Com. v. Williams, D. ( 2015 )

J-S47012-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DEONTA OLANDA WILLIAMS,
Appellant No. 170 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered September 3, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-28-CR-0001411-2013
BEFORE: ALLEN, OTT and STRASSBURGER*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED JULY 29, 2015
Deonta Olanda Williams (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of
sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of robbery, conspiracy to
commit robbery, and theft.1 We affirm.
The trial court recounted the factual background as follows:
[Appellant’s] charges arose out of events that transpired
on April 13, 2014, at the Sunoco gas station in Greencastle,
Pennsylvania. The victims, Michele Meadows and Alice Watkins,
were working together at the Sunoco gas station as clerks at or
around 9:15 or 9:30. At that time, three men entered the store,
two of which had bandanas over their faces. The first man,
[Appellant], jumped over the counter and pointed a gun at the
victims. Various witnesses testified at trial that the gun was
actually a BB gun. [Appellant] then threatened to kill the clerks
if they did not open the safe. While this was occurring, the
second suspect, John Zawierucha, walked around the counter
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3701, 903, and 3921.
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S47012-15
and began putting money and Newport cigarettes inside a pink
and gray duffel bag. The third suspect, Trevon Walker, then
took the clerks to another part of the store and told them to
relax and that everything would be over shortly. The three
suspects eventually fled with the cash and cigarettes. The
victims subsequently called the police to report the robbery.
Follow[ing] their departure from the gas station, the three
suspects were picked up by two young women in a black Honda
Civic. The two young women were later identified as Tiffani
Robey and Brittany Johnson. The black Honda Civic was initially
followed by two witnesses, Richard Rhodes and Lori Harbaugh,
who testified they had earlier noticed the two young women
parked in a suspicious location in relation to the Sunoco gas
station. (N.T. 8/4/2014 p. 107). Mr. Rhodes testified that upon
seeing the three male suspects running towards the car, one
with a duffel bag in hand, he suspected a potential robbery and
followed the suspects at a high rate of speed. Id. at 88.
Although the suspects eventually lost Mr. Rhodes and Ms.
Harbaugh, they were able to get a tag number of the black
Honda Civic and conveyed it to police. Id. at 89.
Trooper Paul Decker testified that he assisted Trooper
Dave Rush in investigating this incident and met with Mr. Rhodes
and administered him a photo lineup. Id. at 111-112. Mr.
Rhodes was able to identify one of the two females in the car,
Tiffani Robey. Id. at 115. Tiffani Robey and Brittany Johnson
were later arrested and spoke with police a total of three (3)
times. Both women testified at trial that they fabricated an
original story implicating three other men, names they both
made up. (N.T. 8/5/2014 p. at 20, 47-48). None of the names
provided was that of the [Appellant], John Zawierucha, or
Trevon Walker. Eventually, both women testified they decided
to accept responsibility and as a result turned the real culprits in.
Id. at 20, 49. Both told police they had driven [Appellant], John
Zawierucha, and Trevon Walker to the Sunoco in order to
commit the robbery and then picked up the men and proceeded
to flee the scene. The women testified that they subsequently
drove to a Red Roof Inn in Germantown, Maryland, where the
five (5) individuals distributed the cash and cigarettes. Id. at
17, 46. Trevon Walker also testified at trial that [Appellant]
participated in the robbery and was the suspect identified as
carrying the BB gun. (N.T. 8/4/2014 p. 119-39).
-2-
J-S47012-15
[Appellant] attempted to offer an alibi defense at trial and
called Samantha Deneen, his girlfriend at the time of the
incident, as a witness. Ms. Deneen testified that on the night of
the robbery [Appellant] was with her at her home in
Hagerstown, Maryland, eating dinner and watching movies all
night. She testified that [Appellant] never left the residence.
Thus, the crux of [Appellant’s] alibi defense was that he could
not possibly have participated in the robbery because he was
nowhere near the Greencastle Sunoco gas station on the night in
question. Ultimately, the jury found this testimony unconvincing
and convicted him on the aforementioned counts.
Trial Court Opinion, 12/19/14, at 1-3.
On September 3, 2014, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 66 to
132 months for robbery and a consecutive 42 to 84 months for conspiracy;
the theft conviction merged.
Appellant filed a post-sentence motion on September 12, 2014, which
the trial court denied on December 19, 2014. Appellant appealed. Both
Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
On appeal, Appellant presents two issues as one:
1. [Appellant] hereby appeals to the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania, from the denial of post sentence motions, which
were entered in this matter on December 19, 2014, challenging
weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
Appellant’s Brief at 8.
In arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his
convictions, Appellant asserts that “the only evidence tying Appellant to the
incident are three co-defendants who had every reason to say what the
Commonwealth wanted because they were receiving incredibly lenient
sentences.” Appellant’s Brief at 10. Appellant contends that “there were no
-3-
J-S47012-15
other witnesses that could identify Appellant at the scene of the incident …
and no articles from the robbery were found on the Appellant when he was
taken into custody.” Id. Appellant states:
Here the fact that the co-defendants had inconsistent statement
[sic] even testified that they were doing what they needed to do
to get the benefits of their bargain makes their credibility
dubious at best. As their testimony was the only evidence
linking the Appellant to the scene and the Commonwealth not
being able to refute the alibi except for the testimony of the co-
defendants. [sic]
Appellant’s Brief at 15.
Appellant’s sufficiency argument is belied by the record. After
reviewing the notes of testimony, we have determined that The Honorable
Carol L. Van Horn, sitting as the trial court, has capably, comprehensively
and accurately addressed every facet of Appellant’s sufficiency argument,
such that further commentary by this Court would be redundant. See Trial
Court Opinion, 12/19/14, at 3 – 8. We therefore adopt the trial court’s
analysis as our own in disposing of this issue.
We are equally unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument regarding the
weight of the evidence. Appellant asserts:
The very nature of the testimony which the Appellant
avers was unbelievable on its face and therefore as a matter of
law, the conviction was so unreasonable that i[t] did in fact
shock the conscience. [sic]
Appellant’s Brief at 18. We disagree.
-4-
J-S47012-15
Again, the trial court properly applied the law, recognizing, inter alia,
that a verdict is against the weight of the evidence only where it is “so
contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice and make the
award of a new trial imperative.” Trial Court Opinion, 12/19/14, at 8, citing
Commonwealth v. Hudson, 955 A.2d 1031, 1035 (Pa. Super. 2008). The
trial court observed that “the jury’s credibility determinations were quite
understandable in this case.” Id. Our review of the notes of testimony once
again supports the trial court, which recognized the province of the jury as
fact-finder. Id. at 8-9. We may not re-weigh the testimony adduced at
trial. See Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 701 A.2d 492, 501 (Pa. 1997) (the
credibility of witnesses is “solely for the [fact finder] to determine”); see
also Commonwealth v. Dougherty, 860 A.2d 31, 36 (Pa. Super. 2004)
(citations omitted) (“This Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the
[fact finder] on issues of credibility.”). Moreover, “[i]t is the function of the
[fact finder] to evaluate evidence adduced at trial to reach a determination
as to the facts, and where the verdict is based on substantial, if conflicting
evidence, it is conclusive on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835
A.2d 720, 726 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). Given the foregoing, we
find no merit to Appellant’s weight claim.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-5-
J-S47012-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/29/2015
-6-