Com. v. Brown, S. ( 2015 )

J-S02016-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
SHARIF BROWN,
Appellant No. 3457 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of August 12, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000850-2010
CP-51-CR-0000851-2010
CP-51-CR-0000852-2010
CP-51-CR-0000853-2010
CP-51-CR-0000854-2010
BEFORE: MUNDY, OLSON and WECHT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MARCH 17, 2015
Appellant, Sharif Brown, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on August 12, 2013 in the Criminal Division of the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County. After careful review, we affirm in part, vacate
in part, and remand for resentencing.
Appellant was arrested and charged with multiple robbery, assault,
and firearms related offenses following three gunpoint robberies that
occurred in Philadelphia on October 24, 2009. Thereafter, Appellant
proceeded to a jury trial that commenced on March 20, 2013. On March 26,
2013, the jury found Appellant guilty of numerous charges and the trial
court imposed an aggregate sentence of 17½ to 35 years’ imprisonment on
J-S02016-15
August 12, 2013. Set forth below is a summary, by docket number, of
Appellant’s convictions and his corresponding sentences.
At CP-51-CR-0000850-2010 (850-2010), Appellant was convicted and
sentenced to two and one-half to five years of incarceration for persons not
to possess firearms,1 two and one-half to five years of incarceration for
carrying a firearm without a license,2 two and one-half to five years of
incarceration for carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia,3 two and
one-half to five years of incarceration for possessing an instrument of crime
(PIC),4 and one to two years of incarceration for simple assault.5 All of these
sentences were set to run concurrently.
At CP-51-CR-0000851-2010 (851-2010), Appellant was convicted and
sentenced to five to 10 years of incarceration for robbery. 6 The trial court
directed that this sentence should run consecutive to those imposed at
850-2010. In addition, Appellant was convicted and sentenced to five to 10
years of incarceration for possession of firearms prohibited, three and
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105. The trial court determined Appellant’s guilt for this
offense at all docket numbers.
2
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106.
3
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108.
4
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907.
5
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701.
6
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701.
-2-
J-S02016-15
one-half to seven years of incarceration for carrying a firearm without a
license, and two and one-half to five years of incarceration for carrying
firearms in public in Philadelphia. The trial court ordered that these
sentences should run concurrent to the sentence for robbery at docket (851-
2010).
At CP-51-CR-0000852-2010 (852-2010), Appellant was convicted and
sentenced to five to 10 years of incarceration for aggravated assault.7 The
trial court ordered that Appellant’s sentence for aggravated assault should
run consecutive to the sentence imposed at 851-2010. In addition,
Appellant was convicted and sentenced to five to 10 years’ incarceration for
robbery, five to 10 years’ incarceration for possession of firearms prohibited,
three and one-half to seven years’ incarceration for carrying a firearm
without a license, and two and one-half to five years of incarceration for
carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia. Appellant’s sentences for robbery
and his firearms convictions were set to run concurrent to the sentence
imposed for aggravated assault at docket (852-2010).
At CP-51-CR-0000853-2010 (853-2010), Appellant was convicted and
sentenced to five to 10 years of incarceration for possession of a firearm
prohibited and one to two years of incarceration for simple assault. The trial
____________________________________________
7
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702.
-3-
J-S02016-15
court directed that these sentences should run concurrent to the
punishments imposed at the other docket numbers.
At CP-51-CR-0000854-2010 (854-2010), Appellant was convicted and
sentenced to five to 10 years of incarceration for robbery. The trial court
ordered this sentence to run consecutive to the sentences imposed at
852-2010. In addition, Appellant was convicted and sentenced to five to 10
years of incarceration for possession of firearms prohibited, three and
one-half to seven years of incarceration for carrying firearms without a
license, two and one-half to five years of incarceration for carrying firearms
in public in Philadelphia, and two and one-half to five years for PIC. The trial
court ordered these sentences to run concurrent to Appellant’s robbery
sentence at this docket (854-2010).
On August 22, 2013, Appellant moved for post-sentence relief,
alleging, among other things, that his sentence was excessive. The trial
court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion on October 30, 2013.
Subsequently, Appellant filed a notice of appeal on November 27,
2013. Appellant’s notice, however, listed only docket number 854-2010.
After obtaining leave from this Court to amend the notice by listing the
remaining docket numbers, Appellant filed a corrected notice of appeal on
February 27, 2014.
