Com. v. Lyons, T. ( 2017 )

J-S54022-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
TIFFANY LYONS
Appellant No. 125 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 29, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0000360-2016
BEFORE: OTT, J., MOULTON, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY MOULTON, J.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 29, 2017
Tiffany Lyons appeals from the November 29, 2016 judgment of
sentence entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas following her
conviction for conspiracy to commit retail theft.1 We affirm.
The trial court summarized the factual history of this matter as
follows:
On the morning of December 14, 2015, [Lyons] went to
the home of her friend, Antoinette Blue, and said “let’s go
hustling.” Ms. Blue explained the phrase
“let’s go hustling” meant “let’s go make some money,” and
that she and [Lyons] understood this to mean “let’s go
shoplifting.”
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S. § 903.
J-S54022-17
[Lyons] and Ms. Blue decided to go to the GameStop in
Wesleyville, Pennsylvania. The two travelled to the store
together. Before exiting their vehicle, they formed a plan
to distract the people working in the store because “that’s
what [they] do all the time.” The two agreed [Lyons]
would distract the store clerks while Ms. Blue physically
took the merchandise. Ms. Blue admitted to taking an X-
Box from the store that day, and later pled guilty to the
crime of retail theft.
The testimony of Aaron Findley, the store leader of the
GameStop in Wesleyville, revealed a Limited Edition X-Box
One [console] was taken from the store on December 14,
2015. Review of security footage recorded that day
showed [Lyons] and Ms. Blue entering the store together.
On the video, [Lyons] approached a store clerk, Valerie
Prindle, and pulled her away from the register area of the
store where the [consoles] were kept. A few minutes later,
the video showed Ms. Blue taking an X-Box One. [Lyons]
left the store not long after Ms. Blue. [Lyons] did not
purchase anything from the store.
1925(a) Op., 2/28/17, at 1-2 (citations omitted; some alterations in
original).
On October 18, 2016, a jury convicted Lyons of conspiracy to commit
retail theft. On November 29, 2016, the trial court sentenced Lyons to 12 to
24 months’ incarceration, with credit for 19 days served. On December 9,
2016, Lyons filed a motion for reconsideration/modification of sentence,
which the trial court denied on December 12, 2016. On January 11, 2017,
Lyons timely filed a notice of appeal.
Lyons raises the following issue on appeal: “Whether the
Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to find [Lyons] guilty of
criminal conspiracy to commit retail theft?” Lyons’ Br. at 3 (full
capitalization omitted).
-2-
J-S54022-17
Lyons contends that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient
evidence to prove both that she and Blue had an agreement and that an
overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy occurred.
Our standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence is well-settled:
The standard we apply . . . is whether viewing all the
evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the
verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the
fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not
weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the
fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and
circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not
preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts
regarding a defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-
finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that
as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn
from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth
may sustain its burden of proving every element of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly
circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above
test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence
actually received must be considered. Finally, the finder of
fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the
weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part
or none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 756 (Pa.Super. 2014)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Estepp, 17 A.3d 939, 943-44 (Pa.Super.
2011)).
We have previously held:
To sustain a conviction for criminal conspiracy, the
Commonwealth must establish that the defendant (1)
entered an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act
with another person or persons, (2) with a shared criminal
-3-
J-S54022-17
intent and, (3) an overt act was done in furtherance of the
conspiracy. This overt act need not be committed by the
defendant; it need only be committed by a co-conspirator.
The essence of a criminal conspiracy is a common
understanding, no matter how it came into being, that a
particular criminal objective be accomplished. Therefore, a
conviction for conspiracy requires proof of the existence of
a shared criminal intent. An explicit or formal agreement
to commit crimes can seldom, if ever, be proved and it
need not be, for proof of a criminal partnership is almost
invariably extracted from the circumstances that attend its
activities. Thus, a conspiracy may be inferred where it is
demonstrated that the relation, conduct, or circumstances
of the parties, and the overt acts of the co-conspirators
sufficiently prove the formation of a criminal confederation.
The conduct of the parties and the circumstances
surrounding their conduct may create a web of evidence
linking the accused to the alleged conspiracy beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 819 A.2d 92, 97 (Pa.Super. 2003) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 719 A.2d 778, 794-85 (Pa.Super. 1998)).
“[W]hen viewed in conjunction with each other and in the context in which
they occurred,” circumstances which may prove conspiracy include: “(1) an
association between alleged conspirators; (2) knowledge of the commission
of the crime; (3) presence at the scene of the crime; and (4) in some
situations, participation in the object of the conspiracy.” Id. (quotation
omitted).
The trial court concluded that the Commonwealth presented sufficient
evidence to sustain the conviction, reasoning:
At the time of trial, the Commonwealth presented
evidence [that Lyons] entered into an agreement with
Antoinette Blue to go “hustling.” The term “hustling” is
-4-
J-S54022-17
described by Ms. Blue as meaning “shoplifting.” According
to Ms. Blue, she and [Lyons] agreed [Lyons] would distract
the store clerks while Ms. Blue stole from the store. Jury
Trial Transcript, 10/18/16, p. 24-27, 30-31.
Subsequently, [Lyons] and Ms. Blue are seen on video
at the Game Stop, entering the store together. [Lyons]
pulls one clerk away from the register area of the store.
Ms. Blue then steals the X-Box. See Testimony of Aaron
Findlay, Jury Trial Transcript, 10/18/16, p. 7-17.
1925(a) Op. at 5. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/29/2017
-5-