Opinion
J. S27029/16 No. 1411 MDA 2015
06-08-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, v. TNODELL PIERRE-PAUL, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgement of Sentence May 20, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
Criminal Division No(s): CP-06-CR-0004973-2013 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Tnodell Pierre-Paul, appeals from the May 20, 2015 Judgement of Sentence entered in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas. After careful review, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's Opinion, which found (i) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, and (ii) the jury's verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
After a two-day trial, a jury convicted Appellant of two counts of Robbery, two counts of Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, two counts of Simple Assault, two counts of Conspiracy to Commit Simple Assault, two counts of Theft by Unlawful Taking or Dispositions, two counts of Conspiracy to Commit Theft by Unlawful Taking or Disposition, two counts of Receiving Stolen Property, two counts of Conspiracy to Commit Receiving Stolen Property, two counts of Recklessly Endangering Another Person, and two counts of Conspiracy to Commit Recklessly Endangering Another Person. On May 20, 2015, the Honorable Thomas G. Parisi sentenced Appellant to four to ten years of incarceration on each of the Robbery counts, to run concurrently, and a consecutive term of three years of special probation on one of the Conspiracy to Commit Robbery counts.
The trial court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history of this case in its November 12, 2015 Opinion and we adopt its recitation for purposes of this appeal. See Trial Ct. Op., 11/12/15, at 1-4.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Whether the evidence presented at trial was insufficient as a matter of law wherein the Commonwealth's evidence presented at trial failed to establish an identification of the defendant at the scene of the crime, the evidence failed to establish an identification of the defendant as one of the individuals in the automobile stopped by the police following the commission of a robbery, and the evidence presented failed to establish any agreement to engage in any criminal conduct?Appellant's Brief at 4.
2. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence wherein the verdict is so contrary to the evidence and shocks one's sense of justice where there was no testimony whatsoever placing the defendant at the scene of the crime nor placing the defendant in the vehicle at the time the vehicle is stopped by back-up officers and there was no testimony identifying the green hoodie found in the front seat of the stopped vehicle as the same dark hoodie worn by one of the perpetrators of the robbery?
In his first issue, Appellant challenges only the sufficiency of the identification evidence against him. Specifically, Appellant claims the Commonwealth failed to establish an identification of Appellant as both (a) a passenger in the vehicle stopped near the scene of the crime, and (b) one of the co-conspirators or perpetrators of the offenses.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, our standard of review is as follows:
The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is to determine whether, when viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict winner, the evidence at trial and all reasonable inferences therefrom is sufficient for the trier of fact to find that each element of the crimes charged is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.Commonwealth v. Vogelsong , 90 A.3d 717, 719 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations and quotations omitted).
The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubt raised as to the accused's guilt is to be resolved by the fact-finder. As an appellate court, we do not assess credibility nor do we assign weight to any of the testimony of record. Therefore, we will not disturb the verdict 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.
Specifically regarding the issue of identity, our Supreme Court has stated that:
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the identity of the accused as the person who committed the crime is essential to a
conviction. The evidence of identification, however, [need not] be positive and certain in order to convict, although any indefiniteness and uncertainty in the identification testimony goes to its weight. Direct evidence of identity is, of course, not necessary and a defendant may be convicted solely on circumstantial evidence.Commonwealth v. Hickman , 309 A.2d 564, 566 (Pa. 1973) (citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude that there is no merit to Appellant's sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion, which (i) notes the arresting officer's testimony at trial positively identifying Appellant as a passenger in the vehicle; and (ii) catalogs the substantial circumstantial evidence linking Appellant to the robbery and demonstrating Appellant acted as part of a conspiracy. See Trial Ct. Op., at 5-7.
We next address Appellant's assertion that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence. In support, Appellant puts forth the same argument as his sufficiency claim; namely, challenging the Commonwealth identification evidence linking Appellant to the crime. Appellant's Brief at 15-17.
To begin, we note that the weight of the evidence "is exclusively for the finder of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses." Commonwealth v. Champney , 832 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa. 2003) (quotation and citations omitted). A trial court reviewing a challenge to the weight given the evidence may grant relief only if "the jury's verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice and the award of a new trial is imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail." Commonwealth v. Clay , 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
The trial court's denial of a weight claim is the least assailable of its rulings. Commonwealth v. Diggs , 949 A.2d 873, 880 (Pa. 2008); see Commonwealth v. Morgan , 913 A.2d 906, 909 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating that because trial court is in best position to view the evidence presented, an appellate court will give that court "the utmost consideration" when reviewing its weight determination). On appeal, this Court may not consider the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, and is instead limited to evaluating only the trial court's exercise of discretion in denying that claim. Commonwealth v. Morales , 91 A.3d 80, 91 (Pa. 2014). As our Supreme Court has made clear, reversal is only appropriate "where the facts and inferences disclose a palpable abuse of discretion[.]" Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude that there is no merit to Appellant's weight of the evidence claim on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., at 7-8.
The parties are instructed to attach a copy of the trial court's opinion to all future filings.
Judgment of Sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 6/8/2016
Image materials not available for display.