Com. v. Medina, J. ( 2014 )

J-S68010-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JOSHA MEDINA,
Appellant No. 2511 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered January 18, 2013,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-51-CR-0013827-2011
BEFORE: ALLEN, JENKINS, and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED OCTOBER 31, 2014
Josha Medina (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered after the trial court convicted him of robbery, theft by unlawful
taking, receiving stolen property, criminal conspiracy, carrying a firearm in
public, carrying a firearm without a license, possessing an instrument of
crime, and possessing a controlled substance.
At the non-jury trial, Christopher Rodriguez testified that at
approximately 3:00 a.m. on September 7, 2011, he and his brother were
walking along a street in Philadelphia when they were attacked by two
assailants who punched and kicked them and stole their wallets and cell
phones. N.T., 10/15/12, 18-21. One of the assailants had a nickel or silver
colored gun with a black handle. Id. at 22, 25, 45, 56. When the assailants
fled, Christopher Rodriguez and his brother chased them. Id. at 24. One of
J-S68010-14
the assailants responded by shooting Christopher Rodriguez’s brother in the
chest. Id. at 25. Christopher Rodriguez then sought the help of police, and
described to Philadelphia Police Officer Padilla that the assailants had darker
skin, and were each wearing a hoodie, one white and one black, and the
assailant wearing the black hoodie had a goatee. Id. at 27-28, 44.
Philadelphia Police Officer Joseph Reilly testified to responding to a
report of the shooting, and encountering two black males wearing hoodies,
one of whom had a goatee, and was subsequently identified as Appellant.
Id. at 47-50. As Officer Reilly and his partner approached the males, the
other male “attempted to push passed [sic] [Officer Reilly’s partner] and
they got into a physical altercation.” Id. at 50. Officer Reilly asked
Appellant to put his hands on a porch railing. Id. at 50-51. Appellant began
to comply, but while moving his hands, reached “toward his waistband
area.” Id. at 51, 64. Appellant grabbed a gun from his waist area, but
“instantly dropped it to the ground.” Id. at 51. Officer Reilly recovered the
gun, which was “loaded with four live rounds.” Id. at 52. Officer Reilly
prepared the property receipt for the gun. Id. at 60. Additionally, a search
of Appellant yielded six heroin packets labeled “American Gangster.” Id. at
67.
Christopher Rodriguez’s brother, William Rodriguez, testified to being
attacked by two assailants, one who was wearing a white hoodie and one
who was wearing a black hoodie. Id. at 69. William Rodriguez could not see
the assailants’ faces, but identified their skin color as black and not Latino.
-2-
J-S68010-14
Id. William Rodriguez testified that the assailants took the brothers’ wallets
and cell phones. Id. at 72. William Rodriguez pursued the assailants, and
identified his shooter as the black man in the black hoodie. Id. at 73-76, 82.
Philadelphia Police Detective Michelle Yerkes testified to interviewing
Christopher Rodriguez with Officer Padilla translating. Id. at 89. Detective
Yerkes took Christopher Rodriguez’s statement. Id. at 90. Christopher
Rodriguez identified the gun recovered from Appellant as the gun used by
one of his assailants. Id. at 92. Christopher Rodriguez identified one of his
assailants as being a black male with a goatee. Id. at 106. Detective Yerkes
also interviewed William Rodriguez. William Rodriguez identified his
assailants as black males, one wearing a white hoodie and one wearing a
black hoodie. Id. at 109.
Philadelphia Police Officer Padilla testified to responding to a call of a
man shot, and transporting the Rodriguez brothers to Temple Hospital.
N.T., 10/16/12, at 8. William Rodriguez gave Officer Padilla “a description of
[the shooter as] a black male, clothing description, … black hoodie, blue
jeans, thin build, and also a second male with a white hoodie, Adidas stripes
on the side[.]” Id. at 9. Officer Padilla testified that Christopher Rodriguez
gave the same description of the shooter; “he said it was the one with the
black hoodie.” Id. at 11. Christopher Rodriguez described the gun as silver
and black. Id. At the hospital, Officer Padilla was “trying to get more
information” from Christopher Rodriguez when Officer Padilla “got a call”
that another police unit “had somebody stopped that fit the description” of
-3-
J-S68010-14
the assailants. Id. at 12. Officer Padilla then took Christopher Rodriguez to
where Appellant was detained. Id. at 12-13. Officer Padilla testified:
[The detaining officers] brought [Appellant] out to the side of the
car, I would say, about, maybe 7 to 10 feet from where the
witness was at, shined the light on [Appellant]. And he said – I
asked him if this was the guy who had, in fact, robbed him and
shot his brother. He said, yeah, that looks like him. He said, he
had the same clothing, same body, and the same facial hair.
