Com. v. Wynder, L. ( 2017 )

J-S15015-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
LAVELL WYNDER
Appellant No. 306 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 4, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0004528-2014
BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED April 25, 2017
Lavell Wynder appeals from the judgment of sentence of life
imprisonment that the trial court imposed after a jury convicted him of first
degree murder, possession of an instrument of crime (“PIC”), carrying a
firearm without a license, and carrying a firearm in Philadelphia. We affirm.
On March 22, 2013, at approximately 11:00 p.m., Appellant shot
Aaron Cole five times outside of the 22nd Street Café, a small neighborhood
bar in Philadelphia where both men had reveled earlier that night. Mr. Cole
died from his wounds two days later. Appellant does not contest that he
shot Mr. Cole in front of the bar, he simply challenges the weight and
sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s evidence regarding mens rea.
J-S15015-17
During the ensuing three-day jury trial, the Commonwealth presented
a 12-minute video of the shooting compiled by Philadelphia Police Detective
James Dunlap, a member of the police department’s Digital Imaging Video
Response Team (“DIVRT”). Detective Dunlap explained that he used
computer software to splice the compilation from footage of three different
video surveillance cameras. Two cameras overlooked the interior and
exterior of the 22nd Street Café and the third camera was perched on the
outside of the Duran Grocery on 1267 South 22nd Street. Detective Dunlap
testified, “basically, there was a target that was identified [as Appellant] and
we follow his movements from the 12 minutes leading up to the incident. So
we are going to follow him from camera to camera.” N.T., 11/3/15, at 69.
Detective Duncan provided narrative testimony as the jury viewed the entire
montage.1
The video begins with Appellant standing outside of the 22 nd Street
Café in a blue two-tone jacket, a knit cap, and dark pants. Id. at 71-72. He
remained in front of the establishment for approximately one minute, before
reentering the bar for another one-and-one-half minutes, and then returned
to his post in front of the business. Id. at 72-74. He stayed positioned in
front of the entrance for an additional eight minutes while bar patrons
____________________________________________
1
Portions of the video were replayed for subsequent witnesses, who testified
about specific segments of the recording or still images.
-2-
J-S15015-17
arrived and departed. Id. 76-77. As Mr. Cole and Orondae Andrews exited
the bar, Appellant approached them, and, following a brief exchange,
Messrs. Cole and Andrews proceeded northbound on 22nd Street. Id. at 77-
78. The trial court succinctly summarized the remaining events as follows:
Appellant appears to retrieve an object (presumably a gun) from
his waistband, extend his right arm in the direction of [Mr. Cole],
and fire multiple shots, causing [Mr. Cole] to fall to the ground.
Appellant then walks toward [Mr. Cole] and shoots him again.
Muzzle flashes are clearly visible and can be seen coming from
the right sleeve of Appellant's blue puffy jacket. [Mr.] Andrews
flees the scene first, followed by Appellant a few seconds later.
Trial Court Opinion, 5/10/16, at 3 (citations omitted).
Additional witnesses testified about the ballistic evidence and medical
evidence regarding cause of death and the location of the three bullet
wounds to Mr. Cole’s head and one each to his chest and back. Several
police detectives detailed the subsequent investigation and Appellant’s
ultimate apprehension one year later. The Commonwealth also presented
signed, written statements submitted to the Police Detectives by Kimberly
Glover, Appellant’s girlfriend, who had accompanied him to the bar on the
night of the murder, and Lucille Wynder, Appellant’s mother. Both of the
women stated that Appellant had confessed to them that he killed Mr. Cole,
and each woman’s statement was admitted to impeach her respective in-
court testimony that she never discussed the incident with Appellant.
Similarly, Mr. Andrews submitted a statement that indicated he was familiar
with Appellant and identified him as the assailant wearing the blue jacket in
-3-
J-S15015-17
the surveillance video. When Mr. Andrews proved to be an uncooperative
witness during trial, the Commonwealth utilized his statement as
impeachment evidence.
