Com. v. Kelsey, J. ( 2015 )

J-S30008-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JOSEPH KELSEY
Appellant No. 2083 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 25, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0004554-2010
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JUNE 23, 2015
Appellant, Joseph Kelsey1, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury
trial convictions of second-degree murder, robbery, criminal conspiracy,
firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying firearms in public in
Philadelphia, possessing instruments of crime, and intimidation of a
witness.2 We affirm in part and vacate in part.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
____________________________________________
1
On pages 7 and 9 of the trial court’s opinion, the court refers to Appellant
as “Derrick Kelsey,” which is an alias for Appellant.
2
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(b), 3701(a)(1)(i), 903(c) (3701(a)(1)(i) related),
6106(a)(1), 6108, 907(a), and 4952(a)(1), respectively.
J-S30008-15
restate them.3
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
IS APPELLANT ENTITLED TO AN ARREST OF JUDGMENT
WITH RESPECT TO HIS CONVICTIONS FOR MURDER OF
THE SECOND DEGREE, CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, ROBBERY,
CARRYING A FIREARM WITHOUT A LICENSE, CARRYING A
FIREARM ON THE STREET OR PUBLIC PROPERTY IN
PHILADELPHIA, POSSESSING INSTRUMENTS OF CRIME,
AND INTIMIDATION OF A WITNESS SINCE THE EVIDENCE
IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICTS OF GUILT
AS THE COMMONWEALTH FAILED TO SUSTAIN ITS
BURDEN OF PROVING APPELLANT’S GUILT BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT?
IS APPELLANT ENTITLED TO HAVE HIS SEPARATE
SENTENCE FOR ROBBERY VACATED SINCE IMPOSITION OF
A SEPARATE SENTENCE FOR ROBBERY FOLLOWING
CONVICTION FOR SECOND DEGREE MURDER VIOLATES
DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
(Appellant’s Brief at 4).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Steven R.
Geroff, we conclude Appellant’s issue one merits no relief.4 The trial court
____________________________________________
3
The following errors appear in the trial court’s opinion:
(a) page 3, line 4, the court sentenced Appellant on February 25, 2014,
not March 5, 2014;
(b) page 3, line 7, Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal on July 22,
2014, not July 28, 2014;
(c) page 10, paragraph 4, line 2, the court mistakenly refers to witness,
“Robin Gore,” as “Robert Gore.”
4
In his first issue, Appellant fails to provide argument regarding the
sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions of robbery, firearms not to be
carried without a license, carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia, and
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2-
J-S30008-15
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of Appellant’s first
issue. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed, November 7, 2014, at 16-17, 20)
(finding: evidence was sufficient to find Appellant guilty of second-degree
murder; Appellant admitted he had dispute with victim, William Duvall, over
marijuana, returned to witness’, Robin Gore, home with co-defendant, Malik
Woods, to resolve dispute, was armed and present for shooting, and took
out gun and told victim, “Fuck that, I want mine,” immediately before victim
was shot; second witness, Lamont Lester, testified that Appellant and co-
defendant entered Mr. Gore’s basement armed with guns, Appellant and
victim argued over marijuana, and Appellant pointed his gun at victim’s face
and fired; Mr. Gore testified there had been dispute between Appellant and
victim over marijuana, Appellant aimed gun at victim and shot him, and then
Appellant went into victim’s pockets and left with co-defendant; evidence
was sufficient to convict Appellant of conspiracy; Appellant conspired with
co-defendant to rob victim and, therefore, was guilty of any acts done in
furtherance of conspiracy by co-defendant; jury could have concluded
beyond reasonable doubt that Appellant and co-defendant entered into and
carried out agreement to rob victim after learning victim had shorted
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
possessing instruments of crime. Therefore, these claims are waived. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080, 1088 (Pa.Super.
2014) (stating: “Appellate arguments which fail to adhere to these rules may
be considered waived, and arguments which are not appropriately developed
are waived”).
-3-
J-S30008-15
Appellant on marijuana purchase; evidence was sufficient to find Appellant
guilty of intimidation of witness, where Mr. Gore testified that, once
Appellant shot victim, Appellant pointed his gun at Mr. Gore and told him not
to say anything, and Mr. Lester corroborated Mr. Gore’s testimony when Mr.
Lester testified Appellant warned Mr. Gore, “You better not say nothing”).
The record supports the trial court’s decision on issue one. Therefore, we
see no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, as to Appellant’s first issue, we
affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
In his second issue, Appellant argues his separate sentence for the
predicate offense of robbery is impermissible because robbery merges with
second-degree murder for sentencing purposes. Appellant maintains a
separate sentence for robbery following a conviction for second-degree
murder violates double jeopardy. Appellant concludes this Court should
vacate his sentence for robbery. We agree.
“A claim that crimes should have merged for sentencing purposes
raises a challenge to the legality of the sentence. Therefore, our standard of
review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v.
