Com. v. Buckley, C. ( 2015 )

J-S70004-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
CHARLES BUCKLEY,
Appellant No. 3492 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 10, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0011223-2012
BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED DECEMBER 11, 2015
Appellant, Charles Buckley, appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed October 10, 2014 following his jury conviction of murder of the first
degree, aggravated assault, criminal attempt of murder, and carrying a
firearm on a public street in Philadelphia in violation of the Uniform Firearms
Act (VUFA).1 On appeal he challenges the sufficiency and the weight of the
evidence for his conviction. We affirm.
We take the underlying facts and procedural history from the trial
court opinion of June 25, 2015. On May 17, 2012, Appellant shot and killed
Tanisha Finch while attempting to kill Rahim Hartzog.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 2702(a), 901(a), and 6108, respectively.
J-S70004-15
Mr. Hartzog and Appellant had been acquaintances for over ten years,
during which they sold drugs together. In January 2012, Mr. Hartzog
stopped selling drugs because he became engaged to the victim. Ultimately,
however, he lost his job and started selling drugs again. Although he was
not selling drugs with Appellant, he sold drugs to many of the same
customers.
Ms. Karen Monk, one of Mr. Hartzog and Appellant’s customers,
testified at trial that she contacted Appellant on the day of the shooting
because she wanted to buy drugs on credit. Appellant told Ms. Monk to call
Mr. Hartzog and tell him that she had $100.00 to buy drugs from him,
although, as Ms. Monk testified at trial, she only had at most twenty dollars.
Ms. Monk called Mr. Hartzog and arranged to meet him at the Getty gas
station on Mt. Airy Avenue in Philadelphia.
Mr. Hartzog and the victim drove together and parked outside Ms.
Monk’s apartment complex across the street from the gas station. When Ms.
Monk walked up to Mr. Hartzog’s vehicle, she handed the victim a one dollar
bill. After Mr. Hartzog told her that she had only given him one dollar
instead of $100.00, Ms. Monk ran back towards her apartment.
Soon after Ms. Monk ran away, the victim told Mr. Hartzog that
somebody suspicious was walking on the sidewalk approaching their vehicle.
Mr. Hartzog testified at trial that he saw a person a few car lengths behind
his vehicle who had a hood on and hands in the front pocket of his
sweatshirt. As the person walked closer, Mr. Hartzog recognized it was
-2-
J-S70004-15
Appellant and started to drive away. As Mr. Hartzog drove away, Appellant
started shooting at Mr. Hartzog’s vehicle, hitting the victim in the head with
one of his shots.
After dropping the victim off at the hospital, Mr. Hartzog spoke with
the police, told them that he was there when the shooting occurred, and
provided a description of the shooter. Initially, Mr. Hartzog did not identify
Appellant as the shooter to the police because there is a “no snitch rule on
the streets”; however, he eventually admitted to detectives that Appellant
was the person who shot at him and the victim. (N.T. Trial, 7/22/14, 175;
see id. at 178-79).
At trial, Ms. Chaquita Nabried testified that she heard gunshots in the
early morning hours and then heard the rattle of the gate near her
apartment. Ms. Nabried looked out of her apartment window and saw a man
walk through the breezeway separating her apartment building from the
other. She described the man to the police as a black male, five feet nine
inches to six feet tall with dark skin, messy hair, maybe braids, and a dark
shirt who was carrying a light-colored shirt over his shoulder and who then
dropped the light-colored hooded sweatshirt as he walked by her bedroom
window.
At trial, the Commonwealth introduced evidence that police recovered
seven fired cartridge casings from the scene of the shooting. The
Commonwealth also introduced evidence that police recovered an extra-
large sweatshirt with gunshot residue from the breezeway between the two
-3-
J-S70004-15
buildings. A DNA analysis of genetic material obtained from a hair on the
sweatshirt indicated that the DNA mixture was 261.5 times more likely a
mixture of DNA from Appellant and three random unrelated individuals than
a mixture from four random unrelated individuals in the African-American
population.
At trial, two alibi witnesses testified that Appellant was at home at the
time of the shooting because he was on house arrest and had a 9:00 p.m.
curfew. However, on cross-examination, both stated that they did not have
any specific recollection about the day that the shooting occurred.
Appellant testified in his own defense at trial. During his testimony, he
explained that on the night of shooting, Ms. Monk called him to buy drugs
and he referred her to Mr. Hartzog because it was past his curfew so he
could not leave his home to meet her. He testified that his DNA got on the
sweatshirt because while he was selling drugs to Ms. Monk’s friend four days
prior to the shooting, a man offered to sell him the sweatshirt and a bag of
cosmetics, and when he checked to see the size of the sweatshirt his DNA
got in the collar.
