Opinion
J-S59008-18 No. 2981 EDA 2017
12-14-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. CHRISTOPHER FIELDS Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 8, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009361-2014 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, Christopher Fields, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial convictions for third-degree murder, firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying a firearm on public streets in Philadelphia, and possessing instruments of crime ("PIC"). We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c), 6106(a)(1), 6108, and 907(a), respectively.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.
[Around] 11:15 [p.m.] on June 7, 2014, [Victim] and his [wife], Shirley Ebron, were driving northbound on the Roosevelt Boulevard in Philadelphia, when he came to a stop at the traffic light at Fifth Street. [Appellant] along with fifteen to twenty other motorcyclists were heading in the same direction. A group of the bikers pulled in front of [Victim's] car[,] cutting him off as the others pulled up behind and beside him, irate that [Victim] had not previously allowed all of the bikers to pull in front of his car.
Having his car surrounded by the motorcyclists, [Victim] opened the door and took a step out of his vehicle at which time, [Appellant] drew his pistol and shot [Victim] five times, killing him.(Trial Court Opinion, filed December 19, 2017, at 3-4) (internal citations omitted).
Police Captain Nick Brown was off-duty and stopped perpendicular to the [B]oulevard when he first observed the bikers. After hearing the gunshots, [Captain] Brown saw Ms. Ebron get out of the passenger side of the car and come to the [aid] of [Victim]. The captain got out of his car and approached the crime scene. [Captain] Brown saw [Appellant], straddling his white motorcycle pointing a gun at Ms. Ebron, who was on the ground. At the same time, Officers Troy Ragsdale and Dawn Jones who were in an unmarked police car happened to be approaching the scene. The uniformed officers got out of their vehicle with guns drawn, prompting the bikers to flee. Officer Ragsdale approached the scene, yelling at [Appellant] to stop, and observed [Appellant] stuff an object into his vest. [Appellant's] motorcycle wouldn't start, so he ditched the bike, running northbound on 5th Street to the other side of the [B]oulevard. The police lost sight of [Appellant] in the brush, and [Appellant] made it across the [B]oulevard.
Tiffany Scott lived on the [B]oulevard. After hearing the shots, while standing on her upstairs balcony, she saw a man standing at her door. Ms. Scott yelled at him and he took off on foot, eventually running back across the [B]oulevard, where he was struck by a car. Not seriously injured, [Appellant] again took off into the brush. The police scoured the area, using a helicopter to light up the area and found [Appellant]. Officer Ragsdale identified [Appellant] and he was arrested. Additionally, the police found [Appellant's] goggles on Ms. Scott's walkway, and across from her steps, a .40 caliber Smith & Wesson handgun with a laser sight. Next to the pistol was a trashcan containing [Appellant's] helmet and black motorcycle vest. The vest is a "Wheels of Soul" vest with patches of "One Percent" and "Enforcer." Gunshot residue was detected on [Appellant's] clothing and ballistics [tests] showed that the .40 caliber [handgun], found where [Appellant] had been hiding, matched the fired cartridge casings on the street as well as in [Victim's] car door and front seat.
On October 19, 2016, a jury convicted Appellant of third-degree murder, firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying a firearm on public streets in Philadelphia, and PIC. The court sentenced Appellant on May 8, 2017, to an aggregate term of 28½ to 57 years' imprisonment. That same day, Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion and counsel withdrew his appearance. The court appointed new counsel on May 10, 2017, who filed "Post-Sentence Motions Nunc Pro Tunc" on June 2, 2017. On August 31, 2017, both post-sentence motions were denied by operation of law. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on September 12, 2017. The court, on October 2, 2017, ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely complied on October 19, 2017.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
WAS THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR THIRD-DEGREE MURDER?(Appellant's Brief at 5).
WERE THE VERDICTS FOR ALL COUNTS AGAINST THE CLEAR WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN SENTENCING APPELLANT TO TWENTY-EIGHT AND ONE-HALF (28½) TO FIFTY-SEVEN (57) YEARS' IMPRISONMENT?
Regarding Appellant's first two issues, after a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Joseph Scott O'Keefe, we conclude these issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of those questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion at 4-7) (finding: (1-2) Appellant and 15 to 20 other motorcyclists surrounded Victim and his wife in their vehicle because Victim did not let them in front of his vehicle; Appellant shot unarmed Victim five times after he exited his vehicle; police identified Appellant as shooter; DNA analysis connected Appellant to clothing he discarded after he fled scene; photograph from Appellant's cell phone showed Appellant wearing discarded vest; ballistics matched Appellant's discarded gun to fired cartridge casings and bullet fragments at crime scene; police recovered gun from area where Appellant hid; Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant's conviction for third-degree murder; conviction did not shock court's conscience, thus, verdict was not against the weight of the evidence). The record supports the trial court's rationale. Accordingly, we affirm Appellant's first two issues on the basis of the trial court opinion.
In his third issue, Appellant argues the court imposed an excessive sentence based solely on the seriousness of the offense and did not consider all relevant sentencing factors. As presented, Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. See Commonwealth v. Ventura , 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa.Super. 2009), appeal denied, 604 Pa. 706, 987 A.2d 161 (2009) (stating claim that court imposed sentence based solely on seriousness of offense and failed to consider all relevant sentencing factors challenges discretionary aspects of sentence).
Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right. Commonwealth v. Sierra , 752 A.2d 910 (Pa.Super. 2000). Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue:
[W]e conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether appellant's brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).Commonwealth v. Evans , 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 589 Pa. 727, 909 A.2d 303 (2006) (internal citations omitted).
Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing. Commonwealth v. Kittrell , 19 A.3d 532 (Pa.Super. 2011). See also Commonwealth v. Oree , 911 A.2d 169 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 591 Pa. 699, 918 A.2d 744 (2007) (explaining challenges to discretionary aspects of sentencing must be raised in post-sentence motion or during sentencing proceedings; absent such efforts, claim is waived).
Instantly, Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion on May 8, 2017, in which he argued the court unreasonably sentenced him in the aggravated sentencing range and did not consider the testimony of character witnesses at the sentencing hearing. On appeal, Appellant argues the court focused solely on the seriousness of the crime and did not consider relevant sentencing factors. As presented, these claims are distinct. Appellant's failure to specify in his post-sentence motion the precise claims he now raises constitutes waiver of his issue on appeal. See id.; Evans , supra. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence. See generally In re K.L.S., 594 Pa. 194, 197 n.3, 934 A.2d 1244, 1246 n.3 (2007) (stating where issues are waived on appeal, this Court should affirm rather than quash appeal).
Appellant did not challenge the discretionary aspects of sentencing in the June 2, 2017 post-sentence motion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/14/18
Image materials not available for display.