Quintua, 56 A.3d 399, 400 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied, 620 Pa. 730,
70 A.3d 810 (2013). “A challenge to the legality of the sentence may be
raised as a matter of right, is non-waivable, and may be entertained so long
as the reviewing court has jurisdiction.” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 931
A.2d 15, 19-20 (Pa.Super. 2007) (en banc). Whether offenses merge at
-4-
J-S30008-15
sentencing implicates Section 9765 of the Sentencing Code, which 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 (emphasis added). In light of our Supreme Court’s
decision in Commonwealth v. Tarver, 493 Pa. 320, 426 A.2d 569 (1981),
a sentencing court has no authority to impose a sentence for felony murder
as well as a sentence for the predicate offense. See also Commonwealth
v. Gillespie, 512 Pa. 349, 516 A.2d 1180 (1986) (restating principle that
imposition of separate sentence for underlying felony in felony murder
conviction violates Double Jeopardy clause); Commonwealth v. Garnett,
485 A.2d 821 (Pa.Super. 1984) (explaining court erred by imposing twenty
to forty years’ imprisonment on convictions for burglary, arson, and related
offenses, in addition to concurrent terms of life imprisonment imposed for
convictions on two counts of second degree murder, where burglary and
arson convictions were constituent offenses of felony murders);
Commonwealth v. Fortune, 451 A.2d 729 (Pa.Super. 1982) (holding
felony murder and predicate offense merge for sentencing purposes).
“When a defendant challenges one of several interdependent
sentences, he, in effect, challenges the entire sentencing plan.”
Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 512 Pa. 587, 593, 517 A.2d 1280, 1283
-5-
J-S30008-15
(1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 950, 107 S. Ct. 1613, 94 L. Ed. 2d 798 (1987)
(citation omitted). “Where we determine that a sentence must be corrected,
this Court has the option of amending the sentence directly or remanding it
to the trial court for resentencing. If a correction by this Court may upset
the sentencing scheme envisioned by the trial court, the better practice is to
remand.” Commonwealth v. Dobbs, 682 A.2d 388, 392 (Pa.Super. 1996).
This Court has also held that when the sentences, “run concurrently, we
need not remand for resentencing. Instead this Court merely vacates
appellant’s sentence….” Commonwealth v. Vazquez, 476 A.2d 466, 469
(Pa.Super. 1984). See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Turner, 434 A.2d 827
(Pa.Super. 1981) (holding no need to remand for resentencing when
sentences are imposed concurrently); Commonwealth v. Eberts, 422 A.2d
1154 (Pa.Super. 1980) (holding same).
Instantly, the court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment for his
second-degree murder conviction as well as a concurrent five (5) to ten (10)
years’ imprisonment for the underlying robbery conviction. The court had no
authority to impose a separate sentence for the robbery conviction, where
the robbery constituted the predicate felony for Appellant’s felony murder
conviction. See Tarver, supra. The Commonwealth concedes we have a
basis to grant relief on Appellant’s second issue. Therefore, we vacate
Appellant’s judgment of sentence for robbery. See Vazquez, supra.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions, vacate the separate sentence for
-6-
J-S30008-15
robbery, and affirm the judgment of sentence in all other respects.
Judgment of sentence affirmed in part and vacated in part.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/23/2015
-7-
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TRIAL DIVISION - CRIMINAL SECTION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CP-51-CR-0004554-2010
vs. CP.S1-CR·0D04554.2010 Co
Opinionmm. v. Kelsey,Joseph
SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 2083 EDA 2014
JOSEPH KELSEY
IIIII /IIIII /Ill IIl//lIIll
7220337131
FILEDPINION
NOV O 7 2014
--...:
GEROFF,J. Criminal Appeals Unit NOVEMBER 7, 2014
First Judicial District of PA
On February 25, 2014, after a jury trial, Defendant, Joseph Kelsey, was found guilty of
murder of the second degree, robbery, conspiracy, carrying a firearm without a license, carrying
a firearm on the public streets, possessing an instrument of crime, and intimidation of a witness.
(N.T. 02/25/2014, p. 149). For the conviction of murder of the second degree, defendant was
sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. A concurrent sentence of five (5) to ten (10)
years of imprisonment was imposed on the conviction of robbery and a concurrent term of five
(5) to ten (10) years of imprisonment was imposed on the conviction of criminal conspiracy. A
concurrent sentence of two and half (2.5) to five (5) years of imprisonment was imposed for
carrying a firearm without a license. A consecutive sentence of five (5) to ten (10) years of
imprisonment was imposed on the conviction of intimidation of a witness. No further penalty
was imposed on the convictions of carrying a firearm on the public streets and possessing an
instrument of crime.
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
The Issues:
Defendant Kelsey has raised the following issues verbatim on appeal:
• The defendant is entitled to an arrest of judgment with respect to his convictions for
murder of the second degree, criminal conspiracy, robbery, carrying a firearm without
a license, carrying a firearm on the street or public property in Philadelphia,
possessing instruments of crime and intimidation of a witness since the evidence is
insufficient to sustain the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (N.T.