On July 28, 2014 a jury convicted Appellant of the aforementioned
charges. On October 10, 2014, Appellant was sentenced to a total sentence
of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the first degree
murder of Ms. Finch, plus an aggregate of no less than twelve-and-a-half nor
more than twenty five years’ imprisonment for the attempted murder of Mr.
Hartzog and the VUFA conviction. (See N.T. Sentencing, 10/10/14, at 16-
-4-
J-S70004-15
17). Appellant filed post-sentence motions, including a challenge to the
weight of the evidence, which the court denied on November 6, 2014
without a hearing. Appellant timely appealed.2
Appellant raises two questions for our review:
I. Is the [A]ppellant entitled to an arrest of judgment with
regard to his convictions for first degree murder, attempted
murder, aggravated assault and carrying a firearm in public
since the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdicts of guilt
as the Commonwealth failed to sustain its burden of proving the
[A]ppellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
II. Is the [A]ppellant entitled to a new trial with regard to his
convictions for first degree murder, attempted murder,
aggravated assault and carrying a firearm in public since the
verdicts of guilt are against the weight of the evidence?
(Appellant’s Brief, at 4).
In his first issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
to support his conviction. (See id. at 28-46). Appellant argues that the
Commonwealth failed to establish his identity as the shooter, that he had
the specific intent to kill, that he acted with malice, that he took a
substantial step to kill any victim, that he fired or possessed a weapon, or
____________________________________________
2
Appellant filed a timely Rule 1925(b) statement of errors on February 6,
2015. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On March 25, 2015, this Court granted trial
counsel’s motion to withdraw and on April 24, 2015, the trial court appointed
counsel for the purpose of appeal. On June 10, 2015, with leave of court,
Appellant timely filed a supplemental statement of errors pursuant to Rule
1925(b). See id. The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion on June 25,
2015. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
-5-
J-S70004-15
that he was responsible for the victim’s death or any attempt to kill Hartzog.
(See id. at 33-34). We disagree.
Our standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence is
well-settled:
. . .[I]n evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence, we must determine whether, viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner,
together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, the trier of
fact could have found that each and every element of the crimes
charged was established beyond a reasonable doubt.
We may not weigh the evidence and substitute our
judgment for the fact-finder. To sustain a conviction, however,
the facts and circumstances which the Commonwealth must
prove must be such that every essential element of the crime is
established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. Cruz, 919 A.2d 279, 281 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal
denied, 928 A.2d 1289 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted).
“A defendant is guilty of first degree murder when, with the specific
intent to kill, he causes the death of another person.” Cruz, supra at 281(citation omitted). Furthermore, “it is well established in Pennsylvania that a
fact finder may infer malice and a specific intent to kill from the use of a
deadly weapon upon a vital part of the victim’s body.” Id. (citation
omitted). Additionally, “[p]ursuant to the doctrine of transferred intent, the
intent to murder may be transferred where the person actually killed is not
the intended victim.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 912 A.2d 268, 279 (Pa.
2006) (citing 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 303(b)(1)).
-6-
J-S70004-15
Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, the evidence sufficiently established that Appellant shot and
killed the victim with the specific intent to do so. See Cruz, supra at 281.
At trial, the Commonwealth offered the testimony of Mr. Hartzog, an
eyewitness to the event. (See N.T. Trial, 7/22/14, 152-87). Mr. Hartzog
testified that he and the victim went to the Getty gas station near Ms.
Monk’s apartment to sell drugs to her. (See id. at 155-57). While waiting
for Ms. Monk to bring the correct amount of money to his car, Mr. Hartzog
saw a person whom he identified as Appellant walk up behind the car and
then start shooting at his vehicle as Mr. Hartzog drove away. (See id. at
160-67). Mr. Hartzog further testified that his fiancé, the victim, was shot in
the head by Appellant and later died from her injuries. (See id. at 167-69,
179).
The Commonwealth also introduced testimony from Ms. Monk, who
testified that at Appellant’s request, she called Mr. Hartzog and told him that
she had $100.00 and that she would meet him at the Getty gas station to
purchase crack cocaine from him. (See N.T. Trial, 7/23/14, at 65-75). Ms.
Monk further testified that after she heard the gunshots, she spoke to
Appellant on the phone. He told her not to say anything, and that from now
on, she should call him to get her crack, not Mr. Hartzog. (See id. at 95-
96).
