Opinion
J-S57042-17 No. 1734 EDA 2016
11-15-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT WRIGHT, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on April 15, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-51-CR-0013952-2014; CP-51-CR-0013953-2014; CP-51-CR-0013954-2014; CP-51-CR-0013955-2014; CP-51-CR-0013956-2014 BEFORE: PANELLA, SOLANO and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Robert Wright ("Wright") appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following his conviction of one count each of possession of a firearm prohibited, firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying a firearm on a public street in Philadelphia and possession of an instrument of crime, and four counts of recklessly endangering another person. We affirm.
In its Opinion, the trial court summarized the factual and procedural history underlying the instant appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/3/16, at 1-3. We adopt the trial court's recitation for the purpose of this appeal. See id.
Wright presents the following claims for our review:
[1.] With respect to the charges of carrying a firearm without a license, persons not to possess firearms, and carrying a firearm
[on a public street] in Philadelphia, was the verdict against the weight of the evidence and so contrary to the evidence that it shocks one's sense of justice where[]
a) the Commonwealth's evidence at trial consisted of no physical, forensic, or scientific evidence establishing [Wright's] possession or use of a firearm guilt;
b) no firearm or evidence related to a firearm was recovered from [Wright,] or discovered during an unannounced search of [Wright's] home; and
c) [Wright] testified credibly at trial that he did not possess a firearm?
[2.] With respect to the [four counts] of recklessly endangering another person ..., was the verdict [] against the weight of the evidence and so contrary to the evidence that it shocks one's sense of justice where[]
Brief for Appellant at 6.a) the Commonwealth's evidence at trial consisted of no physical, forensic, or scientific evidence establishing [Wright's] possession or use of a firearm guilt;
b) no firearm or evidence related to a firearm[,] as recovered from [Wright] or discovered during an unannounced search of [Wright's] home;
c) [Wright] testified credibly at trial that he did not possess a firearm; and[]
d) assuming arguendo that the weight of the evidence indicates that no firearm was used by [Wright] during the alleged incident, no one was placed in danger of death or serious bodily injury[,] as required to sustain a conviction for [violating 18 Pa.C.S.A.] § 2705?
In the Argument section of his brief, Wright addresses his two claims together. Wright challenges his convictions as against the weight of the evidence, because "there is no forensic evidence whatsoever linking [him] to a gun." Id. at 22. Wright asserts that there was no ballistics evidence recovered from the scene, despite a thorough search by police officers, "who arrived at the scene within minutes." Id. Wright directs our attention to testimony that there was no projectile found within the tire, nor an exit hole indicating that a projectile exited the tire. Id. at 23. Wright further directs our attention to the testimony that "everything was damaged" regarding the damage to the tire and fender surrounding that portion of the car. Id. at 24. Further, Wright states that Keona Henderson testified regarding the loud "boom" she heard as the car drove up over a curb. Id. at 24-25.
Wright additionally argues that the testimony regarding his possession of a firearm is similarly vague, as Kendra Forrest ("Forrest") testified that she saw "what appeared to be the butt or bottom of a gun in [Wright's] hand, but she could not describe the gun." Id. at 25. According to Wright, Forrest could not tell if the object was a revolver or a semiautomatic gun. Id. Wright directs our attention to Forrest's testimony that she did not see a gun in Wright's hand when he ran in front of her car, moments before breaking the window. Id. Wright asserts that "[t]he 'gun free' scenario in which [] Forrest hit a curb causing a flat tire as she sped away from the scene where Wright broke her window, comports with the physical evidence observed by police, the testimony of the Commonwealth's civilian witnesses, and the testimony of both defense witnesses." Id. at 26. For these reasons, Wright contends that the trial court's conclusion that he possessed a gun "appears flawed." Id. at 27.
In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Wright's challenge to the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, and concluded that it lacks merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/3/16, at 3-7. We agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court, as set forth in its Opinion, and discern no error or abuse of discretion in this regard. See id. We therefore affirm on the basis of the trial court's Opinion with regard to Wright's claims. See id.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 11/15/2017
Image materials not available for display.
See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6105, 6106, 6108, 907, 2705.