2/25/2014 p. 144-146). The Commonwealth's evidence failed to establish that the
defendant was responsible for the death of the victim, that the defendant robbed or
attempted to rob the victim, that the defendant possessed or used a weapon or
instrument of crime, that the defendant entered into a conspiracy to rob or kill the
victim, that the defendant was an accomplice to the robbery or killing of the victim or
that the defendant intimidated a witness or a was a co-conspirator or accomplice to an
1
intimidation.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 19, 2010, Defendant Joseph Kelsey was arrested at the North American
Motor Inn at 4444 City Line Avenue. (N.T. 02/24/2014, p. 41). Shortly afterwards, he was
charged with one count of aggravated assault, two counts of conspiracy, one count of
intimidation of a witness, one count of terroristic threats, one count of simple assault, one count
of murder, one count of robbery, one count of burglary, one count of firearms not to be carried
without a license, one count of carrying firearms on the public streets, one count of possessing an
I
See Def.' s Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal
2
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
instrument of crime, and one count of recklessly endangering another person for events which
occurred at or near 5530 Willows Avenue in the City and County of Philadelphia.
On April 13, 2010, a Preliminary Hearing was held for Defendant Kelsey and his alleged
co-conspirator, Malik Woods. On February 25, 2014, the jury returned its verdict. On March 5,
2014, sentence was imposed. Defendant's post-sentence motion was denied pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 720.B (3) on July 8, 2014. Defendant filed his Notice
of Appeal on July 28, 2014. A Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant
to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) was ordered on July 30, 2014. Defendant filed the Statement on July 31,
2014.
The Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, seeking an arrest of judgment.'
THE EVIDENCE
Elizabeth Duval
Elizabeth Duval, the mother of the decedent, became aware of his death on December 12,
2009. (N.T. 02/20/2014, p. 57). She last saw her son the day before he was killed. Id.
Dr. Sam Gulino
Dr. Sam Gulino, the chief medical examiner for the City of Philadelphia, testified that he
performed an autopsy on the body of William Duval. (N.T. 02/20/14, p. 65). According to Dr.
Gulino, Duval sustained two gunshot wounds. One of the gunshot wounds was to the front left
aspect of Duval's neck; the other was to Duval's right wrist. Id. at 67. The x-rays of Duval's
body showed that bullets were still present in the body associated with those two gunshot
3
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
wounds. Dr. Gulino also found several scrapes on the body, specifically on the right side of the
forehead, on the front of the chest, on the right forearm, and on the left leg. According to Dr.
Gulino, the scrapes were recent; they showed no sign of healing or scabbing, so they must have
had occurred within 24 hours or so before death. Id
Dr. Gulino set forth in detail for the jury's benefit the nature of the wounds sustained by
the decedent and concluded that the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the neck and that the
manner of death was homicide. (N.T. 02/20/2014, pp. 64-74). He did not observe soot or stipple
on the wounds or on the victim's clothing and concluded that the range of fire was at least two to
three feet from the victim. Id at 72-79.
Lamont Lester
Lamont Lester testified that on December 12, 2009, he was at the residence of Robin
Gore located at 5530 Willows Avenue in Philadelphia. Id. at 83. He and Gore were sitting
together in the basement drinking beer, and they began watching a movie. Id After a while, the
victim, William Duval, whom Lester referred to as "Bill," came and joined them in the
basement. Bill received a phone call and went outside for a minute. Id at 81-84. Mr. Duval
returned with two other males, both of whom were flashing their guns. Id. at 83, 101. An
argument then broke out between Duval and one of the armed males, whom Lester identified as
Joseph Kelsey. Id. at 84. Lester described the other male who returned with Duval as a little
light-skinned guy who was young and short. Id. at 89-90, 98. Lester described him as younger
and lighter-skinned than Kelsey. Id. at 89-90. The light-skinned male began waving his gun
around at both Lester and at Robin Gore as soon as he walked in the door Id. at 90, 101.
4
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
The argument between Duval and Kelsey concerned marijuana; Kelsey said to Duval, "I
thought you had it." Id. at 85. According to Lester, they were arguing over some weed. Id
After Kelsey uttered those words, Kelsey and Duval began "tussling." Id. 85. In court, Lester
described the tussling between Duval and Kelsey by waving his arms in front of his body. Id at
86. The two were fighting; then Kelsey raised his arm, put his gun about four feet away from
Duval's face, and fired the gun. Id. at 85. Bill then fell to the ground. Id. at 87. Lester recalls
hearing only one gunshot. Id.
When the gun was fired, Lester got up against the wall and crouched down on the floor.
Id. at 97. Kelsey pointed his gun at Robin Gore, telling him, "You better not say nothing." Id. at
87. Kelsey and the light-skinned male ran out the door. Id. Afterwards, Lester went home,
where he was met by detectives. Id at 88. When Lester made his written statement to
detectives, a detective then showed him a photo array. Id. at 92. In the photo array, he identified
Robin Gore and Joseph Kelsey. Id. at 92-93. At no point during the photo array did he ever
identify Malik Woods. Id. at 98. He was also shown another photo array containing a picture of
Malik Woods, but did not identify Woods. Id at 98-99.
