From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Young

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 13, 2018
No. 3772 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 13, 2018)

Opinion

J-S06040-18 No. 3772 EDA 2016

04-13-2018

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LAMONT YOUNG, Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 20, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007926-2015 BEFORE: BOWES, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:

Lamont Young ("Young") appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following his convictions of possession of a firearm prohibited, carrying a firearm without a license, carrying a firearm on a public street in Philadelphia and conspiracy to possess a firearm. We affirm.

The trial court aptly summarized the facts underlying the instant appeal as follows:

On July 3, 2015, shortly after midnight, Philadelphia Police Officers Jared Rahill [("Officer Rahill")] and Patrick Quinn [("Officer Quinn")] were patrolling in the area of the 300 block of Kensington Avenue in Philadelphia[,] when they observed a vehicle with an inoperable taillight. Officer Rahill submitted the license plate number to police radio for investigation and was advised that the insurance and registration for the vehicle had been cancelled. Based on the report of these cancellations and the faulty taillight, the officers had the driver of the vehicle pull over.
After the vehicle was pulled over, Officer Rahill exited his patrol vehicle and approached the passenger side of the stopped vehicle[,] at which time he observed [Young] in the driver's seat, [his co-defendant, Jamel Bailey ("Bailey"),] in the front passenger seat, and [co-defendant Robert Pratt ("Pratt")] in the vehicle's rear seat. Bailey and Pratt appeared to be nervous[;] [Young] kept turning around[;] and all three men were moving around a lot in their seats.

The officer also observed[,] under the front driver's seat[,] the magazine of a firearm sticking out of a white plastic bag. Upon observing the magazine, Officer Rahill alerted Officer Quinn to the presence of the gun magazine and then recovered the white bag, which[,] he discovered[,] contained an Uzi Cobra with an extended magazine.

As a result of the discovery of the firearm, the two officers first removed [co-]defendant Pratt from the vehicle[,] and then [Young,] who briefly struggled with the officers before he was handcuffed. They then removed Bailey from the front passenger seat.

Once the officers removed the three defendants from the vehicle, none of whom was licensed to possess a firearm, Officer Quinn recovered a loaded [.]38 Special handgun from the vehicle's glove box. The defendants were placed under arrest[,] and the items recovered were recorded on a property receipt.
Trial Court Opinion, 3/9/17, at 2-3.

Young was arrested and charged with the above-described crimes. Young filed a pre-trial suppression Motion, which the trial court denied. The case proceeded to a bench trial, after which the trial court found Young guilty of the above-described charges. The trial court subsequently sentenced Young to an aggregate prison term of five to ten years, followed by a five-year term of probation. Young filed a post-sentence Motion, which the trial court denied. Although Young did not immediately file an appeal, his appeal rights were reinstated after he filed a Petition for Relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act. This appeal followed.

Young presents the following questions for our review:

I. Was the evidence sufficient to sustain [Young's] convictions under counts 1, 2, 3 and 4, violations under title 18, Uniform Firearms Act, sections 6105, 6106, 6108, and conspiracy?

II. [Were Young's] convictions under counts 1, 2, 3 and 4, violations under title 18, Uniform Firearms Act, sections 6105, 6106, 6108, and conspiracy under section 6106 against the weight of the evidence?
Brief for Appellant at 7 (some capitalization omitted).

Young first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions. Id. at 11. Young argues that his mere presence in an automobile containing firearms is not sufficient to infer that he had knowledge or constructive possession of the firearms. Id. at 12. According to Young,

the inference relied on by the trial court that because [Young] was driving the vehicle, he was therefore presumed to have known of the existence of a firearm at the feet of a rear passenger, and in the glove compartment of a vehicle he did not own, is a fallacious conclusion because there are other equally plausible inferences with regard to the co-defendants and the actual owner of the vehicle.
Id. Young further points out that there is no evidence that he made movements toward the firearms. Id. at 13. Finally, Young argues that there is no evidence that would sustain his conviction of criminal conspiracy. Id. According to Young, there is no evidence that he had agreed to illegally possess a firearm, with his co-defendants, without a license. Id. at 13-14.

In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Young's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions, and concluded that the claim lacks merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/9/17, at 10-13. We agree, and affirm on the basis of the trial court's Opinion with regard to this claim. See id.

Young also challenges the verdicts as against the weight of the evidence. Brief for Appellant at 14. In this regard, Young "incorporates by reference" the arguments he made challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Id. Young again argues that the only evidence of his guilt was that he was present in a vehicle in which firearms were found. Id.

In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the appropriate standard of review, addressed Young's claim, and concluded that it lacks merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/9/17, at 13-14. We agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court, and discern no abuse of discretion in its rejection of Young's claim. See id. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's Opinion with regard to Young's challenge to the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. See id.

We note that Young preserved a challenge to the weight of the evidence by filing a post-sentence Motion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/13/18

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Young

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 13, 2018
No. 3772 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 13, 2018)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Young

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LAMONT YOUNG, Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Apr 13, 2018

Citations

No. 3772 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 13, 2018)