Opinion
200 EDA 2022 J-S45038-22
02-16-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TYREEK JACKSON Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 15, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at CP-51-CR-0000245-2020
BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM
MURRAY, J.
Tyreek Jackson (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after the trial court found him guilty of robbery, burglary, persons not to possess firearms, conspiracy, criminal trespass, firearms not to be carried without a license, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, carrying firearms on the public streets of Philadelphia, unlawful restraint, possessing an instrument of crime, terroristic threats, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person (REAP), and false imprisonment. We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701(a)(1)(ii), 3502(a)(1)(i), 6105(a)(1), 903(c), 3503(a)(1)(ii), 6106(a)(1), 3921(a), 3925(a), 6108, 2902(a)(1), 907(a), 2706(a)(1), 2701(a), 2705, and 2903(a), respectively.
As the facts and procedural history of this case are fully set forth in the trial court's opinion, we do not restate them. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/28/22, at 1-9. We briefly note that, on August 16, 2018, Appellant, accompanied by Brooklyn Bradley (Bradley), and Jaquil Watson (Watson), invaded the home of 70-year-old Larry Feinberg (the Victim). N.T., 10/5/21, at 12-16, 31-33. Appellant and Watson restrained the Victim with plastic ties, pressed a gun to the Victim's head, pushed him, and sprayed mace in the Victim's eye. Id. at 13-16, 35-36.
On October 5, 2021, the trial court convicted Appellant of the above charges. On December 15, 2021, the trial court, with the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation report, sentenced Appellant on the charges of robbery, burglary, persons not to possess firearms, and conspiracy, to an aggregate 7 - 20 years in prison. The trial court did not sentence Appellant on the remaining charges. Appellant timely appealed.
Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises two issues on appeal:
[1.] Is the evidence sufficient, as a matter of law, to convict [Appellant] of the crimes of possessing a firearm without a license and carrying a firearm in Philadelphia as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6106 and 6108 of the Crimes Code where the evidence of record does not establish that the item allegedly used by [Appellant] had a barrel length or overall length which satisfied the definition of firearms as that term is defined in 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6102?
[2.] Is the evidence sufficient, as a matter of law, to convict [Appellant] of the crimes of [REAP] and unlawful restraint as set
forth in 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2705 and 2902 of the Crimes Code where the evidence of record does not establish that [Appellant] or his accomplices placed [the Victim] at risk of suffering "serious bodily injury" as that term is defined in 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301?
Appellant's Brief at 4.
Our standard of review is well-settled:
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 [that of] 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 trier 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. Leaner, 202 A.3d 749, 768 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).
Appellant argues his convictions under 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6106 and 6108 were not supported by sufficient evidence because:
As noted, the trial court did not impose a sentence on these charges.
Both offenses require possession of a "firearm." "Firearm" is defined in § 6102 of the Crimes Code as "[a]ny pistol or revolver with a barrel length less than 15 inches, any shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches or any rifle with a barrel
length less than 16 inches, or any pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun with an overall length of less than 26 inches." 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6102 (emphasis supplied). With respect to the "gun" allegedly possessed by [Appellant], the only description offered into evidence at trial was that the weapon was a gun that looks like a "relatively small or medium sized automatic pistol" without any description by the witness of the size of the weapon. [Bradley], who was a coconspirator in the robbery at issue, testified that the gun was fake.
Appellant's Brief at 17 (emphasis in original). Appellant further asserts the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions for REAP and unlawful restraint:
Again, the trial court did not impose a sentence on these charges.
Both crimes require that [Appellant] expose the victim to the risk of suffering serious bodily injury. The [Victim] here did not suffer an injury meeting the definition of serious bodily injury, namely "injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ."Id. at 18.
The record belies Appellant's arguments. Upon review, we conclude that the evidence presented at trial, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, supports the trial court's verdicts. Furthermore, the Honorable Charles A. Ehrlich, sitting as the trial court, has authored a comprehensive opinion, which we adopt in its entirety and incorporate in this decision. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/28/22, at 14, 17 (concluding evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions under 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6106 and 6108 where the Commonwealth's evidence showed Appellant "wielded" a gun during the home invasion and had a criminal record making him ineligible to carry a firearm; the evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant's convictions for REAP and unlawful restraint where evidence showed Appellant used plastic ties to restrain the Victim, held a gun to his head throughout the robbery, and sprayed mace in the Victim's eye, thereby exposing him to the risk of serious bodily injury).
Consistent with the foregoing, we adopt Judge Ehrlich's opinion as our own.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.