Com. v. Cannon, D. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • J. A02010/14
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION            SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :           PENNSYLVANIA
    v.                   :
    :
    DONTE CANNON,                          :          No. 1342 EDA 2012
    :
    Appellant       :
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, March 28, 2012,
    in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
    Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-0008426-2010
    BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OTT AND STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
    MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:FILED SEPTEMBER 08, 2014
    Appellant challenges the judgment of sentence imposed following his
    conviction for second degree murder, two counts of robbery, criminal
    following his conviction, appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for
    second degree murder, and concurrent sentences of 10 to 20 years for each
    robbery, 10 to 20 years for criminal conspiracy, 2½ to 5 years on the VUFA,
    and 2½ to 5 years on the PIC. We affirm.
    The facts, as summarized by the trial court, are as follows:
    Police Officer Eric Riddick testified that on
    January 23, 2010, at approximately 10:00 P.M., he
    and his partner responded to a report of gunshots on
    the 5500 block of Beaumont Street in Philadelphia.
    He saw two women, later identified as Diane Stewart
    * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
    J. A02010/14
    and Shande Stewart, exit 5537 Beaumont Street and
    walk towards his patrol car. Shande Stewart told
    Officer Riddick that an incident had occurred on the
    block. Officer Riddick got out of his patrol car to
    inspect the area. He saw a male, later identified as
    Philippe Koukoui, lying face-down with a gunshot
    wound to the back of his head and to the back part
    of his neck in the back of a vacant lot at
    5527 Beaumont Street. Officer Riddick went through
    the backpack that had been removed from the
    to Philippe Koukoui; a scale; a cell phone; Ziploc
    baggies; and, a small amount of marijuana. He
    walked across the street to where there was a
    smaller vacant lot at 5531 Beaumont Street and
    recovered three shell casings. Officer Riddick then
    entered an alleyway that ran behind Beaumont
    Street and Litchfield Street where he recovered a
    black patent leather Nike sneaker.
    While at the scene, Officer Riddick was
    approached by a male who identified himself as
    James Henderson. Henderson told Officer Riddick
    that he had been the victim of a robbery and that he
    had been with Philippe Koukoui, hereinafter referred
    to as the decedent, and Shande Stewart. Henderson
    was transported to the Homicide Unit to be
    interviewed.
    James Henderson testified that the decedent
    had been his friend for five (5) to six (6) years. He
    testified that on January 23, 2010, he went with the
    decedent to the 5500 block of Beaumont to visit
    Shande Stewart, whom the decedent knew, and to
    smoke marijuana.      The decedent and Henderson
    approximately ten (10) minutes.       The decedent,
    Henderson and Shande Stewart then left the house
    to walk to a nearby store.       They walked down
    Beaumont Street towards 55th Street. Henderson
    was walking in the street, ahead of the decedent and
    Shande Stewart, talking on his cell phone. A male
    pointing a gun jumped out at Henderson, grabbed
    him, and started going through his pockets.
    -2-
    J. A02010/14
    Henderson looked back toward where the decedent
    and Shande Stewart were walking and saw that
    another male had grabbed the decedent and had a
    gun pointed at him. The male that was holding
    Henderson told him to turn around, not to look back,
    and to run through an alleyway towards 56th Street.
    heard gunshots. His sneaker came off as he was
    running. When he reached the end of the alley, he
    heard more gunshots. He went to his house, put on
    another pair of sneakers and then walked back to
    [the] scene. He saw the police and told them that
    he and his friend were just robbed.
    Henderson gave a statement wherein he
    described the male that pointed the gun at him and
    robbed him as a boy, about 17 or 18 years old,
    wearing a tan snap cap with a brim that was pulled
    down to his eyes and a black hoodie.          In his
    statement Henderson indicated that the gun that was
    pointed at him was silver, but he did not know if it
    was a revolver or an automatic. At trial, he testified
    that he did not remember giving those answers.
    Shande Stewart testified that she knew the
    decedent from buying marijuana from him on
    two (2) occasions. She knew his cell phone number
    and had stored his number in her cell phone. On
    January 23, 2010, she called the decedent. She
    wanted to buy five (5) bags of marijuana for $20.00.
    The decedent came to her house at 5537 Beaumont
    Street with another male approximately ten (10)
    minutes later.
