Opinion
J-A24001-15 No. 1071 EDA 2014
10-23-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. RICK HUGHES Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 24, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008292-2009 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., WECHT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Rick Hughes, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on January 24, 2014, by the Honorable Sandy L. V. Byrd, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. We affirm.
The factual history of this matter is well known to the parties, so we rely upon the trial court's recitation of the facts as set forth on pages 2-8 of the Rule 1925(a) opinion. Briefly, Hughes and Christopher Cottle entered the home of the victim, Joseph Brigman. While Cottle restrained the victim, Hughes stabbed the victim to death. Thereafter, the victim's home was set on fire in what neighbors described as an explosion. The victim's body was discovered inside of the home. Hughes's brother later confessed to being the "lookout" and detailed the incidents of the crime to the police.
A jury convicted Hughes of arson, conspiracy to commit arson, and recklessly endangering another person. On January 24, 2014, the trial court sentenced Hughes to an aggregate term of 15-30 years' incarceration, followed by 10 years' probation. Hughes filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied. This timely appeal followed.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3301(a)(1)(i), 903(a)(1), and 2705, respectively.
Hughes raises the following issues for our review.
I. Did the trial court err by denying Appellant's Motion for Directed [V]erdict?Appellant's Brief at 2.
II. Should Appellant's convictions be vacated where the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain the verdict?
III. Is Appellant entitled to a new trial where the verdict was against the weight of the evidence?
IV. Did the trial court err by admitting the unqualified medical expert testimony of Fire Marshall Ramseur?
V. Did the trial court err by admitting improper evidence of Appellant's prior bad acts?
We proceed by first addressing Hughes's weight of the evidence claim. We note that "a weight of the evidence claim must be preserved either in a post-sentence motion, by a written motion before sentencing, or orally prior to sentencing." Commonwealth v. Thomson , 93 A.3d 478, 490 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 607). Failure to do so will result in waiver of the claim on appeal. See id.
Instantly, Hughes failed to raise a challenge to the weight of the evidence to support his conviction either at sentencing or in his post-sentence motion. Therefore, this claim is waived. See id.
Hughes' post-sentence motion, filed February 3, 2014, did not include a weight of the evidence claim.
Upon review of Hughes's remaining claims, we observe that issues I. and II. both raise challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain Hughes's convictions. See Commonwealth v. Manley , 985 A.2d 256, 271-272 (Pa. Super. 2009) ("A motion for judgment of acquittal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction on a particular charge, and is granted only in cases in which the Commonwealth has failed to carry its burden regarding that charge."). Appellate review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is as follows.
Hughes mistakenly uses the term "Motion for Directed Verdict" rather than "Motion for Judgment of Acquittal" throughout his brief.
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. Valentine , 101 A.3d 801, 805 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted; brackets in original).
Hughes's remaining claims challenge the admissibility of evidence. We note that "the admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion." Commonwealth v. Fransen , 42 A.3d 1100, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2012) (internal citations omitted).
"The purpose of expert testimony is to assist in grasping complex issues not within the ordinary knowledge, intelligence and experience of the jury." Commonwealth v. Mendez , 74 A.3d 256, 262 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied , 87 A.3d 319 (Pa. 2014). A layperson, however, "may testify to distinct facts observed by him concerning the apparent physical condition or appearance of another." Commonwealth v. Counterman , 553 Pa. 370, 404, 719 A.2d 284, 301 (1998) (citation omitted).
In reviewing a court's decision to permit evidence of alleged prior bad acts, we note that it is impermissible to present evidence at trial of a defendant's prior bad acts or crimes to establish the defendant's criminal character or proclivities. See Pa.R.E. 404(b); Commonwealth v. Hudson , 955 A.2d 1031, 1034 (Pa. Super. 2008). Such evidence, however, may be admissible "where it is relevant for some other legitimate purpose and not utilized solely to blacken the defendant's character." Commonwealth v. Russell , 938 A.2d 1082, 1092 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).
We have reviewed Hughes's issues raised on appeal, along with the briefs of the parties, the certified record and the applicable law. Having determined that the Honorable Sandy L. V. Byrd's opinion ably and comprehensively disposes of the issues raised on appeal, with appropriate reference to the record and without legal error, we will affirm on the basis of that opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/3/14, at 10-17, 21-23.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/23/2015
Image materials not available for display.