In his statement to detectives, Lester said that as soon as they soon as they came in, one
of the guys said, "I thought you said you had it," and then struck the decedent on the side of the
head with a chrome-plated gun with a black handle. Id. at 105. (Ex. C-3, p. 2). The other male
individual accompanying Lester then ran out the door. However, at trial, Lester said that he did
not previously say that he saw the decedent being struck in the head with a gun. (N.T. 02/20/14,
p. 96).
5
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
Detective James Crone
Detective James Crone testified that he went out to the crime scene at 5530 Willows
Avenue, where he gathered evidence. Id at 111. When he arrived, he observed the body of the
decedent. According to Detective Crone, the victim's body was in the basement level lying on
his back. Id. at 112. The victim's body was resting parallel to the stairs leading to the basement.
He observed the decedent to be dead, and observed the gunshot wound to the decedent's upper
left-hand side of the neck. Id. Detective Crone did not see any indication that the body had been
moved; nor did he see any streaks or trails of blood around the body. Id. at 113.
Detective Crone searched the area for ballistic evidence, but found none. Id. He
observed an entry wound, but no corresponding exit wound, all of which was consistent with the
bullet or projectile still being located inside the victim's body. Id at 114. Detective Crone
testified that he searched the basement for strike marks, but found none. Id at 114. However,
Detective Crone did find other evidence at the scene of the crime. He found several beer bottles
located within the proximity of the victim. Id. at 115. On a chair next to the decedent, he found
a jacket with an arm inside out. On the jacket was dirt which was consistent with the dirt on the
bare concrete floor. Id In the jacket were credentials which were discovered to be those of the
victim. Detective Crone also found a cellular phone, which was located approximately six feet
from the victim's body. Id Marijuana was found underneath the entertainment system in the
basement, a circumstance which Detective stated would explain the strong odor of marijuana
inside of the basement. Id. The detective found a box contained what he believed to be
marijuana residue in the rear driveway area. Id at 116. He observed blood splatter on both the
east and west walls of the basement, approximately S to 6 feet above the ground.
6
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
Detective Crone testified that he obtained search warrants for 5530 Willows Avenue and
5524 Florence Avenue (the Kelsey residence). Id. at 121, 123. Detective Crone testified he
participated in a search of both properties. Id. Detective Crone recovered various pieces of
paperwork at 5524 Florence Avenue.
Robin Gore
Robin Gore testified that he had known William Duval almost his entire life, for over 30
years. Id. at 51. Gore testified that in 2009, he was living at 5530 Willows Avenue. Id. Gore
then identified the parties to the incident by pointing out Derrick Kelsey and Malik Woods. Id.
at 52. Gore stated that Kelsey is his friend and that Woods was with Kelsey when the incident
took place. Id.
According to Gore, he had known Kelsey for 15 years, and had worked at the restaurant
owned by Kelsey's parents. Id Gore also partnered with Kelsey in a metal-removal business.
Id.
Gore stated he did not know Malik Woods, but acknowledged that he had seen Malik
Woods on occasions prior to the night William Duval was murdered. Id. 52-53. Gore stated that
Woods would sometimes accompany Kelsey when Kelsey would come over to Gore's house. Id
at 53. According to Gore, the decedent was a seller of marijuana and that on the night of the
murder, he was selling marijuana in the driveway behind 5530 Willows Avenue. Id. at 55.
Gore testified that on the night of the murder, he had just gotten off work and went home.
He went to the basement, and was sitting there with Bill Duval and Lamont Lester. According to
Gore, they were about to watch a movie. Gore's ex-girlfriend, Sharita Mason, and her two
children were also at the residence of 5530 Willows Avenue at the time, but they were upstairs.
Id at 54.
7
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
Gore was asked when he first encountered either of the defendants on the night of the
murder, and he replied that he encountered Kelsey after he had gotten off work, between 5 and 6
in the evening. Id at 56. Kelsey called Gore about purchasing marijuana, and Kelsey then came
over to 5530 Willows Avenue to buy marijuana from the decedent. Id. at 57. Kelsey went down
to the basement, where he apparently made the purchase. Id. at 57. Kelsey then left. A short
time later, Kelsey called Gore and asked to see the decedent again. Id. at 58. During this phone
call, Kelsey indicated that he wanted to return to make another transaction. Kelsey also
indicated that something was short with his last purchase. Id. at 83-84. Gore told Kelsey that the
decedent was still there, and Kelsey returned. Id at 58.
When Kelsey returned, he and the decedent went outside. They came back, walking
inside through the driveway door. Id. at 59. At this point, Gore recalls seeing only Kelsey and
the decedent; he did not see Woods until later on. Id. When Kelsey and the decedent entered the
house, the decedent began taking off his jacket, but almost immediately - before he could even
finish taking his jacket off - Kelsey pulled out a gun and aimed it at him. Gore recalled that there
was a ten-second pause. Id. at 59. The decedent then began spinning his jacket in an effort to
defend himself and keep the gun out of his face. Id at 60, 95. The gun was fired, and the
decedent fell to the ground. Id. at 60, 96. At the preliminary hearing, Gore had testified that the
gun pointed at the decedent's throat when the shot was fired. N.T. at Bill's throat from under
the jacket when the gun went off. (N.T. 04/13/10, p. 33). At the preliminary hearing, Gore
acknowledged that the gunshot sounded muffled. Id. at 33.