Appellant did not present a defense. The jury convicted him of first-
degree murder, PIC, and two violations of the Uniform Firearms Act
(“VUFA”). Immediately after the trial, the court imposed life imprisonment
for murder and a concurrent term of three to six years incarceration for
carrying a firearm without a license. No further penalty was imposed on PIC
and the remaining VUFA violation. This timely appeal followed the denial of
Appellant’s post-sentence motion which challenged, inter alia, the weight of
the evidence.
Appellant presents two questions for review:
I. Is . . . Appellant entitled to an arrest of judgment on the
charge of murder in the first degree where there was insufficient
evidence to establish specific intent to kill or premeditation?
II. Is . . . Appellant entitled to a new trial on the charges of
murder in the first degree, and related charges where the
greater weight of the evidence did not support the verdict in that
the greater weight would not have supported a finding of specific
intent to kill, nor premeditation?
Appellant’s brief at 3.
Generally, “[o]ur standard when reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence is whether the evidence at trial, and reasonable inferences derived
therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as
verdict winner, are sufficient to establish all elements of the offense beyond
-4-
J-S15015-17
a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Love, 896 A.2d 1276, 1283 (Pa.
Super. 2006). The Commonwealth may satisfy its burden of proof based
entirely on circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Laird, 988 A.2d
618, 624 (Pa. 2010). “[A]ny 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. Watley, 81 A.3d 108, 113
(Pa.Super. 2013) (en banc).
The elements of first degree murder are as follows: “In order to
sustain a finding of first degree murder, the evidence must establish that (1)
a human being was unlawfully killed; (2) the person accused is responsible
for the killing; and (3) the accused acted with malice and a specific intent to
kill.” Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 902 A.2d 430, 444 (Pa. 2006); 18
Pa.C.S. § 2502(a). The crux of Appellant’s first argument is that, while the
Commonwealth’s evidence established that he was responsible for killing Mr.
Cole following a brief exchange on the street, the Commonwealth failed to
adduce sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted
with premeditation or a specific intent to kill.
As it relates to this issue, our High Court explained, “An intentional
killing is a ‘killing by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other
kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing.’” Id. (quoting 18 Pa.C.S.
§ 2502(d)). In Commonwealth v. Jordan, 65 A.3d 318, 323 (Pa. 2013)
-5-
J-S15015-17
(quoting Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 808 A.2d 893, 910 (Pa. 2002)),
the High Court further explained, “[p]remeditation and deliberation exist
whenever the assailant possesses the conscious purpose to bring about
death.” Furthermore, “the design to kill can be formulated in a fraction of a
second.” Id. Finally, both specific intent and malice may be established
through circumstantial evidence, such as the use of a deadly weapon on a
vital part of the victim’s body. Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128,
1134 (Pa. 2011). As we reiterated in Commonwealth v. Matthews, 870
A.2d 924, 929 (Pa.Super. 2006) (citations omitted), “As intent is a
subjective frame of mind, it is of necessity difficult of direct proof.
Accordingly, we recognize that ‘[i]ntent can be proven by direct or
circumstantial evidence; it may be inferred from acts or conduct or from the
attendant circumstances.’”
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
we find sufficient evidence of Appellant’s premeditation and specific intent to
kill Mr. Cole to sustain the first degree murder conviction. Specifically, the
Commonwealth established that Appellant lay in wait for his victim outside of
the entrance to the 22nd Street Café for approximately ten minutes. When
Mr. Cole emerged from the bar, Appellant immediately engaged him, and as
Cole continued to walk away, Appellant surreptitiously removed a firearm
from the waistband of his pants, leveled it at Mr. Cole, and opened fire. As
-6-
J-S15015-17
Mr. Cole struggled on the sidewalk, Appellant approached him and continued
shooting. Altogether, Appellant shot Mr. Cole five times.
As it relates to premeditation, the foregoing evidence established that
Appellant’s measured purpose in waiting outside of the bar was to ensnare
Mr. Cole under the pretext of conversation and then shoot him. Stated
another way, Appellant ambushed Mr. Cole. Hence, we conclude that the
Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence of to prove Appellant’s
premeditation and deliberation, i.e., “the conscious purpose to bring about
death,” beyond a reasonable doubt. Drumheller, supra at 910.