Meanwhile, on January 15, 2014, the trial court issued an order
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) directing Appellant to file a concise statement
-4-
J-S02016-15
of errors complained of on appeal within 21 days. After receiving an
extension of time from the trial court, Appellant filed his concise statement
on February 26, 2014. Appellant preserved his present claims by including
them within his submission to the trial court.
Appellant’s brief raises the following questions for our review:
Was not the evidence insufficient to establish that Appellant was
the perpetrator of the crimes for which he was convicted?
Did [the trial court err] in sentencing Appellant on more than
one count of [possession of firearms prohibited, carrying a
firearm without a license, and carrying firearms in public in
Philadelphia under] 18 Pa.C.S.[A.] §§ 6105, 6106 and 6108
where the evidence presented at trial was that Appellant carried
the firearm in an uninterrupted fashion for the entire period
encompassing the robberies[?]
Should not the mandatory minimum sentencing statute, 42
Pa.C.S. § 9712 [sentences for offenses committed with
firearms], be declared void and unenforceable, where multiple
procedural provisions within the statute are facially
unconstitutional pursuant to Alleyne v. United States, 133
S.Ct. 2151 (2013), and cannot properly be severed from the
remaining statute, thereby rendering application in Appellant’s
case of the mandatory minimum sentence of [five] to 10 years [’]
confinement on the robbery and aggravated assault conviction[s]
under this statute unconstitutional[?]
Was not the [trial] court’s imposition of 17½ to 35 years[‘]
confinement in violation of the Sentencing Code and contrary to
the fundamental norms underlying the sentence process, and
therefore manifestly unreasonable, excessive and an abuse of
discretion?
Appellant’s Brief at 5-6.
Appellant argues in his first issue that the eyewitness testimony in this
case was so inherently unreliable that the evidence was insufficient to
-5-
J-S02016-15
establish that he perpetrated the crimes for which he was convicted. To
advance this claim, Appellant cites the brief duration of the complainants’
encounters with their assailant, the fact that these encounters occurred at
night, the “unremarkable” descriptions offered by the victims, and certain
minor inconsistencies established during examination at trial. See
Appellant’s Brief at 23-29. This claim fails.
Our standard when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is
whether the evidence at trial, and all reasonable inferences
derived therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to
the Commonwealth as verdict-winner, are sufficient to establish
all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We may
not weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the
fact-finder. Additionally, the evidence at trial need not preclude
every possibility of innocence, and the fact-finder is free to
resolve any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt 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. When evaluating the credibility and weight of the
evidence, the fact-finder is free to believe all, part or none of the
evidence. For purposes of our review under these principles, we
must review the entire record and consider all of the evidence
introduced.
Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493, 500 (Pa. Super. 2007).
Here, Appellant's challenges to the eyewitness testimony relate to the
weight of the evidence, not to its sufficiency. See Patterson, 940 A.2d at
502; Commonwealth v. Galloway, 434 A.2d 1220, 1222 (Pa. 1981)
(discrepancies in testimony go to the credibility of the witnesses and not the
sufficiency of the evidence); Commonwealth v. Halye, 719 A.2d 763, 764
(Pa. Super. 1998) (en banc), appeal denied, 743 A.2d 916 (Pa. 1999), cert.
denied sub nom, Pennsylvania v. Halye, 529 U.S. 1012 (2000) (mere
-6-
J-S02016-15
conflict in the testimony does not render the evidence insufficient because it
is within the province of the fact finder to determine the weight to be given
to the testimony and to believe all, part, or none of the evidence).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner,
we find that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to establish
Appellant's identity as the perpetrator. In this case, Reginald Beatty, one of
the robbery victims, wrestled with Appellant and was able to describe
Appellant’s facial features to police. During this struggle, a cellular
telephone belonging to another victim (Steven King) fell from Appellant’s
pocket. After Appellant’s arrest, Beatty positively identified Appellant as his
assailant. Moreover, Beatty identified Appellant at trial. Lastly, all three of
the victims accurately and consistently described Appellant’s complexion,
height, weight, age, and clothing to police. Thus, the evidence was not so
inherently unreliable that it precluded a finding of guilt. See
Commonwealth v. Orr, 38 A.3d 868, 874-875 (Pa. Super. 2011);
Patterson, 940 A.2d at 502 (positive identification of appellant as
perpetrator of burglary sufficient to support conviction).
