRST DEGREE MURDER.
B. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL ON CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER.
C. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHOTOGRAPHIC AND IN-COURT IDENTIFICATIONS BECAUSE BOTH WERE TAINTED BY PRIOR TELEPHONE CONTACT WITH A PERSON PRESENT AT THE CRIME SCENE WHO HEARD RUMORS ABOUT WHO COMMITTED THE MURDER.
D. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY PERMITTING COMMONWEALTH WITNESSES TO IDENTIFY PERSONS DEPICTED IN SURVEILLANCE VIDEO AND TO DESCRIBE THOSE PERSONS['] ACTIONS WHEN NEITHER WITNESS WAS PRESENT TO OBSERVE THE EVENT.
E. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADMITTING A RECORDED CALL AS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESS NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED SHE MADE THE CALL AND WAS THUS NOT SUBJECT TO EFFECTIVE CROSS EXAMINATION CONCERNING ITS CONTENT.
F. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S REQUEST TO RESENTENCE BECAUSE 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1102.1(a)(1)
VIOLATES THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.Appellant's brief at 5.
G. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S REQUEST TO RESENTENCE BECAUSE 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1102.1(a)(1) VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.
H. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S REQUEST TO RESENTENCE BECAUSE 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1102.1(a)(1) VIOLATES THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE WHEN APPLIED TO APPELLANT.
After careful review, we determine that the trial court ably and comprehensively, with appropriate citation to the record and without legal error, disposes of each of appellant's issues on appeal, and adopt those opinions as our own. Specifically, appellant's issues A and B, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, are addressed in the trial court's opinion of March 3, 2015, denying appellant's post-sentence motion, at pages 16 through 18. Issue C, challenging Braheem Connelly's identification, is addressed in the trial court's May 1, 2013 opinion disposing of appellant's pre-trial suppression motion. (Docket #21.) Issue D is addressed in the trial court's opinion and order of March 6, 2014, granting in part, and denying in part, appellant's pre-trial motion in limine , as well as its May 11, 2015 Rule 1925(a) opinion at pages 1 through 3. Issue E, regarding the admission into evidence of Anita Jackson's telephone call in which she implicates appellant, is addressed in the trial court's May 11, 2015 opinion at pages 3 through 5. Finally, appellant's issues F through H, challenging application of the mandatory minimum sentence in Section 1102.1(a)(1), are discussed in the trial court's March 3, 2015 opinion at pages 18 through 25 ( see Commonwealth v. Brooker , 103 A.3d 325 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal denied , 118 A.3d 1107 (Pa. 2015); and Commonwealth v. Lawrence , 99 A.3d 116 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal denied , 114 A.3d 416 (Pa. 2015), upholding the constitutionality of Section 1102.1).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Wecht, J. joins the memorandum.
Fitzgerald, J. concurs in the result. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/16/2015
Image materials not available for display.