Com. v. Jenkins, J ( 2014 )

J-S62018-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JEROME JENKINS,
Appellant No. 2546 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of May 3, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009287-2011
BEFORE: ALLEN, OLSON AND OTT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 06, 2014
Appellant, Jerome Jenkins, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on May 3, 2013 in the Criminal Division of the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County, as made final by the denial of post-sentence
motions on August 23, 2013. We affirm.
The trial court summarized the factual history in this case as follows:
At trial, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of victim
Bernadette Davis, Police Officer Bragg, Police Officer Loretta
Ammons, Police Officer Landherr, Detective Sharice Gilbert, and
Naser Ahmad. [Appellant] testified on his own behalf and also
introduced testimony from his father, Harold Jenkins. There was
a stipulation by and between counsel that if Bruce Tarakoff,
Nathaniel Jenkins, Oronica Fields, Valerie Perkins Jenkins,
Deanna Jenkins, and Vickie Jenkins testified, they would testify
that [Appellant] has a reputation for being a law-abiding, non-
violent, and truthful citizen. Viewed in the light most favorable
to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, the [trial] testimony
established the following.
J-S62018-14
On June 21, 2011, at approximately 12:48 a.m., Bernadette
Davis and her daughter Nadia Davis exited a bus at the
intersection of Queen Lane and Green Street. They were walking
towards their home when they passed a Sunoco gas station and
encountered [Appellant], who was tapping on a window with a
gun. [Appellant] was approximately ten feet away from Ms.
Davis and her daughter. As Ms. Davis and her daughter
approached, [Appellant] turned around and waved a gun back
and forth towards them and repeated, “I got a victim now.” Ms.
Davis and her daughter were now approximately one foot away
from [Appellant]. Ms. Davis begged [Appellant] not to shoot her
and her daughter. Ms. Davis backed away from [Appellant], but
he continued to quickly approach them waving the gun toward
their heads. Ms. Davis and her daughter escaped from
[Appellant] by running down Green Street toward Penn Street.
[Appellant] started shooting at them approximately two to three
seconds later. Ms. Davis both saw and felt the first bullet fired
whiz by her. As Ms. Davis and her daughter ran, [Appellant]
shot at them at least ten more times.
As she ran and turned the corner on Penn Street, Ms. Davis
called 9-1-1. She then hid in the bushes at 128 Penn Street.
Off-duty Police Officer Price heard the shots and came out of 128
Penn Street with a gun and calmed Ms. Davis down. Ms. Davis
and Officer Price walked back towards the gas station and
observed several police vehicles drive by. The police arrived
approximately one minute after receiving a radio call and
observed multiple shell casings in the street and on the sidewalk
of the Sunoco property. In total, thirteen shell casings were
recovered. There were several parked cars on the same side of
Sunoco located on Queen Lane that were struck and damaged by
the bullets.
A short time later, a police officer approached Ms. Davis, with
[Appellant]. Ms. Davis identified [Appellant] as the person who
had shot at her and her daughter.
Trial Court Opinion, 3/26/14, at 3-4.
The trial court summarized the procedural history of this case as
follows:
-2-
J-S62018-14
On January 11, 2013, following a bench trial[, Appellant] was
convicted of two counts of attempted murder (18 [Pa.C.S.A.]
§ 901(a)), two counts of aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 2702(a)), two counts of simple assault (18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 270[1](a)), two counts of terroristic threats (18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 2706(a)(1)), one count of possessing an instrument of crime
(PIC) (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a)), and two counts of recklessly
endangering another person (REAP) (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705). The
[c]ourt deferred sentencing so that a presentence investigation
report and mental health evaluation report could be prepared.
[On May 3, 2013, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of
seven and one-half to 15 years’ incarceration.]
Id. at 1.1
Appellant’s brief raises the following issues for our review:
Was the evidence insufficient to support Appellant’s attempted
murder convictions?
Was the evidence insufficient to support Appellant’s aggravated
assault convictions?
Were the verdicts finding Appellant guilty of attempted murder
and aggravated assault were [sic] against the weight of the
evidence?
Appellant’s Brief at 3 (block capitalization omitted).
We have carefully reviewed the certified record, the submissions of the
parties on appeal, and the opinion of the trial court issued on March 26,
2014. We conclude, based upon our review, that Appellant is not entitled to
relief for the reasons expressed by the trial court in its opinion. Since the
trial court adequately and accurately addressed the issues raised by
____________________________________________
1
Both Appellant and the trial court have complied with the requirements of
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-3-
J-S62018-14
Appellant in this appeal, we adopt the trial court’s March 26, 2014 opinion as
our own. We therefore direct the parties to include a copy of the trial court’s
opinion with all future submissions pertaining to the disposition of this
appeal.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/6/2014
-4-
Circulated 10/21/2014 01:15 PM
Circulated 10/21/2014 01:15 PM
Circulated 10/21/2014 01:15 PM
Circulated 10/21/2014 01:15 PM
Circulated 10/21/2014 01:15 PM
Circulated 10/21/2014 01:15 PM
Circulated 10/21/2014 01:15 PM
Circulated 10/21/2014 01:15 PM
Circulated 10/21/2014 01:15 PM