Com. v. Dixon, D. ( 2014 )

J-S48014-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee, :
:
v. :
:
DARRELL DUPREE DIXON, :
:
Appellant : No. 1093 MDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 23, 2013,
Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County,
Criminal Division at No. CP-54-CR-0001358-2012
BEFORE: DONOHUE, JENKINS and PLATT*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED AUGUST 01, 2014
y 23, 2013
judgment of sentence entered by the Schuylkill County Court of Common
Pleas. Upon finding the sole issue he raises for our review to be waived, we
dismiss the appeal.
The trial court provided the following summary of the facts of the
case:
Testimony at trial established that on August 23,
robbed by Juan Cooke. After threatening to shoot
the bank personnel, (Cooke does not appear to have
actually had a gun) he required them to fill two bags
with cash and ran out the front door. Cooke ran
across the street and through a passageway between
two houses immediately across the street from the
bank. That passageway led to an alley where
[Dixon] was waiting in a van. [Dixon] then drove
Cooke out of town and onto I-81 heading south.
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S48014-14
Russell Maurer, who lives across the street from the
bank, was returning home and on the deck at the
back of his house when he saw a silver-blue van
coming fast down the alley behind his house. It
stopped behind his neighbo
quickly backed up and pulled alongside the garage.
He then heard a noise between his and his
wearing a big heavy jacket and carrying a sack.
Because of the sack, Mr. Maurer assumed there had
been a bank robbery, and he immediately went to
the bank and reported what he had seen.
put out an alert for the van on I-81, and it was
quickly spotted heading south. Trooper Kyle Kutz
was the first to spot the vehicle. He pulled alongside
inside. He identified [Dixon] as the one driving the
van and observed that the passenger seat was
reclined and the passenger was attempting to hide
his face. Trooper Kutz dropped back behind the van,
which was traveling 60-65 mph, and called for
assistance.
They passed another trooper at the Dauphin
County/Lebanon County line, and Trooper Kutz then
activated his lights and siren at Exit 80. The van
slowed like it was going to stop on the off-ramp
where there were two or three cars ahead of it
waiting for a red light. Suddenly, the van went
around the stopped vehicles, across the road and
back onto I-81 south, accelerating quickly to over
110 mph.
With other state police cars now behind him, Trooper
Kutz chased the van for 5.5 miles through heavy
traffic, cutting in and out of lanes until the van
crashed while attempting to make a pass on the
when apprehended. More than $17,000 was
recovered from the van, including marked bait
-2-
J-S48014-14
money which the tellers had placed in the bags that
Cooke gave them.
After Dixon was medically cleared at the hospital
where he had been taken for treatment of some
injuries, Trooper Robin drove him to the Reedsville
barracks where he was given his Miranda rights and
interviewed by Troopers Robin and Walasavage.
They testified that Dixon gave them an oral
statement first and then was asked to put it in
writing, which he did. In his oral statement, Dixon
told them that Cooke had called him that morning
and offered to pay him $1,000 for a ride to Tremont
but did not say why. Dixon borrowed a van and
drove Cooke to Tremont. They passed the bank,
went around the block and back down the main
street where Dixon dropped off Cooke. Dixon drove
around to a back, dirt alley. Shortly thereafter,
Cooke came running across a lot and got into the
van. They left Tremont and went south on I-81
toward Harrisburg.
Dixon described an officer pulling alongside and
asking him to roll down the window. He complied.
He said he thought about stopping but did not, nor
did he stop when another police car got behind him
and their lights and sirens were activated.
Instead, he said he used his cell phone to call his
mother to let her know what was going on. He said
that he was trying to stop on the grass median when
he crashed.
His written statement, which was read in court by
one of the officers, was basically the same but with
less detail.
[Dixon] testified that Cooke called him around 8 a.m.
and asked for a ride and offered money for gas.
Cooke had a jacket over his arm when they met that
morning. He told Dixon to drive north on I-81 to the
Tremont exit.
-3-
J-S48014-14
According to Dixon, Cooke never told him why he
was going to Tremont. Once they got there, Cooke
told him to drive around the block and then drop him
off. He said that he could not find a place to park, so
he went behind the houses. Cooke then came
through an alleyway between two houses and got in
the van. He said that Cooke was not running and
was not carrying anything. Cooke directed how to
get back on I-81, and they headed south.
Dixon acknowledged that the police wanted him to
pull over, but he said that he had been stopped four
times in the last month due to profiling. He
acknowledged weaving in and out of traffic but
denied traveling at 110 mph. He claimed to have
been trying to pull over in the median when the
vehicle crashed. He further denied ever seeing any
money.
Trial Court Opinion, 7/22/13, at 5-8.
Following trial, the jury convicted Dixon of criminal conspiracy, robbery
threatening serious bodily injury, robbery of a financial institution, theft by
unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, and fleeing or attempting to elude
police.1 The trial court found him guilty of careless driving and reckless
driving.2
On May 23, 2013, the trial court sentenced Dixon to an aggregate
term of five to ten years of imprisonment, plus costs and fees. Dixon did not
file a post-sentence motion. He filed a timely notice of appeal on June 17,
2013, and thereafter complied with
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903(c), 3701(a)(1)(iii), (vi), 3921(a), 3925(a); 75
Pa.C.S.A. § 3733(a).
2
75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3714(a), 3736(a).
-4-
J-S48014-14
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
ficient
Dixon raises a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to convict
him. In his 1925(b) statement, however, the only issue Dixon raised that
comes reasonably close to
Statement, 7/15/13, at ¶ 5. Assuming that we are correct that he intended
for this issue to raise a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, it is
insufficient to preserve it for appeal. As this Court has previously held:
In order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of
statement must state with specificity the element or
elements upon which the appellant alleges that the
evidence was insufficient. Such specificity is of
particular importance in cases where, as here, the
appellant was convicted of multiple crimes each of
which contains numerous elements that the
Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa. Super. 2013) (internal
citations omitted). Failure to properly preserve a sufficiency claim results in
its waiver on appeal. Id.gument in his appellate brief
reveals that he does not include citations to any authority in support of his
-5-
J-S48014-14
sufficiency claim. Therefore, the issue is waived on that basis as well. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), (b); see also Commonwealth v. Kearney, 92 A.3d 51,
citation to pertinent authority results in waiver of the issue raised on
appeal).
appeal.
Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/1/2014
-6-