Opinion
J-S79009-16 No. 3194 EDA 2015
11-02-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. EDWIN DAVIS Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 18, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005487-2013 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MOULTON, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, Edwin Davis, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following Appellant's convictions of one count each of third-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, firearms not to be carried without a license, and possession of a firearm prohibited. We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c), 903(c), 6106(a)(1), and 6105(a)(1), respectively.
The trial court opinion fully sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no need to restate them.
We observe the local courts were closed from September 22, 2015, until September 29, 2015, for the Papal visit to Philadelphia. Therefore, the post-sentence motion Appellant filed on September 29, 2015, was timely.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
WAS THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN [APPELLANT]'S CONVICTION[S] SINCE THE COMMONWEALTH'S EVIDENCE WAS SO FRAUGHT WITH INCONSISTENCIES AMONG THE COMMONWEALTH WITNESSES, THAT A VERDICT BASED UPON IT WAS INHERENTLY UNRELIABLE AND COULD AMOUNT TO NO MORE THAN SURMISE OR CONJECTURE?(Appellant's Brief at 3).
With respect to a sufficiency claim:
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. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. 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. Jones , 874 A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super. 2005) (quoting Commonwealth v. Bullick , 830 A.2d 998, 1000 (Pa.Super. 2003)).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Barbara A. McDermott, 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 January 15, 2016, at 7-11) (finding: Appellant communicated with cohort, his brother, less than one hour before shooting; Appellant met on day in question with his brother and another individual, who, Appellant observed, cleaned and prepared firearms; while armed, Appellant and several others went to confront intended victim at apartment, where Appellant heard TV and voices inside, and kicked apartment door several times; knowing apartment was occupied, Appellant and his brother fired several shots into apartment through door and walls, fatally wounding victim; Appellant acted recklessly and demonstrated extreme indifference to human life; sufficient evidence supported third-degree murder and conspiracy convictions; one of Appellant's cohorts testified Appellant concealed firearm before he walked to scene; two cohorts of Appellant testified that Appellant fired through apartment door with previously concealed weapon; Commonwealth offered certificate of non-licensure into evidence; sufficient evidence supported carrying firearms without license conviction; additionally, Appellant stipulated he was previously convicted of offense that prohibits him from possessing firearm; sufficient evidence supported possession of firearm prohibited conviction). The record supports the trial court's reasoning. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
The trial court opinion also addresses Appellant's challenge to the discretionary aspects of the sentence. Appellant does not raise that issue on appeal, however, so we give it no attention.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 11/2/2016
Image materials not available for display.