Opinion
J-S13002-18 No. 751 WDA 2016
04-11-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. GENE BROWN Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 22, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0002887-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, Gene Brown, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial conviction for robbery. We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court accurately set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises two issues for our review:
SHOULD APPELLANT...HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED ON THE CRIME OF ARMED ROBBERY DUE TO THE COMMONWEALTH'S FAILURE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE PROVING, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT HE WAS THE PERSON WHO ROBBED THE VICTIM...?
EVEN IF THE COMMONWEALTH'S EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT FOR A CONVICTION, SHOULD NOT
APPELLANT'S POST-SENTENCE [MOTION] SEEKING A NEW TRIAL HAVE BEEN GRANTED?(Appellant's Brief at 3).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable David R. Cashman, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed May 16, 2017, at 6-11) (finding: (1) Commonwealth's evidence was sufficient to identify Appellant as Victim's assailant, despite inaccuracies; Appellant ignores fact that Victim identified Appellant at photo array, at preliminary hearing, and at trial; Appellant's own statements to his sister on recorded prison phone call supported Victim's identification testimony; Appellant actually identified himself as perpetrator, in phone conversation with his sister, when he said this Victim lived behind Sunoco station; Appellant testified at trial that he knew Victim lived behind Sunoco station through information acquired at preliminary hearing when he reviewed discovery material, which he said included Victim's address; however, criminal complaint and affidavit of probable cause did not list Victim's address, and preliminary hearing took place after Appellant's phone call with his sister; (2) court as fact-finder evaluated credibility of Victim and Appellant, who both testified at trial; Victim was unequivocal in her identification of Appellant at photo array, at preliminary hearing, and at trial; discrepancies between Victim's initial physical description of assailant and Appellant's actual height, age, and weight did not mean Victim misidentified Appellant; during phone conversation with his sister, Appellant did not deny robbing Victim, and Appellant provided his sister with information about Victim that he could not have learned at preliminary hearing, because preliminary hearing took place two months after phone call; verdict was not against weight of evidence). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/11/2018
Image materials not available for display.