Opinion
J-S57010-15 No. 1258 EDA 2014
12-30-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. AXEL BARRETO Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 14, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0004008-2012 CP-51-CR-0004009-2012 BEFORE: MUNDY, J., OTT, J., and STABILE, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUNDY, J.:
Appellant, Axel Barreto, appeals nunc pro tunc from the November 14, 2013 aggregate judgment of sentence of life without the possibility of parole, imposed after being found guilty of three counts of first-degree murder, four counts of attempted murder, and possession of an instrument of crime (PIC). After careful review, we affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 901(a), and 907(a), respectively. Specifically, Appellant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole on each murder count, 10 to 20 years' imprisonment on each attempted murder count, and 2 ½ to 5 years' imprisonment on the PIC count with each sentence to run consecutively.
On appeal, Appellant argues the evidence was "insufficient as a matter of law where there was no evidence that he had a specific premeditated intent to kill and where [] Appellant legally established a valid self[-] defense." Appellant's Brief at 14. Additionally, Appellant asserts a claim of prosecutorial misconduct based on the Commonwealth's closing arguments. Id. at 17. Specifically, Appellant argues the Commonwealth implied he was lying and that he "was picking and choosing additional defense when the evidence was incorrect for the first defense." Id. at 18-19. Further, he argues the Commonwealth improperly commented on the truthfulness of Appellant's witnesses and Appellant's failure to present certain witnesses. Id. at 19.
Upon careful examination of the certified record, we conclude that the trial court has authored a 22-page opinion that thoroughly and comprehensively addresses Appellant's claims. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned December 4, 2014 opinion of the Honorable Rose Marie DeFino-Nastasi. We therefore adopt the trial court's opinion as our own and incorporate it in this judgment order. In the event of further proceedings, the parties shall attach a copy of the December 14, 2014 trial court opinion to any filings.
We express no opinion on the final paragraph of the trial court opinion on page 21, as that specific issue is not raised by Appellant on appeal, and therefore, is not presently before us to review.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude Appellant's issues on appeal are devoid of merit. Accordingly, the trial court's November 14, 2013 judgment of sentence is affirmed.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/30/2015
Image materials not available for display.