In his second issue, Appellant asserts that the trial court unlawfully
sentenced him for five violations of § 6105 (persons not to possess
firearms), and for four violations each of §§ 6106 (possession of firearms
without a license) and 6108 (possession of firearms in public in
Philadelphia). Appellant maintains that, notwithstanding the three armed
-7-
J-S02016-15
robberies sub judice and the ensuing armed interaction with police, his
possession of a firearm constituted a single, uninterrupted criminal episode
for purposes of the foregoing firearms provisions. Hence, under our decision
in Commonwealth v. Woods, 710 A.2d 626 (Pa. Super. 1998), appeal
denied, 729 A.2d 1129 (Pa. 1998), Appellant argues that it was improper for
the trial court to impose multiple sentences for each provision that Appellant
violated.
The Commonwealth advances two arguments in support of the trial
court’s conclusion that multiple sentences were appropriate. First, the
Commonwealth cites 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9765 for the proposition that crimes do
not merge for sentencing purposes unless the offenses arise from a single
criminal act and all of the statutory elements of one offense are included in
the statutory elements of the other offense. See Commonwealth’s Brief at
14. Next, the Commonwealth cites Commonwealth v. Andrews, 720 A.2d
764 (Pa. super. 1998), aff’d, 768 A.2d 309 (Pa. 2001), wherein both this
Court and our Supreme Court affirmed two convictions for PIC where the
defendant used a handgun in two separate robberies, in two separate
apartment complexes, on the same day.
Appellant’s claim alleges that the trial court improperly imposed
multiple punishments for a single criminal act, a contention that implicates
the legality of Appellant’s sentences. See Commonwealth v. Robinson,
931 A.2d 15, 21 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc) (the term illegal sentence is
-8-
J-S02016-15
one that applies to a narrow class of cases including: (1) claims that the
sentence fell outside of the legal parameters prescribed by the applicable
statute; (2) claims involving merger/double jeopardy; and (3) claims
implicating the rule in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)).
“Issues relating to the legality of a sentence are questions of law[; hence,
o]ur standard of review over such questions is de novo and our scope of
review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 45 A.3d 1123, 1130 (Pa.
Super. 2012), appeal denied, 53 A.3d 756 (Pa. 2012).
Appellant maintains that possession of a firearm is a continuous and
uninterrupted event for purposes of §§ 6105, 6106, and 6108, and that his
use of a handgun during the three October 24, 2009 robberies and the
ensuing armed encounter with police, did not alter this fact. Appellant cites
to Woods in support of this contention. In Woods, the defendant
perpetrated a series of armed assaults following a vehicle accident and was
convicted, inter alia, of two counts of violating § 6108. See Woods, 710
A.2d at 631. We concluded that the defendant’s gun possession represented
a single offense under § 6108, reasoning that the crime was complete upon
carrying a weapon on a public street, regardless of whether it was used in
the commission of a crime. See id.; accord Commonwealth v. Brandrup,
366 A.2d 1233, 1234 (Pa. Super. 1976) (holding that the crime of former
convicts not to own or possess a firearm is a continuing offense). We
explained our rationale as follows:
-9-
J-S02016-15
It is important to point out that the violation of the Firearms Act
was separate and apart from appellant's usage of the firearm in
the assaults. That is to say, appellant would have been guilty of
violating § 6108 by carrying a weapon regardless of whether or
not he used the weapon in the commission of a crime. Logically
speaking then, the Commonwealth's decision to charge him with
two violations of this section is wholly arbitrary.
Under § 6108 a crime is committed by carrying a weapon on a
public street. In the context of an uninterrupted or continuous
carrying of a weapon at what point does one stop “carrying” a
firearm on the street and start anew? Does one commit a
violation of the Act with every step he takes while carrying a
firearm? Or does one commit a violation based upon a certain
passage of time? If so, how much time must pass before a new
offense begins? Is it a separate offense for every hour one
carries a weapon? Or every ten minutes?
