Opinion
J-S66008-19 No. 2935 EDA 2018
02-28-2020
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MARIO TORRES Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 24, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0002591-2017 BEFORE: STABILE, NICHOLS, JJ., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:
Appellant Mario Torres appeals from the August 24, 2018 judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County ("trial court"), following his jury conviction for conspiracy to commit kidnapping under 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903 and 2901(a). Upon review, we affirm.
The facts and procedural history of this case are undisputed. As summarized by the trial court:
On January 31, 2017, during late afternoon Agent Louis Schmidt of the Drug Enforcement Agency of the Federal Government was conducting an investigation in the area of a Metro PCS Cell Phone store situated on Frankford Avenue in Philadelphia when he observed Appellant and his three co-defendants exit the store and enter a red Jeep Cherokee. When the jeep drove away, the agent followed the vehicle to Erie Avenue but lost it in traffic. Upon losing visual contact with the vehicle, the agent contacted Officer Torres of the Philadelphia Police Department's Narcotics Enforcement Team so that Officer Torres could advise other police personnel of what the agent had just observed. At the time, the agent was using a video camera and recorded the defendants leaving the store and entering the Jeep.
Agent Schmidt also informed Philadelphia Police Sergeant Wali Shabazz, assigned to the 25th District's Narcotics Team, what he had observed and that he thought that there was a good chance that a woman was going to be kidnapped. Based upon that information, Sgt. Shabazz and members of his team proceeded to the 2400 block of Aramingo Avenue, the location of a shopping plaza, where the sergeant had two members of his team watch the store in which the alleged victim worked. While driving around the lot, the sergeant saw a red Jeep that matched a description of the vehicle mentioned by Agent Schmidt driving in the parking lot of the shopping center and a black male later identified as Reginald Carroll, who had also been described by the agent. He informed the officers conducting the surveillance of the store about what he observed and left the lot to avoid the suspect from identifying his vehicle as a police vehicle.
Sergeant Shabazz drove a couple of blocks away and parked his car. While there, he received a radio call from the officers conducting the surveillance advising him that a woman had been grabbed by two men who forced her into a silver Toyota. The sergeant drove to the shopping center and he and other officers unsuccessfully attempted to box in the Jeep and the Toyota, which then were driven in different directions. Sergeant Shabazz pursued the Toyota, which crashed a couple of blocks from the shopping center. Upon crashing, Reginald Carroll and Cruz exited the Toyota and fled. The sergeant proceeded to the vehicle and had contact with the woman who had been abducted as other officers pursued the two males who ran from the Toyota. Appellant, who was depicted in a video recorded at the scene of the vehicle crash running from the vehicle, was apprehended a short time thereafter and brought over to the Toyota.
After the Toyota crashed, Agent Schmidt was informed that the Jeep was stopped on Aramingo Avenue and that a female, later identified as Crystal Reyes, the complainant herein, had been grabbed by those in the Jeep and placed in another car in the parking lot. The agent immediately drove to Lehigh Avenue and Thompson Street and learned that police were searching for the defendants. At some point, he had contact with Reginald Carroll who said, essentially, that he had not done anything. The agent showed Carroll a photograph of himself which the agent had copied from the video he recorded earlier that day.
In January of 2017, Ms. Reyes, who, at the time knew each of the defendants, worked at a dental office located in the shopping mall at 2400 Aramingo Avenue. On January 31, 2017, Ms. Reyes was at work and noticed a burgundy Jeep driving back and forth outside the dental office. When Ms. Reyes left work that day at about 7:45 p.m., she observed a male wearing clothes that covered him from head to toe walking toward her and another male wearing gray clothing that also covered his entire body get out of the Jeep and approach her. She also saw the Jeep she had seen earlier in the day parked outside another store. The males forced Ms. Reyes to get into her car, a silver Toyota that belonged
to her paramour, at which time the males, who, were in phone contact with Appellant who was giving them direction, took Ms. Reyes' cell phone and purse and told Ms. Reyes to be quiet and cooperate with them because they had her children. One of the males then began driving the Toyota but almost immediately police vehicles drove up and their drivers unsuccessfully attempted to box in the Jeep, which was occupied by Appellant and co-defendant Rodriguez, and the Toyota containing Ms. Reyes and the two males. After a short pursuit the car containing Ms. Reyes crashed and the two men inside it fled. Police came up to the car and directed Ms. Reyes to stay inside it. Other officers chased after Carroll and Cruz and Carroll was apprehended shortly thereafter following a short pursuit.