After hearing the first shot and seeing the decedent fall to the ground, Gore saw a second
shot from a louder and more powerful gun breeze by him, and noticed Woods in the room
holding a gun (N.T. 02/21/14, pp. 60, 64, 90). Gore was surprised to see Woods standing there.
8
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
Id. at 60, 90. Gore believed that the the second shot came from a revolver because of the
powerful way the gunfire came out of the gun. Id at 64. Gore identified Kelsey's gun as an
automatic, because it did not have a tumbler. Id. at 65. Gore said that Woods' gun did not have
a tumbler either and appeared to be a semiautomatic. Id.
After both shots had been fired, Kelsey pointed his gun at Gore's face and told him not to
say anything about what had just happened. Id. at 61, 95. Kelsey went into the decedent's
pocket(s), probably to take marijuana. Id. at 61, 92, 107. (Gore could not recall whether Kelsey
went into one or both pockets). Id. at 107. According to Gore, the defendants left through the
driveway. Lamont Lester then exited the basement by walking up the steps. Id. at 66. Gore then
dialed 9-1-1, and the police arrived within 3 to 5 minutes. Id.
Gore gave detectives a written statement in which he identified Joseph Kelsey and Malik
Woods as the perpetrators of the crime. Id. at 76, (Ex. C-2). He signed his name at the bottom of
each page of the statement and to photos of all parties involved, including those of Malik Woods
and Joseph Kelsey. Id. at 77, (Ex. C-2). At the preliminary hearing, Gore identified Kelsey and
Woods as the perpetrators of the crimes. (N.T. 04/13/14, pp. 7-8, 21-24, 33). At trial, he
testified that he had no doubt that Joseph Kelsey and Malik Woods werethe individuals who
shot the decedent. (N.T. 02/21/14, p. 78).
Gore had told officers at the scene that the assailants were masked men. Id at 67. At
trial, Gore explained that he told this story because he loved his friend Derrick, and because he
feared for his life. Id. at 67-68. According to Gore, he later changed his mind and recanted his
story about the masked men because he wanted to tell the truth and because he was
uncomfortable with the "mask story." Id. at 76.
9
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
Stipulations
Officer Mark Marchetti
Officer Mark Marchetti would have testified that he and his partner responded to the
scene at 5530 Willows Avenue on December 12, 2009, at 5:56 p.m. (N.T. 02/24/14, p. 9).
Officer Marchetti would have testified that he and his partner transported Robin Gore from the
scene to the Homicide Division. Id
Officer Marchetti would have testified that Robin Gore told him and his partner that two
males wearing ski masks broke in through the back basement door, walked up to the victim and
shot him. Officer Marchetti would have testified that Gore then added that as the assailants
approached the victim, the victim threw a jacket at one of the males to block the gun and started
to wrestle with the males, and one of the assailants then shot the victim. Id
Officer David Girard
Had Officer David Girard been called to testify, he would have testified that he
responded to 5530 Willows Avenue on December 12, 2009. He also would have testified that
when he arrived, the first floor was dark but the second floor was lit. He would have testified
that he smelled a strong odor of marijuana inside the property. He would have testified that he
hollered down the basement stairs, but did not get a response; he then observed a black female
peek her head around the bottom of the stairs. He ordered the female to come up; she did,
accompanied by a male. Id at 11.
Officer William Hill
Officer William Hill would have testified that on December 12, 2009, he responded to
5530 Willows Avenue. When he responded, he encountered Robert Gore and Sharita Mason.
He observed the body of the decedent in the basement floor. He observed marijuana in the
10
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
basement and cocaine on the dining room table. When asked about what happened, Robin Gore
told Officer Hill that two males attacked the decedent in the driveway and that he, Robin Gore,
then exited the house, found the decedent bleeding, and dragged him into the house. Id. at 10.
Officer Raymond Andreiczak
Officer Raymond Andrejczak testified as an expert in the field of firearms identification
and ballistics. Officer Andrejczak concluded with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that
both of the bullets found in the body of the decedent were fired from the same firearm, based on
the same microscopic markings on the bullets. Id. at 26, 30. In his opinion, the bullets came
from the .38/.9 mm family of bullets. That family also includes .357 magnum bullets that would
have been fired from a .357 magnum revolver. Id. at 27-28. He also concluded that the bullets
were fired from a revolver, as the bullets are consistent with revolver bullets. Id. at 29-30.
Detective John Rossiter
Detective John Rossiter testified that on January 19, 2010, he arrested Kelsey at the North
American Motor Inn on City Line Avenue. (N.T. 02/24/2014, p. 39-41). Defendant Kelsey was
arrested at that time. Id. at 41. He also testified that on December 16, 2009, Defendant Woods
was arrested at Southwest Detectives. Id 39-40.
