Com. v. Jones, R. ( 2019 )

J-S02041-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
RAYNERDO J. JONES :
:
Appellant : No. 1732 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 25, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003864-2017
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 12, 2019
Appellant, Raynerdo J. Jones, appeals nunc pro tunc from the judgment
of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas,
following his jury trial convictions for first-degree murder, firearms not to be
carried without a license, carrying firearms on public streets or public property
in Philadelphia, and possessing instruments of crime.1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court accurately set forth the relevant facts and
procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises two issues for our review:
WAS THE JURY’S VERDICT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE IN LIGHT OF THE OBVIOUS CONFLICTS IN
TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES BETTIE CUFFEE AND GLORIA
MCCLOUD?
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a); 6106; 6108; 907, respectively.
J-S02041-19
DID THE [TRIAL] COURT ERR IN FAILING TO SUPPRESS THE
IN-COURT IDENTIFICATION OF COMMONWEALTH WITNESS
ISRAE [GILLIARD]?
(Appellant’s Brief at 3).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Barbara A.
McDermott, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions
presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed August 8, 2018, at 6-10) (finding:
(1) regardless of any discrepancy in testimony, video recording showed
Appellant wielding firearm at scene of shooting and 911 calls identified
Appellant as shooter based on his distinctive facial tattoos; witness McCloud
observed Appellant on block and heard him argue with witness Cuffee
moments before shooting; witness McCloud did not testify to seeing any other
potential suspects on her block in moments before shooting; both witnesses,
Cuffee and McCloud, testified Decedent was on porch few minutes before he
was shot; Appellant did not raise self-defense claim at trial, so purported
inconsistency in testimony regarding crossbow was immaterial; jury
determined credibility and returned with guilty verdict; verdict was not against
weight of evidence; (2) witness Gilliard had independent basis for her in-court
identification of Appellant; she engaged in conversation with Appellant to
demand argument be moved elsewhere; she observed Appellant at one point
directly in front of her home; even though single photograph procedure was
-2-
J-S02041-19
ruled unduly suggestive, witness Gilliard’s in-court identification of Appellant
was sound). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/12/19
-3-