    Shande Stewart further testified that before
    she called the decedent, the Defendant was in her
    house and she had a conversation with him about
    robbing the decedent. She heard the Defendant
    make a telephone call after which the Co-Defendant,
    While sitting in the living room of her house,
    Shande Stewart, the Defendant and Co-Defendant
    -3-
    J. A02010/14
    talked about robbing the decedent. The Defendant
    and Co-Defendant told her to call the decedent and
    tell him that she wanted five (5) for $10.00. The
    Defendant and Co-Defendant told her that they were
    going to be in the basement of the house and were
    going to leave the house from the back door in the
    basement to rob the decedent. The decedent called
    and told her he was outside of her house. She let
    the decedent and Henderson into the house. The
    decedent told her he was not going to sell her the
    marijuana for the price she asked. Shande Stewart,
    Henderson and the decedent then left the house
    through the front door and walked down Beaumont
    Street towards 55th Street.     She then saw the
    Defendant come out of a vacant lot located at
    5527 Beaumont Street. The Co-Defendant came out
    from the other side of the street. The Defendant
    was holding a gun and grabbed the decedent by his
    shirt. The Co-Defendant was holding a gun and
    grabbed Henderson by his shirt. She ran towards
    her house.      Henderson was running and the
    Co-Defendant shot at him. As she ran inside her
    house, she heard more gunshots. She ran down to
    the basement where she saw the Defendant and the
    Co-Defendant.     She heard the Defendant say,
    her mother that that [sic] the boys she was with
    were robbed.      She then went outside with her
    mother and saw a police car coming down the street.
    She told the police that she had heard the gunshots.
    She was transported to Homicide for investigation.
    At the Homicide Division, Shande Stewart told
    the detectives about the robbery and the
    -
    consented to a search of her cell phone. She was
    then taken into custody.
    On April 27, 2011, Shande Stewart entered
    into a Memorandum of Agreement with the District
    herein she would plead to two (2)
    counts of robbery and conspiracy and the murder
    charge would be nolle prossed. At the time of trial,
    she had not yet been sentenced.
    -4-
    J. A02010/14
    Detective Timothy Bass testified that based on
    information received from Shande Stewart, he went
    to 5537 Beaumont Street and transported the
    Defendant to the Homicide Division. Detective Bass
    the Defendant told Detective Bass in summary: that
    he did not know the decedent or James Henderson;
    that he and the Co-Defendant talked about robbing
    the two (2) men; that Shande Stewart called him
    and told him that the two (2) males they were going
    to rob did not carry guns; and, that he knew the
    Co-Defendant probably had a gun. He indicated
    further that: he was in the house with Shande
    Stewart and the Co-Defendant when the two (2)
    one of the two men outside; grabbed him; and,
    started fighting with him. He got two (2) cigarettes
    from the male he robbed. He saw that the other
    male had a backpack and saw that male try to run
    away from the Co-Defendant who was standing at
    the end of the lot. He heard four (4) to five (5)
    gunshots. The Defendant further indicated that after
    the incident, the Co-Defendant called him and asked
    him if anyone was shot; the Defendant told him that
    somebody was dead.         The Defendant told the
    Co-
    house. The Co-Defendant told him that he was
    going on the run.[Footnote 1]
    [Footnote 1] When the statement was
    read to the jury, references to the
    Co-Defendant were redacted and read as
    statement being read, the trial court
    cautioned the jury that the statement
    could be used as evidence only against
    the Defendant.
    Detective Bass testified that the cell phones of
    Shande Stewart, the Defendant and the decedent
    were recovered. The Co-Defendant was arrested on
    June 22, 2011.
    -5-
    J. A02010/14
    Corey Williams testified that he has known the
    Co-Defendant for more than ten (10) years. On
    January 23, 2010, he was with the Co-Defendant
    when the Co-Defendant received a phone call from
    Shande Stewart. The Co-Defendant told him that he
    -Defendant was gone for
    approximately twenty (20) minutes.    When the
    Co-Defendant    returned,   he     admitted  to
    Corey Williams what had occurred and a male was
    dead.
    Williams testified that he had seen the
    Co-Defendant with guns on multiple occasions and
    that the last gun he saw the Co-Defendant with was
    a chrome and black semi-automatic.
    Dr. Gulino, Chief Medical Examiner for the City
    of Philadelphia, testified that the decedent had
    suffered three (3) gunshot wounds: one gunshot
    wound entered his head in the left back; the second
    was a through and through gunshot wound of the
    right arm which fractured the humerus; the third
    was a graze wound along the back of the neck.