Sergeant Kenneth Flaville
Sergeant Kenneth Flaville testified that on December 16, 2009, he encountered Malik
Woods, who came to Southwest Detectives on 5510 Pine Street asking for Detective Lucke. Id.
at 44. Sergeant Flaville and Detective Kerwin (first name not stated) brought him inside
Southwest Detectives and contacted Detective Lucke. Upon learning that he was wanted for a
homicide, they transported Woods to Homicide Headquarters. Id at 45. Sergeant Flaville also
11
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
testified that while transporting Malik Woods to the Homicide Division, Woods told Flaville that
he was present for the homicide, but that it does not mean that he saw anything. Id. at 46.
Detective Thorsten Lucke
Detective Thorsten Lucke testified that he interviewed Robin Gore on the evening of the
incident. Detective Lucke testified that Gore initially told him that he could not identify the
perpetrators of the incident because they were wearing masks. Id at 52. During their first
encounter, Gore was very scared and nervous. He also described the person who was killed as a
very good friend of his, a long-time friend. Eventually, Gore was able and willing to identify the
people whom he had witnessed shoot the decedent. Id. at 53-54.
Detective Lucke also testified that in January of 2010, Detective Lucke spoke to
Defendant Kelsey on the day of his arrest. Id. at 68. The Defendant was in one of the interview
rooms. Detective Lucke entered the room, introduced himself, and explained to the Defendant
the facts alleged against him. Detective Lucke also advised the Defendant of his rights and gave
him the opportunity to give a statement. Id. at 68. Defendant decided to give a statement. Id at
68. Detective Lucke issued Miranda warnings to Defendant Kelsey prior to taking the statement.
Id at 68, 70-71. (Cmwlth. Ex. C-1). The Defendant signed the Miranda warnings. According to
Detective Lucke, after the interview was completed, the Defendant was given all five pages of
the interview to review and make any changes. Id at 75. The Defendant then added a phone
number for his next of kin or contact person. Id.
Defendant Kelsey was asked what had happened at 5530 Willows Avenue on December
12, 2009. He stated that he had gone there to buy some weed from the decedent, to whom he
referred as "Dollar." Id. at 78. He purchased an ounce of weed for one hundred dollars. Id. at 79.
When asked if anyone had accompanied him when he had bought the marijuana, Defendant
12
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
answered that he had been with "another guy." At no point during the interview did the
Defendant identify this individual. Defendant was also asked how he first got in touch Dollar to
make the transaction. Kelsey answered that he was not sure if Rob had called him, or if he had
called Rob. Id.
After buying the weed, he went home and measured it. Id at 79. Once he measured it,
he realized that he had been shorted a few grams. Id at 78. Defendant then called back and
talked to Rob. He asked ifhe and Dollar had a scale. Rob told him that they did not have a scale
and that Dollar was not there. Id at 78. Kelsey called again, and Rob told him that Dollar was
there. Id. After about twenty minutes had passed from the time he first bought the marijuana,
Defendant returned to Rob's house on Willows Avenue. Id at 79. When asked if the other guy
was with him when he returned, Defendant answered, "Yes." Id. at 79. He told Detective Lucke,
"I came there to get my money back or to be straightened out." Id. at 83. According to the
Defendant, Dollar owed him about 35 to 40 dollars for having shorted him on the purchase. Id
When the Defendant returned to Willows Avenue, he was coming down the alley and
saw Dollar outside in the alley. Id. at 80. Defendant went inside the house with Dollar, Rob, and
the other guy. Id. They went into the basement. Dollar was on the phone, but once he hung up,
Defendant told him that what he had gotten from him was short. Id. Dollar told the Defendant
not to worry about it. "Fuck that, I want mine," Kelsey answered. Id. Dollar then stood up from
his chair and took his jacket off. Defendant then stepped back and pulled out his gun. Dollar
stepped toward him, and they began tussling. Id. The other guy was behind him when he and
Dollar began tussling. Id. at 81.
13
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
In order to demonstrate the tussling, Defendant stood up, faced Detective Lucke, put his
left hand on Detective Lucke's shirt collar on the right side of his neck, and had Detective Lucke
grab his right hand with his left hand. Id.
According to the Defendant, they were tussling in that manner for a few seconds, when
he heard a gunshot and saw the decedent stumble a little bit and fall backwards. Id. at 81. When
the decedent went down, the Defendant saw blood coming from his neck. Defendant then turned
around and saw the other guy standing there with a gun raised in his hand. Id. at 81. At this point
in the interview, in order to depict the other guy, Defendant raised and extended his right arm
straight ahead.
The Defendant bent down and took money from the decedent's pocket. Id. 81. He said
that he took a little over a hundred dollars. He was not sure from which pocket he took the
money. Id. When Defendant left, the other guy had already left. Id. at 81.
When Detective Lucke asked him how many gunshots he heard, Defendant replied,
"One." Id. Defendant described the gun as a revolver. Id. at 82. He did not know what caliber
the gun was. According to Defendant, he himself was carrying a nine millimeter, but he never
fired it during the incident. After the incident, Defendant threw away his gun in a trash can at
54th and Willows Avenue. Id.
