Opinion
J-S38009-17 No. 3363 EDA 2016
07-11-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DANIEL GRAFT JACKSON Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 21, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006149-2015, MC-51-CR-0042429-2014 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Daniel Graft Jackson, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial convictions of burglary, criminal trespass, and theft by unlawful taking or disposition—movable property. We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3502(a)(1), 3503(a)(1)(ii), and 3921(a), respectively.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO AN ARREST OF JUDGMENT
ON ALL CHARGES WHERE THE EVIDENCE HERE IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE CHARGE AS THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT [APPELLANT] WAS THE BURGLAR IN QUESTION?(Appellant's Brief at 3).
IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL WHERE THE GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT [APPELLANT] WAS THE PERPETRATOR OF THIS BURGLARY AND THE VERDICT IS BASED ON NOTHING MORE THAN SPECULATION, CONJECTURE AND SURMISE?
IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL AS THE RESULT OF COURT ERROR WHERE THE COURT PERMITTED THE JURY TO SEE AN ALTERED[,] DOCTORED VERSION OF A VIDEOTAPE THAT HAD BEEN INTRODUCED IN PART, BUT NOT IN FULL DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL AND WHERE THE JURY SAW THE ALTERED VERSION FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING THE MIDST OF JURY DELIBERATIONS?
IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL AS THE RESULT OF COURT ERROR WHERE THE COURT OVER OBJECTION PERMITTED HEARSAY INTO THE TRIAL AND WHERE SAID HEARSAY WAS UNFAIRLY PREJUDICIAL TO [APPELLANT]?
Notwithstanding how he phrases it, Appellant's fourth issue on appeal actually challenges the trial court's alleged admonishment of trial counsel during the cross-examination of Officer Ingram at trial. --------
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 on appeal merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of those questions. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed December 12, 2016, at 4-12) (finding: (1) Ms. Martindale testified she told Appellant where Victim kept money and directed Appellant to Victim's house during early morning hours of 12/12/14; Ms. Martindale also stated she saw Appellant pry open Victim's front door without permission; Victim's house was adapted for overnight accommodations, and Victim was asleep inside at time of offense; Appellant proceeded to steal Victim's pants, which contained approximately $3,000.00; surveillance video captured Appellant limping from Victim's house with pants in hand around 4:00 a.m.; additional surveillance video from around 8 a.m. revealed Appellant wearing same clothes and walking with limp; Appellant conceded he was at Victim's house around 8:00 a.m. on day of incident; thus, there was sufficient evidence for jury to convict Appellant of burglary, criminal trespass, and theft by unlawful taking or disposition; (2) Appellant waived challenge to weight of evidence for failure to raise claim in trial court; nevertheless, even if Appellant had properly preserved claim, it would warrant no relief; Commonwealth presented ample video evidence, which showed Appellant approach Victim's house and exit Victim's house with Victim's pants; Victim and Officer Muscarnero testified that Victim's pants contained large sum of money; Ms. Martindale testified she told Appellant where Victim kept money and observed Appellant break into Victim's home; Victim testified Appellant returned to Victim's house around 8:00 a.m. and attempted to steal more money; Victim also stated Appellant left his photo ID in Victim's living room after brief struggle; this evidence is not vague or uncertain; thus, Appellant's verdict does not shock court's conscience; (3) during trial, Commonwealth displayed surveillance video via projection screen; before Commonwealth rested, parties discussed brightness and sharpness of video on projection screen and determined jury should view video on laptop screen; Commonwealth subsequently displayed video to jury on laptop screen; upon jury's request to view video during jury deliberations, Appellant objected to Commonwealth's brightening of video on projection screen; after discussion, court determined jury should again view surveillance video on laptop screen; under these circumstances, court sustained Appellant's objection to use of brightened video; thus, Appellant has failed to demonstrate prejudice, and Appellant's claim lacks merit; (4) during cross-examination, defense counsel punctuated many of Officer Ingram's answers with personal commentary, which indicated defense counsel's approval of Officer Ingram answers; court told counsel he could ask questions but could not make comments after Officer Ingram's answers; despite court's instruction, counsel continued to provide personal commentary after Officer Ingram's responses; as result, court informed counsel he was talking to himself out loud; court made statements to counsel in effort to exercise reasonable control over proceedings and to prevent waste of time; importantly, court phrased statements in way that made light of counsel's tendency to provide personal commentary; because court made statements to preserve order and decorum in courtroom, Appellant's claim has no merit). 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: 7/11/2017
Image materials not available for display.