    Dr. Gulino opined that the decedent died as a result
    of a gunshot wound to the head and the manner of
    death was homicide.
    Dr. Gulino testified that hypothetically the
    was consistent with the decedent being in a
    squatting position and the shooter standing behind
    the decedent, pointing the gu[n] down towards the
    his head being forward and pointed at the ground.
    Detective Christopher Tankelewicz testified
    that he is the director of the Philadelphia District
    his unit handles computer forensics, cell phone
    forensics,    audio    and      video   forensics.
    Detective Tankelewicz testified that he extracted
    -6-
    J. A02010/14
    one on
    February 7, 2011. That information provided that on
    January 23, 2010, at 9:54:21 P.M., Shande Stewart
    texted the Co-
    Officer Gregory Welsh, assigned to the
    Firearms Identification Unit testified that the
    three (3) 9 mm Luger fired cartridge casings
    recovered from the scene were fired from the same
    firearm. He testified that he examined the bullets
    that were turned over to his unit by the Medical
    clothing. He testified that it was possible that the
    three (3) fired cartridge casings and the two (2)
    bullets were fired by the same gun.
    Trial court opinion, 3/17/13 at 2-8.
    Appellant and his co-defendant, Aaron McCallum, were tried before a
    jury. The trial began on March 21, 2012, and concluded on March 28, 2012.
    Both men were found guilty of the aforementioned charges.1          A third
    co-defendant, Shande Stewart, in return for her cooperation, had murder
    charges withdrawn; she pled guilty to robbery charges. Post-trial motions
    order to file a Rule 1925(b) statement.      Appellant raises five issues on
    weight of the evidence.
    1
    McCallum filed a direct appeal with this court docketed at No. 1464 EDA
    sentence.
    -7-
    J. A02010/14
    Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him.
    Specifically, he claims he was not present and did not commit the crimes.
    Appellant   contends   the   evidence   was   inconsistent,   conflicting,   and
    In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view
    all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most
    favorable to the Commonwealth, as verdict winner,
    to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to
    enable the factfinder to find every element of the
    crime established beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Commonwealth v. Thomas, 
    867 A.2d 594
    y
    applicable to cases where the evidence is
    circumstantial rather than direct so long as the
    combination of the evidence links the accused to the
    
    Id. at 597
    . And
    while a conviction must be based on more than mere
    suspicion or conjecture, the Commonwealth need not
    establish guilt to a mathematical certainty.       
    Id.
    quoting Commonwealth v. Coon, 
    695 A.2d 794
    ,
    797 (Pa.Super.1997).      This Court is not free to
    substitute its judgment for that of the fact-finder; if
    the record contains support for the convictions they
    may not be disturbed. 
    Id.
     citing Commonwealth v.
    Marks, 
    704 A.2d 1095
    , 1098 (Pa.Super.1997) and
    Commonwealth v. Mudrick, 
    510 Pa. 305
    , 308, 
    507 A.2d 1212
    , 1213 (1986). Lastly, the factfinder is
    free to believe some, all, or none of the evidence.
    
    Id.
    Commonwealth v. Hartle, 
    894 A.2d 800
    , 803-804 (Pa.Super. 2006).
    Resolving contradictory testimony and questions of credibility are matters for
    the finder of fact.    Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 
    747 A.2d 910
    , 917
    (Pa.Super. 2000). Notably, questions concerning inconsistent testimony and
    improper motive go to the credibility of the witnesses, not the sufficiency of
    -8-
    J. A02010/14
    the evidence. Commonwealth v. Davido, 
    868 A.2d 431
    , 442 (Pa. 2005),
    cert. denied, 
    546 U.S. 1020
     (2005); Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 
    860 A.2d 102
    , 107 (Pa. 2004) (holding that questions concerning inconsistent
    testimony go to the credibility of the witness, and hence, implicate the
    weight, rather than the sufficiency, of the evidence).
    Second degree murder is defined as follows:
    A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second
    degree when it is committed while defendant was
    engaged as a principal or as an accomplice in the
    perpetration of a felony.
    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(b).
    A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of
    committing a theft, he (1) inflicts serious bodily
    injury upon another.
    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701.
    Conspiracy is defined as follows:
    (a)   Definition of conspiracy.--A person is guilty of
    conspiracy with another person or persons to
    commit a crime if with the intent of promoting
    or facilitating its commission he:
    (1)   Agrees with such other person or
    persons that they or one or more
    of them will engage in conduct
    which constitutes such crime or an
    attempt or solicitation to commit
    such crime;
    or
    (2)   Agrees to aid such other person or
    persons   in   the   planning   or
    commission of such crime or of an
    -9-
    J. A02010/14
    attempt or solicitation to commit
    such a crime.