Philadelphia Police Officers John Logan and his partner pursued the Jeep, in which co-defendant Rodriguez was driving and Appellant was sitting in the passenger seat. However, they lost the Jeep in traffic and later found it abandoned in the 3000 block of Livingston Street. During the pursuit, which continued for about fifty blocks, co-defendant Rodriguez committed numerous traffic violations.
Shortly after the Toyota crashed, the police brought Carroll to Ms. Reyes and in Sergeant Shabazz's presence, she identified Carroll as being the male who was wearing the gray sweater when she was abducted and who forced her into the Toyota. Subsequent thereto, Ms. Reyes was interviewed by police and told them about what happened to her when she left work. During the interview, she identified photographs depicting co-defendants Torres and Rodriguez.
On February 1, 2017, police conducted a second interview with Ms. Reyes. During it, she indicated that after the car crashed, she began driving the car and threw a gun that Carroll left in the Jeep when he fled it into a flowerpot. She also identified a photograph of co-defendant Cruz. She added that after giving her first statement to police she told her paramour about the gun she hid in the flowerpot and that he retrieved and ultimately brought to the police. She also identified a photograph of co-defendant Cruz and further stated that Carroll showed her a gun when he and Cruz accosted her and that Cruz was the person who took her purse and cell phone from her.
Mr. Elin Gonzalez-Ramirez was working as a cab driver in the evening when the incident herein occurred. At about 8:15 p.m., he went to 1100 Belgrade Street in Philadelphia, which was near where the Jeep was found, and picked up Appellant and co-defendant Rodriguez and drove them to the 4000 block of I Street in Philadelphia. Authorities also recovered a video from inside a
bar near where the Jeep was located. It depicted Appellant and co-defendant Rodriguez together inside the bar.Trial Court Opinion, 1/30/19 at 1-7 (record citations and some footnotes omitted) (sic). Following a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of conspiracy to commit kidnapping. On August 24, 2018, the trial court sentenced him to 10 to 20 years' imprisonment. Appellant filed timely post-sentence motions, which the trial court denied on September 12, 2018. Appellant appealed to this Court. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
A search of the Jeep resulted in the recovery of a driver's license in the name of Tashira Marie Rodriguez and a vehicle registration that indicated that the Jeep was registered to someone with the same name. They also recovered some photographs depicting Appellant and co-defendant Rodriguez and an unknown prison inmate and another depicting co-defendant Cruz with the same inmate. Four empty cell phone boxes and purchase receipts connected thereto, which showed that the phones had been purchased on January 31, 2017, were also seized. Police later matched cell phones found by police on the night of the incident and inside of a residence in the 3900 block of I Street to two of the empty boxes found inside the Jeep. One of the receipts listed co-defendant Rodriguez as a purchaser and another the complainant, Crystal Reyes.
Philadelphia Police Officer John Seigafuse was one of the officers who participated in the surveillance conducted at the shopping plaza on Aramingo Avenue. While so engaged, he saw the red Jeep and observed Carroll exiting from it. He also saw Carroll engage in a phone call and then enter a store following which he saw Carroll sit on the back of a truck and then take a gun out of his pocket, approached a female, and put her into a car. He then observed the unsuccessful attempt to box in the Jeep and the Toyota after which he proceeded to the location where the Toyota crashed where he witnessed Ms. Reyes identify Carroll.
Following the collection of the videos and other evidence, police obtained arrest warrants for Appellant, Cruz, and Rodriguez. Appellant and Rodriguez were arrested together inside of a residence in the 3900 block of I street.
