Com. v. Thomas, J. ( 2015 )

J-S14017-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JUWAHN THOMAS,
Appellant No. 1062 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of November 15, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007231-2010 and CP-51-CR-
0007264-2010
BEFORE: DONOHUE, OLSON AND MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MAY 06, 2015
Appellant, Juwahn Thomas, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on November 15, 2013, as made final by the denial of post-sentence
motions on March 17, 2014. We affirm.
The trial court summarized the factual history in this matter as follows:
After midnight on May 2, 2010, Kelly Rindone (Rindone) and her
boyfriend, Tyreece Bumpers (Bumpers), drove to Brian’s Sports
Bar in the Frankford neighborhood in Philadelphia, PA. The
couple was seated at the bar when an acquaintance named
Vonnie introduced them to her aunt, Janet. After Bumpers
finished his drink and the bartender informed the patrons that
the bar was about to close, “Aunt Janet” asked Rindone and
Bumpers for a ride home; the couple obliged.
With Rindone sitting in the front passenger seat, Bumpers drove
Aunt Janet to 4911 Penn Street. Immediately after the couple
dropped off Aunt Janet but before they drove away, Rindone’s
phone rang; the name “Bishop” appeared on her phone.
Rindone knew “Bishop” as a drug dealer with whom Bumpers
J-S14017-15
had engaged in drug-related business in the past. Prior to going
to jail in October 2009, Bumpers had sold drugs on the same
block where the couple had just dropped off Aunt Janet – the
4900 block of Penn Street. According to Rindone, “[Bumpers’s]
area – his area, I’m sorry, was 4900 Penn Street.” According to
Rindone, after spending roughly six months in prison from
October 2009 until March 2010, Bumpers returned to the streets
and resumed selling drugs: “He had his own clientele. When
people saw him out of jail, they would buy from him when they
saw him.”
Having noticed the name “Bishop” on Rindone’s phone, Bumpers
pulled the phone from Rindone’s hand. Bumpers picked up the
call and the two men began to argue; Rindone could hear that
they were arguing about money. Bumpers exited the car and
continued to talk on the phone. As Bumpers stood on the street
across from 4911 Penn Street, a “crack addict” walked towards
the front steps of 4911 Penn Street, where a man named Lonnie
was seated. “There was somebody that came up to Lonnie, and
I assumed it was going to be a drug exchange[.]” But before a
drug transaction occurred, Bumpers called out to the “crack
addict,” stating “Let me holler at you.” Rindone thought that
Bumpers summoned the “crack addict” away from Lonnie in an
attempt to learn “what he was buying and probably what the
other person had.” Rindone believed that Bumpers wanted to
know what kind of drugs were being sold, by whom, and at what
price.
The “crack addict” turned away from Lonnie and crossed the
street in Bumper’s direction. But before reaching Bumpers,
[Appellant] emerged from 4911 Penn Street, angered.
[According to Rindone:]
[Appellant] came out of the direction of Vonnie’s house and
he was walking over to the car, and he was loud and he was
yelling and there was words exchanged and he said, man—
I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I need a minute. And as he came
over to my car, my car was parked, the windows were
down.
[Bumpers], at this point, was back inside of the car.
[Appellant] was standing at the window. There was no
room. It was the car and the window and the window and
the window was down. I seen [sic] his face. I looked right
-2-
J-S14017-15
in his face. And [Bumpers] and [Appellant], they argued
and words were exchanged, “Don’t play with me, get the
f**k out of here.” And when the words were done being
exchanged, before I knew it, that man right there, he pulled
out a gun and he started shooting.
Rindone indicated that [Appellant] approached Bumpers, yelling
“Don’t play with me. Don’t play with me,” to which Bumpers
responded, “Get the f**k out of here.” [Appellant] replied, “I’ll
show you get the f**k out of here,” and then pulled out a gun
and fired repeatedly at a downward angle toward Bumpers,
striking him ten times. Bumpers suffered gunshot wounds to his
jaw, abdomen, torso, arms and hand; four of those gunshot
wounds were inflicted by bullets fired from close range—less
than two-and-a-half feet away.
Trial Court Opinion, 9/26/14, at 1-4 (record citations and footnotes omitted).
At the conclusion of trial on November 15, 2013, the jury found
Appellant guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and possession
of an instrument of crime (PIC).1 Immediately thereafter, the trial court
imposed a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment on Appellant. 2
Appellant filed post-sentence motions on November 19, 2013. On March 17,
2014, the trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motions. This timely
appeal followed.3
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 2702, and 907(a), respectively.
2
In addition, the court ordered Appellant to serve consecutive terms of nine
to 20 years’ imprisonment for his aggravated assault conviction and one to
five years for his PIC conviction.
3
Both the trial court and Appellant satisfied the requirements of Pa.R.A.P.
1925.
-3-
J-S14017-15
Appellant’s brief raises the following questions for our review:
A. DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMIT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION
BY OVERRULING A MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL PROMPTED BY
THE PROSECUTOR’S UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM THAT THE
KILLING WAS PRECIPITATED BY A DRUG FEUD AND THAT
APPELLANT SOLD DRUGS?
B. DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMIT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION
BY OVERRULING AN OBJECTION PROFFERED AFTER THE
PROSECUTOR ARGUED DURING HIS CLOSING SPEECH THAT
[] APPELLANT COULD HAVE SUBPOENAED CELL PHONE
RECORDS THEREBY IMPERMISSIBLY PLACING A BURDEN OF
HAVING TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE ON APPELLANT?
C. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR BY OVERRULING AN OBJECTION
TO THE ADMISSION OF A STATEMENT GIVEN BY KELLY
RINDONE UNDER THE PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT
RULE BECAUSE THE STATEMENT IN QUESTION WAS GIVEN
AFTER SHE GAVE THE PRIOR STATEMENT ON WHICH SHE
WAS IMPEACHED?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
We have carefully reviewed the certified record, the submissions of the
parties, and the trial court’s thorough Rule 1925 opinion. Based upon our
review, we conclude that the trial court adequately and accurately addressed
the contentions Appellant raises on appeal and correctly determined that no
relief is due. For these reasons, we adopt the trial court’s September 26,
2014 opinion as our own and direct the parties to include the trial court’s
opinion with all future filings relating to our disposition in this matter.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-4-
J-S14017-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/6/2015
-5-
Circulated 04/22/2015 11:59 AM
Circulated 04/22/2015 11:59 AM
Circulated 04/22/2015 11:59 AM
Circulated 04/22/2015 11:59 AM
Circulated 04/22/2015 11:59 AM
Circulated 04/22/2015 11:59 AM
Circulated 04/22/2015 11:59 AM
Circulated 04/22/2015 11:59 AM
Circulated 04/22/2015 11:59 AM
Circulated 04/22/2015 11:59 AM
Circulated 04/22/2015 11:59 AM
Circulated 04/22/2015 11:59 AM
Circulated 04/22/2015 11:59 AM
Circulated 04/22/2015 11:59 AM
Circulated 04/22/2015 11:59 AM