    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903(a).
    must establish the defendant: 1) entered into an agreement to commit or
    aid in an unlawful act with another person or persons; 2) with a shared
    criminal intent; and 3) an overt act was done in furtherance of the
    Commonwealth v. Devine, 
    26 A.3d 1139
    , 1147 (Pa.Super.
    2011). The law is well established that circumstantial evidence may provide
    of circumstances including, but not limited to, the relation between the
    parties, knowledge of and participation in the crime, and the circumstances
    Commonwealth v. Bricker, 
    882 A.2d 1008
    , 1014 (Pa.Super. 2005).
    arising from the facts and circumstances and not by mere suspicion or
    Commonwealth v. Savage, 
    566 A.2d 272
    , 276 (Pa.Super.
    1989).   The law also recognizes that circumstances taken together in
    context, like an association between alleged conspirators, knowledge of the
    commission of the crime, presence at the scene of the crime, and/or
    participation in the object of the conspiracy, may be sufficient to prove a
    conspiracy when each standing alone is insufficient.   Commonwealth v.
    - 10 -
    J. A02010/14
    Thoeun Tha, 
    64 A.3d 704
    , 710 (Pa.Super. 2013); Commonwealth v.
    Swerdlow, 
    636 A.2d 1173
    , 1177 (Pa.Super. 1994).
    person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if he possesses any
    instrument of crime with intent t
    shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or
    upon any public property in the city of the first class . .
    6108.
    sufficient to support a conviction for felony murder and the related offenses
    appe
    Id.)   Such a challenge based on inconsistent
    testimony is a veiled attack on the weight of the evidence. Commonwealth
    v. Widmer, 
    744 A.2d 745
    , 752 (Pa. 2000) (an attack on the reliability and
    credibility of the evidence is a weight claim, not a sufficiency claim).2
    2
    The trial court concluded the evidence was sufficient for a jury to have
    found that the elements of the crimes charged were proven beyond a
    reasonable doubt.     (Trial court opinion, 3/17/13 at 11.)   Viewing the
    evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as our standard
    of review requires, the evidence along with the testimony presented by the
    -defendant,
    - 11 -
    J. A02010/14
    Our standard of review for evaluating a weight of the evidence claim is
    well-established:
    Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of
    the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying
    question of whether the verdict is against the
    weight of the evidence. Because the trial judge
    has had the opportunity to hear and see the
    evidence presented, an appellate court will give the
    gravest consideration to the findings and reasons
    advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial
    weight of the evidence. One of the least assailable
    reasons for granting or denying a new trial is the
    not against the weight of the evidence and that a
    new trial should be granted in the interest of justice.
    This does not mean that the exercise of
    discretion by the trial court in granting or denying a
    motion for a new trial based on a challenge to the
    weight of the evidence is unfettered. In describing
    mports the
    exercise of judgment, wisdom and skill so as to
    reach a dispassionate conclusion within the
    framework of the law, and is not exercised for the
    purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge.
    Discretion must be exercised on the foundation of
    reason,   as   opposed     to   prejudice,  personal
    motivations, caprice or arbitrary actions. Discretion
    is abused where the course pursued represents not
    Aaron                                          he decedent and Henderson
    and that Shande Stewart called him and told him that the two males they
    were going to rob did not carry guns. The decedent and Henderson walked
    into a trap and were ambushed by appellant and McCallum. In the course of
    the robbery, Henderson fled, gunshots were fired, and the decedent died of
    multiple gunshot wounds. See Commonwealth v. Munchinski, 
    585 A.2d 471
    , 483 (Pa.Super. 1990) (evidence sufficient to establish second degree
    murder where crime began as a robbery and ended in a homicide).
    - 12 -
    J. A02010/14
    merely an error of judgment, but where the
    judgment is manifestly unreasonable or where the
    law is not applied or where the record shows that the
    action is a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or
    ill-will.
    Commonwealth v. Clay, 
    64 A.3d 1049
    , 1055 (Pa. 2013) (emphasis in the
    original) (citations omitted).