Defendant was asked who was present in the basement with him beside Dollar and the
other guy. He responded that the other individuals present were Rob and another person, whose
name he did not know. Id. Dollar was sitting in front of the Defendant, the other guy was
behind the Defendant, and Rob and some other guy were over to Defendant's left. Id. at 83.
Defendant was asked where he went after the incident took place. "All over," he replied.
Id. at 83. He was asked if he went home to Wilton Street. "No," he replied. He was asked
14
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
which way the other guy went. "He went towards 56th Street," he said. "I don't know where he
went from there," he added. "I haven't seen him since."
The Defendant was then asked if there was anything he would like to add to the
interview. Id. at 84. In response, Kelsey explained that he suffered an injury to his left hand
during the tussle. According to the Defendant, a bullet from the shooter's gun must have grazed
his left hand before it struck the decedent. Id. at 84. Kelsey showed and described a quarter-
inch long scar on his left hand just to the left of the knuckle of his middle finger. Kelsey did not
seek medical attention for the injury and he did not realize that he was hit until sometime after he
left the house. Id. The interview then concluded. Defendant was then given the opportunity to
review the interview to make changes. He also signed a Statement of Adoption Attestation and a
statement of non-consent to a videotape and audiotape recording of the interview. Id. at 85.
THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE DEFENDANT OF HIS
CRIMES.
In passing upon a motion in arrest of judgment, the sufficiency of the evidence must be
evaluated upon the entire trial record; all evidence must be read in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, which is entitled to all reasonable inferences arising therefrom; the effect of
such a motion is to admit all facts which the Commonwealth's evidence tends to prove.
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 428 Pa. Super. 494; 631 A.2d 639 (1993) citing Commonwealth v.
Blevins, 453 Pa. 481, 483 309 A.2d 421, 422 (1973). See also, Commonwealth v Meadows, 471
Pa. 201, 369 A.2d 1266 (1977). This court 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
15
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
charged was established beyond reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Randall, 758 A.2d 669,
674 (Pa.Super.2000).
Defendant Kelsey contends that there is insufficient evidence to establish beyond
reasonable doubt his guilt for each of the crimes for which he stands convicted. He argues that
he is, therefore, entitled to an arrest of judgment. Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to
commit robbery. To be convicted of conspiracy, a person must have agreed with one or more
persons to commit a crime; he must have intended to commit the crime; and one or more of them
must have committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903.
Defendant was convicted ofrobbery. A person is guilty ofrobbery if, in the course of
committing a theft, he inflicts serious bodily injury upon another. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701.
Defendant was convicted of second degree murder. A criminal homicide constitutes murder of
the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an
accomplice in the perpetration of a felony. Defendant also challenges his convictions of
intimidation of a witness, carrying a firearm on the public streets, possessing an instrument of
crime, and carrying a firearm without a license.
The court finds the Defendant's arguments to be meritless. For each of the crimes for
which he stands convicted, the evidence against Defendant Kelsey was overwhelming.
Defendant Kelsey admitted that there was a dispute over marijuana; that he returned to the house
with a companion to resolve the dispute; that he was armed and present for the shooting of the
victim; and that immediately before the victim was shot, he said "Fuck that, I want mine," and
then pulled out his gun. (N.T. 02/24/2014, p. 79-83). He stated that his companion then shot the
victim, who then fell to the ground. Id. at 81. Lamont Lester testified that Kelsey and the
lighter-skinned individual accompanying him entered the basement armed, with their guns
16
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
flashing, and that after an argument began between the decedent and Kelsey over marijuana,
Kelsey pointed his gun toward the decedent's face and then fired his gun. (N.T. 02/20/2014, p.
83, 85-87, 101). Gore testified there had been a dispute over marijuana and that Kelsey pulled
out his gun, aimed it at Bill, and then shot him. (N.T. 02/21/2014, p. 59-60, 83-84). Kelsey, in
his interview, admitted he then took money out of the decedent's pockets. (N.T. 02/24/2014, p.
81). Gore also testified that Kelsey went into the decedent's pockets after the shooting. (N.T.
02/21/2014, p. 61, 92, 107). Both Gore and Lester testified that both defendants left at
approximately the same time. Id. at 66, (N.T. 02/20/2014, p. 87). Though Gore and Lester
testified that Kelsey shot the victim, while according to Kelsey's statement, only Kelsey's
companion shot the victim, under either scenario there is sufficient evidence to convict Kelsey of
his crimes.
The only significant difference between Kelsey's statement and the testimony of Gore
and Lester is that Gore and Lester claimed that Kelsey shot the victim, while according to
Kelsey's statement, the only shot fired was fired by "the other guy" who was accompanying him.