The fact of the matter is there was no evidence to indicate that
appellant carried the subject weapon in other than an
uninterrupted fashion for the entire period encompassing the two
assaults, as well an indeterminate period of time before and
after the assaults. Since under the Act commission of the
offense is not predicated upon the commission of a crime with
the weapon the charging of two violations is no more logical than
charging appellant for one offense every ten minutes, or every
hour, or every step he took, while carrying a weapon. Although
zealous District Attorneys might embrace such an interpretation
of the Act we cannot. Since the offense is not linked to usage of
the firearm in a separate crime appellant's “carrying” of the
weapon must be construed, from a logical standpoint, to
represent a single offense of the statutory prohibition against
carrying a weapon upon the street. Since appellant committed
but one offense in carrying a weapon upon the streets, he
cannot have two sentences imposed upon him for that violation.
As such, we reverse the second sentence imposed upon
appellant for violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108 at Bill number
4422. In all other respects the judgment of sentence is
affirmed.
Woods, 710 A.2d at 631-632 (footnotes omitted).
- 10 -
J-S02016-15
In this case, the record establishes that Appellant unlawfully possessed
a firearm8 during the course of three robberies and during an armed
encounter with police that immediately followed his confrontation of the
robbery victims. The entire episode occurred within a brief period and was
confined to a localized vicinity in the City of Philadelphia. Hence, Appellant’s
firearm possession was continuous and uninterrupted in nature and
constituted only a single offense under §§ 6105, 6106, and 6108. Since
Appellant committed only one violation of each of the offenses codified at
§§ 6105, 6106, and 6108, the trial court erred in imposing multiple
sentences for those violations. As such, we vacate the multiple sentences
imposed upon Appellant for violating §§ 6105, 6106, and 6108. We remand
to allow the trial court to consider an appropriate single sentence for
Appellant’s violations of each of these provisions.
We are not persuaded by the arguments forwarded by the
Commonwealth in defense of multiple sentences. As a preliminary matter,
we reject the Commonwealth’s reliance upon 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9765 to support
____________________________________________
8
There is no dispute in this case that: 1) Appellant’s criminal history
revealed a disqualifying prior conviction for purposes of § 6105; 2) Appellant
lacked the proper credentials for carrying a firearm as required for § 6106;
and, 3) Appellant carried his firearm on a public street in Philadelphia
despite the prohibition found in § 6108.
- 11 -
J-S02016-15
its position. Section 9765, entitled Merger of Sentences,9 comes into play
where a single act results in a violation of two distinct penal provisions,
thereby necessitating a comparison of the elements of each offense to
determine whether one of the provisions requires proof of a fact that the
other does not. Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 985 A.2d 830, 836 (Pa.
2009), quoting Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). Here,
by contrast, Appellant’s claim centers upon whether he committed one
continuous act or multiple acts in violation of the respective firearms
provisions. Thus, § 9765 has no relevance to the precise claim before us.
The Commonwealth’s citation to Andrews, supra is also unavailing.
In Andrews, the defendant and another individual, both armed with
handguns, robbed an apartment complex in the City of Philadelphia. Later
the same day, approximately two hours later, the defendant and his partner
robbed a second apartment complex in a different part of town. Both actors
employed handguns to facilitate the robberies. Shortly thereafter, the men
____________________________________________
9
Section 9765 provides:
§ 9765. Merger of sentences
No crimes shall merge for sentencing purposes unless the crimes
arise from a single criminal act and all of the statutory elements
of one offense are included in the statutory elements of the
other offense. Where crimes merge for sentencing purposes, the
court may sentence the defendant only on the higher graded
offense.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9765.
- 12 -
J-S02016-15
were arrested. At the conclusion of a joint trial, the jury found the
defendant and his co-defendant guilty of five counts of robbery, two counts
of criminal conspiracy, and two counts of PIC.
On appeal to this Court, the defendant alleged that principles of double
jeopardy and statutory construction required that we vacate his multiple
consecutive sentences for conspiracy and PIC. Citing the Commonwealth’s
motion to proceed with a consolidated trial, the defendant reasoned that if
the robberies constituted a continuous, overlapping common scheme, then
the inchoate crimes of conspiracy and PIC constituted a single, continuing
offense such that only one sentence should have been imposed. We
rejected the defendant’s claim, concluding that nothing about the concept of
consolidation compelled merger of his sentences. In addition, we
distinguished our then-recent decision in Woods, holding that it was
possible for the trial court to conclude that the two robberies -- and, hence,
the defendant’s two PIC convictions -- were separate and unrelated criminal
offenses. See Andrews, 720 A.2d at 769 n.8.