    Here, the trial court summarized the testimony as well as the physical
    evidence, and found that the verdict was not against the weight of the
    evidence. (Trial court opinion, 3/17/13 at 8-10.) Appellant complains that
    [I]t matters not whether
    appellant finds a
    solely within the province of the jury as trier of fact and, as such, will not be
    Commonwealth v. Poindexter, 
    646 A.2d 1211
    , 1214 (Pa.Super. 1994), appeal denied, 
    655 A.2d 512
     (Pa.
    1995).
    careful analysis of the weight of the evidence issue. While appellant asserts
    that there was no one who identified him as being involved other than
    Shande Stewart, that testimony, if believed by the fact-finder, is enough.
    See   Commonwealth         v.    Kunkle,   
    623 A.2d 336
       (Pa.Super.   1993)
    (uncorroborated testimony of a single witness is sufficient for conviction).
    ions concerning
    inconsistent testimony and improper motive go to the credibility of the
    - 13 -
    J. A02010/14
    witnesses. See Commonwealth v. Holley, 
    945 A.2d 241
    , 246 (Pa.Super.
    2004), appeal denied, 
    959 A.2d 928
     (Pa. 2008). Based upon the evidence
    presented, the trial court
    weight of the evidence claim.
    Next, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in
    permitting the expert testimony of Detectives Tankelewicz and Glenn.
    ing to appellant, Detective Tankelewicz was
    qualified as an expert witness, but Detective Glenn was not.          Appellant
    complains that both were allowed to testify as to the phone records and
    extraction of information and text messages from the cell phones of
    appellant, Stewart, and McCallum. (Id.)
    Commonwealth v. Page, 
    59 A.3d 1118
    , 1135 (Pa.Super. 2013). Expert testimony is governed by Pa.R.E. 702,
    which reads,
    Rule 702. Testimony by experts
    If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge
    beyond that possessed by a layperson will assist the
    trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
    determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an
    expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or
    education may testify thereto in the form of an
    opinion or otherwise.
    Pa.R.E. 702.
    - 14 -
    J. A02010/14
    Whether a witness is qualified as an expert is within the sound
    discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an
    abuse of that discretion. See Commonwealth v. Jennings, 
    958 A.2d 536
    ,
    539 (Pa.Super. 2008).      Pennsylvania applies a liberal standard for the
    qualification of an expert witness.    Commonwealth v. Ramos, 920 A.2d
    range of training, knowledge, intelligence, or exp            Jennings, 958
    to specialized knowledge on the subject under investigation he may testify,
    Commonwealth v. Harris
    established that an expert may render an opinion based on training and
    Ramos, supra at
    1256.
    Here, the record indicates that there was much discussion concerning
    whether Detective Tankelewicz should be qualified as an expert in the field
    of digital forensics with regard to cellular phones. The detective stated his
    qualifications; for example, he is the Director of the Philadelphia District
    128.)     He testified that he has over 1,000 hours of training in digital
    forensics which include several certifications.   (Id. at 129.)   He was also
    - 15 -
    J. A02010/14
    assigned to the FBI in their Joint Terrorism Task Force for four years. (Id.
    at 130.)
    Cellebrite in performing his work. (Id. at 136.) According to appellant, the
    detective indicated that, depending on the make and model of the phone,
    the computer program did all the work. (Id.) The detective testified he was
    not involved in the making of the computer program, and he could not
    estimate a percentage of error that might be in the program. (Id. at 143.)
    T
    continuing objection.     Defense counsel claimed that the detective put the
    device into a computer which resulted in a print-out; essentially, there was
    no expertise involved. (Id. at 149-150.)
    The    record     indicates   that   the    trial   court     initially   allowed
    Detective Tankelewicz to be qualified as an expert.               (Id. at 129, 150.)
    During the next day of the trial, during a sidebar discussion with counsel,
    to call [Detective Tankelewicz] an
    expert, either.   [Although] I think he had more training [than Detective
    -18.) During jury instructions,
    the trial court stated:
    I have permitted Dr. Gulino, Police Officer Welsh [to
    testify].     Dr. Gulino is a medical examiner.
    Police Officer Welsh is the Firearms Identification
    Unit ballistics expert, and Police Officer Tankelewicz
    to testify as expert witnesses. Now, I have to say
    that you heard some back and forth about
    - 16 -
    J. A02010/14
    Police
    science, you know.       They download these cell
    phones. I permitted him to testify as an expert.
    Police Officer Tankelewicz, because he had some --
    he had some knowledge about this new technology
    and he knows the
    done. However, I do want to caution you that he
    plugged the phone into the computer and the
    present you with an opinion as the other experts did.