Finally, the Commonwealth introduced circumstantial evidence to
establish that Appellant had a motive to shoot Mr. Hartzog. (See Trial Court
-7-
J-S70004-15
Opinion, 6/25/15, at 18). “Hartzog testified to his participation in selling
drugs with [Appellant]; [Appellant’s] negative reaction when Hartzog
stopped selling drugs with him; and the tension that arose between Hartzog
and [Appellant] when Hartzog started to sell again[.]” Id. Accordingly,
viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
Appellant had the specific intent to murder Mr. Hartzog, an intent which
transfers to his killing of the victim. See Jones, supra at 279.
Although Appellant argues that he was at home during the time of the
murder, it is for the fact finder to make credibility determinations, and the
fact finder may believe all, part, or none of Appellant’s testimony. See
Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24, 26-27 (Pa. 2011), cert. denied,
133 S. Ct. 122 (2012). Here, the jury was free to reject Appellant’s
testimony, and believe that of Mr. Hartzog and Ms. Monk. As such, we
conclude that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth as the verdict winner, was sufficient to sustain Appellant’s
conviction for first degree murder. See Cruz, supra at 281.
Appellant also challenges his conviction of attempted murder. “A
person may be convicted of attempted murder if he takes a substantial step
toward the commission of a killing, with the specific intent in mind to commit
such an act.” Commonwealth v. Dale, 836 A.2d 150, 153 (Pa. Super.
2003) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901(a).
Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, the evidence sufficiently established that Appellant took a
-8-
J-S70004-15
substantial step toward a killing, with the specific intent to do so when he
fired seven bullets at the vehicle Mr. Hartzog was driving. See Dale, supra
at 153. Furthermore, as discussed above, Appellant had the specific intent
to murder Mr. Hartzog. Therefore, we conclude that the evidence was
sufficient to sustain Appellant’s conviction for attempted murder. See id.Appellant also challenges his conviction of aggravated assault.
Appellant’s conviction for aggravated assault, being a lesser included
offense, is supported by the same facts which support his conviction for
attempted murder because the elements of aggravated assault are included
in the offense of attempted murder. See id. at 154 (citing 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§
2301 and 2702(a)(1)). Therefore, we conclude that the evidence, viewed in
the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, was
sufficient to sustain Appellant’s conviction for aggravated assault. See
Dale, supra at 154.
Appellant also argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his
conviction for carrying a firearm on a public street in Philadelphia under
VUFA Section 6108. Section 6108 provides that “[n]o person shall carry a
firearm . . . at any time upon the public streets . . . in a city of the first class
unless: (1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or (2) such person is
exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
6108. Furthermore, testimony of an eyewitness who observed a firearm in
an appellant’s hand is sufficient to prove a violation of Section 6108. See
Commonwealth v. Monroe, 422 A.2d 193, 195 (Pa. Super. 1980).
-9-
J-S70004-15
Here, the evidence at trial was sufficient to prove that Appellant
carried a firearm on a public street in Philadelphia. Counsel stipulated that
Appellant did not possess a license to carry a firearm and Mr. Hartzog
testified that he saw Appellant shoot at his vehicle while walking down Mt.
Airy Avenue, a public street in Philadelphia. (See N.T. Trial, 7/24/14, at
115; N.T. Trial, 7/22/14, at 158, 167). Therefore, we conclude that the
evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant’s conviction for VUFA Section
6108. See Monroe, supra at 195. Appellant’s first issue does not merit
relief.
In his second issue, Appellant claims that all of the guilty verdicts were
against the weight of the evidence. (See Appellant’s Brief, at 47-55). We
disagree.
A verdict is said to be contrary to the evidence such that it
shocks one’s sense of justice when the figure of Justice totters
on her pedestal, or when the jury’s verdict, at the time of its
rendition causes the trial judge to lose his breath, temporarily,
and causes him to almost fall from the bench, then it is truly
shocking to the judicial conscience.
Furthermore,
Where the trial court has ruled on the weight claim below,
an appellate court’s role is not to consider the underlying
question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to whether
the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on
the weight claim.
Cruz, supra at 282 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
- 10 -
J-S70004-15
Here, given the evidence introduced at trial, including the eye-witness
testimony of Mr. Hartzog and the testimony of Ms. Monk, it cannot be said
that the guilty verdict in this case shocks one’s sense of justice. See id.Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Appellant’s request for a new trial based on a weight of the evidence
challenge. See id.Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/11/2015
- 11 -