Opinion
J-S56025-15 No. 1821 MDA 2014
11-06-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. STEFFAWN SPRIGGS Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 24, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-28-CR-0002338-2012
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., JENKINS, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant Steffawn Spriggs appeals from the September 24, 2014 judgment of sentence entered in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas following his jury trial conviction for first-degree murder, discharge of a firearm into an occupied structure, and recklessly endangering another person. We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(a), 2707.1(a), and 2705, respectively.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Opinion, 3/13/2015, at 2-11. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err with regard to its August 6, 2014 order denying [] Appellant's motion for appointment of outside counsel where a conflict of interest pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct was discovered shortly before trial based upon [d]efense [c]ounsel's office having dually represented [Appellant] and the Commonwealth's witness Michael Anthony Woods between June 20, 2013 and October 23, 2013 where the testimony of Mr. Woods played a critical part in Commonwealth and [d]efense theories and, if so, is reversal of [Appellant's] convictions appropriate?Appellant's Brief at 10.
2. Was the evidence produced at trial insufficient to find Appellant guilty of the charged counts?
Appellant's 1925(b) statement also challenged the weight of the evidence. Appellant, however, waived this claim because he does not raise it in his brief. See , e.g., Commonwealth v. Tiffany , 926 A.2d 503, 512 (Pa.Super.2007) (claim raised in 1925(b) statement waived when Appellant did not raise it in appellate brief).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Douglas W. Herman, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, 3/13/2015, at 11-22) (finding: (1) there was no conflict based on dual representation at time of trial because representation of witness concluded over nine months prior to trial; (2) there was no actual conflict during time of dual representation because charges against witness were unrelated to charges against Appellant and there was no concern counsel would neglect a defense to attain more advantageous defense for witness; (3) there was no conflict based on prior dual representation because there was no actual conflict of interest because no indication counsel possessed confidential information which affected his ability to represent Appellant or that his loyalties were divided, (4) lack of conflict substantiated by testimony because counsel "did not hold back in his attempt to elicit testimony" from witness and Commonwealth brought out witness's crimen falsi conviction; (5) evidence sufficient to establish murder of first degree because, inter alia, multiple witnesses put Appellant in area with victim, witness stated Appellant approached him and victim with gun, description of shooter provided by victim prior to death matched Appellant, Appellant made incriminating statements to witnesses, witness gave Appellant gun about a week prior to shooting, Appellant's hat had gun residue, Appellant had two live rounds in his pocket when arrested, and Appellant stated "tomorrow is my birthday and all I can do is think about leave a nigga stink'n"; (6) evidence sufficient to establish discharge of firearm into occupied structure where the Woods' home was an occupied structure, the Woods heard gunshot, they saw a curtain move and a bullet hole in their window, and police found spent bullet on floor; witness testimony established bullet came through at approximately same time that victim was shot; and (7) evidence sufficient to establish Appellant recklessly endangered another person where he fired multiple gunshots at victim and misfired bullet into the Woods' home). 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: 11/6/2015
Image materials not available for display.