(N.T. 02/24/2014, p. 81-82). In either scenario, the evidence is sufficient to find Kelsey guilty of
second-degree murder. Kelsey conspired with his companion to rob the victim, and is, therefore,
guilty of any acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy by his co-conspirator. There is sufficient
evidence to convict Kelsey of conspiracy; the jury could have concluded beyond reasonable
doubt that Kelsey and his companion entered into and carried out an agreement to rob the victim
after learning that the victim had shorted Kelsey on the marijuana purchase. The evidence is also
sufficient to find Kelsey guilty of robbery. Kelsey admitted in his statement to taking a little
over a hundred dollars from the victim's pockets after he had been shot and had fallen to the
17
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
ground. Id. at 81. Gore also stated that Kelsey went into the victim's pockets after the victim
had been shot. (N.T. 02/21/2014, p. 61, 92, 107).
At trial, counsel suggested that Gore was not a credible witness. Although on the
evening of the incident Gore initially told Detective Lucke that the perpetrators were two men in
ski masks (N.T. 02/24/2014, p. 52), Gore's explanation for fabricating his original story is
persuasive. According to Detective Lucke, Gore was visibly shaken by what had just transpired.
Id. at 53. Detective Lucke described him as being very scared and nervous. Id Gore also
described to Detective Lucke the person who had been killed as a very good friend of his, a long-
time friend. Id. At trial, Gore explained that initially he had told police the story about the
masked men because he was afraid for his life. (N.T. 02/21/2014, p. 67). At trial, Gore also
suggested that he did not initially tell the truth about what had happened because Kelsey was a
close friend of his. Id. at 67-68. This court finds Gore's explanation for the differing stories he
told police to be persuasive. Gore was visibly shaken by what had happened, and he was afraid
for his own life. Both Kelsey and the victim were friends of his, and Gore had just witnessed a
violent murder. It was, therefore, expectable that initially Gore was not completely forthcoming
about what had actually happened.
Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of possessing an
instrument of crime. To find a defendant guilty of possessing an instrument of crime, the jury
must find that each of the following three elements have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
18 Pa.C.S.A § 907. First, that the defendant possessed an item; second, that the item was an
instrument of crime; and third, that the defendant possessed the item with the intent to employ it
criminally. Id. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that
all three elements were satisfied and that the defendant possessed an instrument of crime. Kelsey
18
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
admitted that he and his companion traveled back to 5530 Willows Avenue after being shorted
on the previous marijuana purchase. (N.T. 02/24/2014, p. 79). Kelsey stated that his goal in
traveling back to 5530 Willows A venue was to "straighten out" the dispute over the marijuana.
Id. at 83. When Kelsey and his companion arrived, a fight ensued between Kelsey and the
decedent and that Kelsey stated, "Fuck that. I want mine." Id. at 80. Kelsey said that he then
pulled out his gun and that his companion shot the victim. Id at 80-81. There was more than
enough evidence for the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that Defendant Kelsey was guilty
of possessing an instrument of crime.
The Defendant also argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of carrying
a firearm without a license. To find the defendant guilty of carrying a firearm without a license,
the jury must find that three elements have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 6106. First, that the defendant carried a firearm concealed on or about his person; second, that
the defendant was not in his home or place of business; and third, that the defendant did not have
a valid and lawfully issued license for carrying the firearm. Id. There was sufficient evidence
for a jury to find all three elements. Kelsey himself admitted to pulling out his gun at 5530
Willows A venue after arriving there with his companion; obviously he must have carried the
firearm concealed on or about his person on his way to that address. Second, 5530 Willows
A venue was not Kelsey's home or place of business. Third, Kelsey did not have a lawfully
issued license for carrying his firearm. (N.T. 02/24/2014, p. 94), (Cmwlth. Ex. C-39).
Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of carrying a firearm
on the public streets. To find the defendant guilty of carrying a firearm on the public streets, the
jury must find that each of the following elements has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 6108. First, that the defendant carried a firearm on the public streets of Philadelphia,
19
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
and second, that the defendant did not have a valid and lawfully issued license to carry the
firearm. Id. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find both elements.
Defendant Kelsey that argues there was insufficient evidence to convict him of
intimidation of a witness. To convict a defendant of intimidation of a witness, three elements
must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. First, that the defendant intimidated or attempted to
intimidate a witness into refraining from reporting to a law enforcement officer information
relating to the commission of a crime; second, that this action was undertaken with the intent to
obstruct, impede, or interfere with the administration of criminal justice; and third, that the case
in which the perpetrator sought to intimidate the witness involved a charge of first-degree murder
or second-degree murder or involved a felony of the first degree. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4952. There
was sufficient evidence to prove each element beyond reasonable doubt. According to Gore's
testimony at trial, once Defendant Kelsey had shot the victim, he pointed his gun at Gore and
told him not to say anything. (N.T. 02/21/2014, p. 61). Gore's testimony was also corroborated
by Lamont Lester, who testified at trial that after Kelsey shot the victim, Defendant Kelsey
pointed his gun at Gore and warned him, "You better not say nothing." (N.T. 02/20/2014, p. 87).
20
Circulated 06/03/2015 11:53 AM
CONCLUSION
The arguments made by defendant lack merit. For the reasons set forth above,
Defendant's judgment of sentence should be affirmed.
BY THE COURT:
STEVEN R. GEROFF, J.
21