Opinion
J-S58014-15 No. 1873 MDA 2014
11-12-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. SHAMAR ALMAR MCCOWIN, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 24, 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-67-CR-0003715-2013
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Shamar Almar McCowin, appeals from the sentence imposed following his jury conviction of murder of the second degree, robbery and criminal conspiracy. Appellant challenges the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence. We affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
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 at length. We note briefly for context and the convenience of the reader that Appellant's conviction arose out of the shooting murder of Edward Green during a carjacking. Mr. Green was homeless and living in his car.
Malcolm Bull, formerly Appellant's best friend, pleaded guilty to the charges in the present case, (and to an earlier unrelated attempted murder of Ronald Rhodes, not involving Appellant). Initially uncooperative with the police, at trial Bull identified Appellant as the shooter of Edward Green. In exchange for his testimony, the Commonwealth agreed to recommend that his sentence for both incidents be limited to twenty to forty years' incarceration. The court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment. This appeal followed.
Appellant presents two questions on appeal:
I. Whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence at trial to support convictions for the offenses of Murder in the Second Degree, Robbery and Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Robbery?(Appellant's Brief, at 4).
II. Whether the Appellant's convictions for Murder in the Second Degree, Robbery and Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Robbery were against the weight of the evidence presented at trial?
On appeal, Appellant argues that physical evidence failed to link him to the crime scene. He maintains that he was convicted chiefly on the testimony of Bull, who had previously lied to the police, and who testified in exchange for a sentence agreement.
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude that there is no merit to the issues Appellant has raised on appeal. The trial court opinion properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, 12/22/14, at 15-20) (concluding: (1) both of Appellant's claims are waived for failure to state specifically which crimes or elements of the crimes are being challenged; moreover, (2) the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence on each charge to prove all elements of the crimes for which he was convicted, beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) the jury, which heard about Bull's misdeeds, and his sentencing deal, nevertheless could reasonably have found his testimony credible; and (4) the verdict did not shock the trial court's sense of justice). 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: 11/12/2015
Image materials not available for display.