Commonwealth v. Luster

Full title: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. GREGORY LUSTER, Appellant

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: May 16, 2017

J-A05020-17 (Pa. Super. Ct. May. 16, 2017)

Opinion

J-A05020-17 No. 552 WDA 2016

05-16-2017

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. GREGORY LUSTER, Appellant

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 6, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0010391-2013 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and MOULTON, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:

Appellant, Gregory Luster, appeals from the judgment of sentence of 12 to 24 years' incarceration, followed by 3 years' probation, imposed after he was convicted of aggravated assault and carrying a firearm without a license. On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions, and also alleges that the Commonwealth failed to timely disclose certain evidence, thus entitling him to a new trial. We affirm.

Briefly, Appellant's convictions stem from his shooting the victim in this case, Rashawn Hall. Herein, Appellant sets forth four issues for our review, however, his arguments can be combined into the following two claims:

I. Did the trial court err in denying Appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal where the Commonwealth's evidence was insufficient to sustain Appellant's convictions for aggravated assault and carrying a firearm without a license?

II. Did the trial court err in denying Appellant's post-sentence motion for a new trial where the Commonwealth failed to timely disclose medical records of the victim, thus constituting either a discovery violation or a violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963)?

See Appellant's Brief at 3.

We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law. Additionally, we have reviewed the thorough opinion of The Honorable Jill E. Rangos of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. We conclude that Judge Rangos's well-reasoned opinion correctly disposes of the issues presented by Appellant. Accordingly, we adopt her opinion as our own and affirm Appellant's judgment of sentence on that basis.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/16/2017

Image materials not available for display.