Id. at 13. In the courtroom, Officer Padilla identified Appellant as the same
individual identified by Christopher Rodriguez. He also testified that
Christopher Rodriguez was not “one hundred percent certain that this was
the male, but he fit the description. This looks like the guy. This could be
him.” Id. at 17.
Philadelphia Police Officer Kevin Robinson testified to being on duty
with his partner Officer Reilly at 3:00 a.m. on September 7, 2011, when the
officers encountered Appellant and the other individual walking “shoulder to
shoulder.” Id. at 29. The officers saw no one else in the five blocks they
traveled before encountering Appellant and the other individual. Id. at 26-
28.
After hearing the above evidence, the trial court convicted Appellant of
the aforementioned crimes. On January 18, 2013, the trial court sentenced
Appellant to eight (8) to sixteen (16) years of incarceration, followed by four
(4) years of probation. Appellant filed a timely appeal, as well as a Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) statement. The trial court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, which
we adopt and incorporate in disposing of this appeal.
-4-
J-S68010-14
Appellant presents a single claim for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT FOUND THAT THERE WAS
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE, BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT, THE CRIMINAL OFFENSES OF ROBBERY, CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY, POSSESSING INSTRUMENTS OF CRIME, THEFT BY
UNLAWFUL TAKING AND RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY?
Appellant’s Brief at 2.
In cases challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, we recognize:
We must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial,
and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in a
light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner,
support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Where there
is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every
element of the crime has been established beyond a reasonable
doubt, the sufficiency of the evidence claim must fail.
The evidence established at trial need not preclude every
possibility of innocence and the fact-finder is free to believe all,
part, or none of the evidence presented. It is not within the
province of this Court to re-weigh the evidence and substitute
our judgment for that of the fact-finder. The Commonwealth's
burden may be met by wholly circumstantial evidence and any
doubt about the defendant's guilt is to be resolved by the fact
finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a
matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the
combined circumstances.
Commonwealth v. Tarrach, 42 A.3d 342, 345 (Pa. Super. 2012).
Here, the essence of Appellant’s argument is that “neither of the
complaining witnesses were able to identify [Appellant] as one of the
persons who robbed them.” Appellant’s Brief at 8, 11. Appellant asserts
that “[d]ue to this lack of identification by both complainants, there is
-5-
J-S68010-14
reasonable doubt that [Appellant] is guilty of committing the aforementioned
criminal offenses.” Id. at 12.
The trial court addressed—and rejected—this claim prior to rendering
its verdict:
I think as far as the identification issue, which is the issue in this
case, I agree that the language of the victim/witness is that, it
looks like him, I’m not a hundred percent sure. But to this
Court’s thinking, any deficiencies in that statement where it’s not
absolute are more than supplemented by the other
circumstances in this case or circumstantial evidence.
I take into consideration you’re talking about 3 o’clock in
the morning, you’re talking a deserted neighborhood where it’s
raining, you’re talking a distance between the scene of the crime
and the place of the stop of the accused of approximately five to
seven blocks within thirty minutes of the incident. And then the
other circumstances that both counsel have eluded to, the
clothes, how they matched the description, the build, how they
matched the description, the race, the similarity of the weapon,
and the facial hair. Taking what is given in the descriptions as
well as the other circumstances of time, distance, weather, from
the incident, I think it’s not a stretch to conclude that the
persons the police stopped within 30 minutes of the incident
were the persons who were responsible for the incident.
N.T., 10/16/12, at 45-46.
Given the foregoing, we conclude that Appellant’s sufficiency claim is
without merit. We further adopt and incorporate the December 31, 2013
trial court opinion of the Honorable William J. Mazzola in affirming
Appellant’s judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-6-
J-S68010-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/31/2014
-7-