Opinion
J-S45034-17 No. 1542 EDA 2016
09-11-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. ROLAND THOMPSON, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 5, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009852-2013 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, and STRASSBURGER, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Roland Thompson (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence of seven to fifteen years of imprisonment, followed by ten years of probation, imposed after he was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, a violation of the Uniform Firearms Act (VUFA), and possession of an instrument of crime. We affirm.
In the early morning hours of November 23, 2012, a wild-west-style shoot-out near a bar in Philadelphia resulted in the death of bystander Johnika Tiggett, who was killed by a single gunshot wound to the back of the neck. The bullet recovered from her body was a .40 caliber Smith & Wesson. Witnesses placed Appellant at the scene, involved in the firefight, with a .40 caliber firearm.
A jury convicted Appellant of the crimes listed above, and he received the above-indicated sentence. Appellant thereafter timely filed a post-sentence motion and, following its denial, a notice of appeal. On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions, arguing that the Commonwealth failed to disprove that Appellant acted in justifiable self-defense. Appellant's Brief at 9-10. Appellant also claims that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Id. at 11-13.
Following a review of the certified record and the briefs for the parties, we conclude that the opinion of the Honorable Rose Marie DeFino-Nastasi thoroughly addresses Appellant's issues and arguments and applies the correct law to findings of fact that are supported by the record. We discern no abuse of discretion. Therefore, we adopt the trial court's opinion of August 29, 2016 as our own and affirm Appellant's judgment of sentence based upon the reasons stated therein. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/29/2016, at 14-18 (explaining, inter alia, that the evidence supported a finding of imperfect self-defense because Appellant used more force than necessary and did not retreat); id. at 18-19 (concluding that the verdict did not shock the trial court's sense of justice).
The parties shall attach a copy of the trial court's August 29, 2016 opinion to this memorandum in the event of further proceedings. --------
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/11/2017
Image materials not available for display.