Ms. Reyes recognized Appellant's voice. She could hear him telling Cruz to take her cell phone. N.T. Trial, 5/23/18 at 54-55.
Appellant also was charged with numerous other charges, including kidnapping and weapons offenses. The jury, however, found him not guilty of those other charges. Appellant was tried jointly with Rodriguez, Carroll, and Cruz, each of whom also were convicted of conspiracy to commit kidnapping.
On appeal, Appellant raises three issues for our review.
[I.] Is the evidence sufficient to convict [Appellant] of criminal conspiracy where the evidence only shows that [Appellant] was merely present at the scene of a crime and was a passenger in a vehicle that fled the scene of that crime?
[II.] Is the verdict of guilty with respect to the charge of criminal conspiracy against the weight of the evidence and so contrary to the evidence that it shocks one's sense of justice insofar as the evidence, when properly viewed and weighed, establishes only that [Appellant] was merely present at the scene of a crime and was a passenger in a vehicle that fled the scene of that crime?
[III.] Is the sentence imposed unduly harsh and excessive under the circumstances of this case?Appellant's Brief at 8.
"A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law." Commonwealth v. Widmer , 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000).
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder 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. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the finder of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.Commonwealth v. Antidormi , 84 A.3d 736, 756 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied , 95 A.3d 275 (Pa. 2014).
As this Court has explained:
On this issue, our role is not to consider the underlying question of whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Rather, we are to decide if the trial court palpably abused its discretion when ruling on the weight claim. When doing so, we keep in mind that the initial determination regarding the weight of the evidence was for the factfinder. The factfinder was free to believe all, some or none of the evidence. Additionally, a court must not reverse a verdict based on a weight claim unless that verdict was so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice.Commonwealth v. Habay , 934 A.2d 732, 736-37 (Pa. Super. 2007) (internal citations omitted), appeal denied , 954 A.2d 575 (Pa. 2008). "[A] trial court's denial of a post-sentence motion 'based on a weight of the evidence claim is the least assailable of its rulings.'" Commonwealth v. Sanders , 42 A.3d 325, 331 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Diggs , 949 A.2d 873, 880 (Pa. 2008)).
When reviewing a challenge to the trial court's discretion, our standard of review is as follows:
Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is more than just an error in judgment and, on appeal, the trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.Commonwealth v. Bowen , 55 A.3d 1254, 1263 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Cunningham , 805 A.2d 566, 575 (Pa. Super. 2002)), appeal denied , 64 A.3d 630 (Pa. 2013).
Instantly, after careful review of the record, and the relevant case law, we conclude that the trial court accurately and thoroughly addressed the merits of Appellant's issues. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/30/19, at 7-14. With respect to the sufficiency challenge, based upon the evidence presented at trial, as detailed above and viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant conspired to commit kidnapping. As the trial court explained: (1) Appellant drove to the scene with his co-defendants; (2) went into the cell phone store with them; (3) returned to the vehicle in which all of them traveled to the shopping center; (4) directed co-defendants Carroll and Cruz while they detained the complainant who recognized Appellant's voice; (5) fled from the scene with co-defendant Rodriguez when the police converged on the Jeep and the Toyota; (6) engaged in evasive behavior after he and Rodriguez abandoned the Jeep; (7) was identified by a police officer who observed him sitting in the Jeep at the scene; and (8) was located and arrested in a residence with his co-defendant where police seized incriminating evidence. Id. at 8-11. Furthermore, with respect to Appellant's weight of the evidence claim, based upon our review of the record, as detailed above, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court for concluding its sense of justice was not shocked by the verdict. Id. at 7-8. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Appellant to 10 to 20 years' imprisonment as it duly considered and weighed mitigating circumstances and provided sufficient reasons on the record in support of the sentence. Id. at 11-14. Accordingly, we affirm Appellant's August 24, 2018 judgment of sentence. We further direct that a copy of the trial court's January 30, 2019 opinion be attached to any future filings in this case.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 2/28/20
Image materials not available for display.