Our Supreme Court accepted Andrews for further review. Initially,
the Supreme Court noted that the defendant’s challenge to the multiple
sentences imposed for his inchoate crimes such as PIC was properly viewed
as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, rather than a legality of
sentence claim. Andrews, 768 A.2d at 313. This was because the relevant
inquiry was fact intensive and focused primarily upon the actor’s intent, as
- 13 -
J-S02016-15
demonstrated by the circumstances surrounding his unlawful possession,
which determined “whether his repeated use of the firearm was the product
of a singular criminal intent or reflective of multiple manifestations of intent
associated with each act.” Id. If repeated, criminal use of the firearm could
be inferred from the facts, then multiple sentences for PIC could be imposed
without implicating double jeopardy concerns. See id. (“resolution of the
double jeopardy issue is inextricably intertwined with the sufficiency of the
evidence”). Ultimately, the Supreme Court in Andrews upheld the
defendant’s multiple convictions and sentences for PIC because it found that
the evidence was sufficient to show that the defendant twice developed the
intent to employ his firearm criminally in furtherance of separate
conspiratorial agreements. Id. at 318. In reaching this conclusion, the
Supreme Court expressly differentiated the firearm offense at issue in
Woods, which did not require a showing of intent, from the defendant’s
convictions for PIC, where intent constituted the touchstone of the actor’s
criminal liability. Id. at 317.
In the present case, Appellant brings a claim that is directly parallel to
the one we considered in Woods.10 As in Woods, Appellant’s crimes were
complete when he acquired unlawful possession of a handgun. Moreover,
his intent to employ the firearm for criminal purposes was irrelevant to a
____________________________________________
10
Appellant does not challenge his convictions or sentences for PIC.
- 14 -
J-S02016-15
finding of guilt under §§ 6105, 6106, and 6108. Thus, unlike the situation in
Andrews, where an assessment of the surrounding circumstances showed
that the commission of multiple criminal offenses supported compound
sentences, there could be no similar showing in the instant case. Therefore,
Woods requires that we vacate Appellant’s sentences for his firearms
convictions.
Appellant’s third claim alleges that the trial court imposed illegal
mandatory minimum sentences pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712 when it
fashioned punishments for Appellant’s convictions on three counts of robbery
and one count of aggravated assault. Appellant’s Brief at 33, citing Alleyne
v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013). The Commonwealth does
not dispute that § 9712 has been invalidated by prior decisions of this Court.
It claims, however, that Appellant has waived his present challenge and that
the Alleyne-offending provisions of § 9712 are severable from remaining
portions of the statute.
We are constrained to disagree with the Commonwealth’s
contentions.11 It is firmly established that a challenge to the application of a
____________________________________________
11
Several members of this Court, including this author, have recognized that
cogent arguments support a finding that the Allenye-offending provisions of
Pennsylvania’s mandatory minimum sentencing schemes are severable.
Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86, 104-106 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en
banc) (Mundy, J. dissenting); Commonwealth v. Bizzel, 2014 WL 6756277at *4-*11 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Bowes, J. concurring). To date, however,
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
- 15 -
J-S02016-15
mandatory minimum sentence raises concerns as to the legality of the
sentence and cannot be waived. Commonwealth v. Wately, 81 A.3d 108,
118 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc). Moreover, several recent decisions issued
by this Court have declared that § 9712 is unconstitutional and that the
Alleyne-offending provision are not severable from the remainder of the
statute. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 2015 WL 49438, *5-*8
(Pa. Super. 2015); Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801, 809, 811-
812 (Pa. Super. 2014). Hence, we must vacate Appellant’s sentence and
remand for resentencing without consideration of the mandatory minimum
sentences provided in § 9712.
In his fourth claim, Appellant presents a challenge to the discretionary
aspects of his sentence. In view of our dispositions of Appellant’s second
and third issues, which remanded this case for resentencing, we decline to
review Appellant’s discretionary sentencing claim.
Convictions affirmed. Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded
for resentencing. Jurisdiction relinquished.
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
these views have not carried the day. However, our Supreme Court is
currently considering the issue of severability in several cases.
- 16 -
J-S02016-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/17/2015
- 17 -