    They both gave opinions.
    Notes of testimony, 3/28/12 at 48-49.
    As Detective Tankelewicz did not offer any expert opinion, but merely
    presented the data that he had downloaded from a cell phone, we see no
    prejudice to appellant by allowing his testimony. Detective Glenn was not
    qualified as an expert and merely testified regarding the information that
    23-66.). We see no error here.
    Appellant argues th
    the assistant district attorney repeatedly showed the autopsy photograph of
    We review claims of prosecutorial
    misconduct according to the following standard:
    Our standard of review for a claim of prosecutorial
    misconduct is limited to whether the trial court
    abused its discretion. In considering this claim, our
    attention is focused on whether the defendant was
    deprived of a fair trial, not a perfect one. Not every
    inappropriate remark by a prosecutor constitutes
    do not occur in a vacuum, and we must view them in
    - 17 -
    J. A02010/14
    improper, they generally will not form the basis for a
    new trial unless the comments unavoidably
    prejudiced the jury and prevented a true verdict.
    Commonwealth v. Bedford, 
    50 A.3d 707
    , 715 716 (Pa.Super. 2012)
    (internal citations and quotations omitted).
    According to appellant, the prosecutor had no valid reason for showing
    the photo because there was no dispute as to the cause of death.             The
    Commonwealth argues it was proper to show the photograph because the
    photo had been admitted into evidence and was used to show the track of
    the bullet that killed the decedent. Our review of the record reveals that the
    evidence and published to the jury. (Notes of testimony, 3/26/12 at 111.)
    We see no error in the prosecution calling attention to properly admitted
    evidence.
    Appellant   argues    the   testimony    of   Corey    Williams   regarding
    statements    made    by   co-defendant    McCallum    was    inadmissible   and
    prejudicial. He acknowledges, however, that the statement was redacted in
    compliance with Bruton v. U.S., 
    391 U.S. 123
     (1968).
    the admission was an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Hardy, 
    918 A.2d 766
    , 776 (Pa.Super. 2007). An abuse of discretion is not a mere error
    in judgment but, rather, involves bias, ill-will, partiality, prejudice, manifest
    - 18 -
    J. A02010/14
    unreasonableness, or a misapplication of law. Commonwealth v. Hacker,
    
    959 A.2d 380
    , 392 (Pa.Super. 2008).
    During trial, the Commonwealth called Corey Williams, who identified
    himself as a friend of co-defendant McCallum. (Notes of testimony, 3/26/12
    at 75.) According to Williams, he had been hanging out with McCallum and
    (Id. at 77.)   Williams
    Id.)   Williams testified McCallum was gone for
    -          Id. at 81.) Williams was asked to explain
    what McCallum said when he returned to the house.            He stated that
    McCallum told him:
    [McCallum] was waiting for the guy to come. The
    guys came. He hopped out on the guys. One guy
    took off. Shots got fired. The other guy, he got
    grabbed, he got threw [sic] to the ground. Shots got
    Id. at 82-83.
    Williams was asked if McCallum mentioned the name of the girl who
    and he was getting ready to wal                                           Id.
    a police photo.   (Id. at 85-86.)    The name connected to the photo was
    - 19 -
    J. A02010/14
    Shande Stewart.      (Id. at 86.)    During his testimony, Williams never
    prejudiced the jury against appellant. He also claims that the statement was
    hearsay and in violation of the right to confront a witness.    Our review
    indic
    addressed the issue in its opinion and we will adopt its discussion as our
    own. (See trial court opinion, 3/17/13 at 12-13.)
    nts, we
    affirm the judgment of sentence.
    Judgment of sentence affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 9/8/2014
    - 20 -
    Circulated 08/19/2014 02:17 PM
    Circulated 08/19/2014 02:17 PM
    Circulated 08/19/2014 02:17 PM
    Circulated 08/19/2014 02:17 PM
    Circulated 08/19/2014 02:17 PM
    Circulated 08/19/2014 02:17 PM
    Circulated 08/19/2014 02:17 PM
    Circulated 08/19/2014 02:17 PM
    Circulated 08/19/2014 02:17 PM
    Circulated 08/19/2014 02:17 PM
    Circulated 08/19/2014 02:17 PM
    Circulated 08/19/2014 02:17 PM
    Circulated 08/19/2014 02:17 PM
    Circulated 08/19/2014 02:17 PM
    Circulated 08/19/2014 02:17 PM
    Circulated 08/19/2014 02:17 PM