Commonwealth v. Groff, 514 A.2d 1382 (Pa.Super. 1986) (defendant's
preparation, lying in wait, and entering victim's house with loaded weapon
were evidence of premeditation and proof of his intent to kill victim).
Likewise, regarding Appellant’s specific intent, the certified record
confirms that Appellant fired multiple gunshots at Mr. Cole’s head and one
shot each to his back and chest. All of the bullet wounds impacted vital
areas of the victim’s body, and three wounds were independently capable of
causing death. N.T., 11/4/15, at 9-11. This evidence sustains the
Commonwealth’s burden of proving that Appellant acted with a specific
intent to kill. Houser, supra at 1134 (fact-finder may infer specific intent
to kill victim based on defendant's use of deadly weapon upon vital part of
victim's body); Commonwealth v. Smith, 985 A.2d 886, 896 (Pa. 2009)
(seven separate gunshot wounds evince specific intent to kill);
-7-
J-S15015-17
Commonwealth v. Mattison, 82 A.3d 386, 392-293 (Pa. 2013) (head is
vital part of body); Commonwealth v. Hanible, 836 A.2d 36, 38 (Pa.
2003) (chest is vital part of body).
Finally, we observe that the underpinnings of Appellant’s argument in
favor of an arrest of judgment are faulty. Appellant’s contentions are based
on the dual implications that: (1) he had a benign reason to loiter outside of
the bar other than lying in wait to ambush Mr. Cole; and (2) the shooting
was entirely spontaneous. These arguments fail for at least two reasons.
First, Appellant’s positions flout the evidentiary deference for the
Commonwealth’s evidence as the verdict winner that we outlined supra, and
second, ignores the ensconced legal tenet that “the design to kill can be
formulated in a fraction of a second.” Jordan, supra at 323. Hence, no
relief is due.
Having found that the Commonwealth offered sufficient evidence to
satisfy its burden of proving the elements of first degree murder, we next
address his challenge to the weight of the evidence. Once again, Appellant
assails the Commonwealth’s evidence regarding his mens rea. Essentially,
Appellant complains that, based on the evidence presented during the trial,
the jury was required to “engage in speculation, conjecture and surmise in
order to determine that [he] . . . acted with premeditation and specific intent
to kill[.]” Appellant’s brief at 14. Stressing the principle that, whenever
“evidence offered to support a verdict of guilt is so unreliable and/or
-8-
J-S15015-17
contradictory as to make any verdict based thereon pure conjecture, a jury
cannot be permitted to return such a finding[,]’’ Appellant asserts that the
trial court erred in rejecting his request for a new trial. See
Commonwealth v. Karkaria, 625 A.2d 1167, 1170 (Pa. 1993). We
disagree.
The trial court’s belief that the verdict is not against the weight of the
evidence and that a new trial is not warranted in the interest of justice is one
of the least assailable reasons for a trial court to deny a new trial.
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 753 (Pa. 2000). It is well-
established that appellate review of a weight claim is limited to determining
whether the trial court abused its discretion and is not to substitute an
appellate court’s judgment for that of the trial court. Commonwealth v.
Best, 120 A.3d 329 (Pa.Super. 2015). A new trial should only be awarded if
the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of
justice. Id.Instantly, the jury considered the Commonwealth’s evidence, including
the video compilation of the events that preceded the murder, as well as
Appellant’s arguments suggesting that the murder was a spontaneous
incident. Appellant contends that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the
evidence concerning whether he possessed the requisite intent to kill and
acted with premeditation. In rejecting this claim, the trial court concluded,
“the evidence of Appellant's guilt was overwhelming [and] [h]is convictions
-9-
J-S15015-17
were clearly supported by the evidence and testimony presented by the
Commonwealth.” Trial Court Opinion, 5/10/16, at 8. It continued,
“[m]oreover, the evidence presented was not ‘tenuous, vague, and
uncertain.’ The jury's verdict in this case was not so contrary to the evidence
as to shock one's sense of justice.” Id.In reviewing the trial court’s foregoing statement we do not discern an
abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling on the claim. To the contrary,
the trial court cogently set forth its rationale for denying Appellant’s claim.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/25/2017
- 10 -