Com. v. Williams, J. ( 2022 )

J-A08027-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOSEPH WILLIAMS :
:
Appellant : No. 1158 WDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 4, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-CR-0007808-2019
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED: JUNE 10, 2022
Joseph Williams appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, following his conviction of
conspiracy to commit criminal mischief.1 After careful review, we reverse
Williams’ conviction and vacate his judgment of sentence.
At trial, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of Janet Kemp, the
victim; William Grayson, Kemp’s neighbor; and Munhall Borough Detective
Thomas Fullard. Kemp testified that she returned from a one-week vacation
on April 13, 2019, to find that all of the tires on her car had been slashed.
Kemp testified that the tires cost approximately $530.75.
Grayson had a home surveillance system that recorded the perpetrator
slashing Kemp’s tires. Grayson approached Kemp and provided the video to
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903.
J-A08027-22
her and, ultimately, Officer Fullard. Grayson’s video captures the incident
from the roof of Grayson’s house across the street, angled downwards towards
the street.2 Grayson’s home surveillance system records audio, but was
unable to capture any audio from the events of this case. N.T. Non-Jury Trial,
2/4/20, at 20.
The video reveals that at approximately 2:56:22 a.m., during the week
of April 6, 2019,3 an unidentified man4 walked out from between two row
houses and approached Kemp’s car. The unidentified man bent down and
disappeared from sight for a brief time. He then reappeared and slashed the
driver’s side tires of Kemp’s car. The unidentified man finished slashing all
four tires by 2:59:42 a.m. and then ran back between the two row houses.
At approximately 3:00:13 a.m., a truck, later identified as Williams’ truck,
drove past the homes towards the dead-end street of East 10th Avenue.5 A
____________________________________________
2This video was admitted at trial as Commonwealth Exhibit 2. N.T. Non-Jury
Trial, 2/4/20, at 18.
3 We note that, at trial, the Commonwealth did not present a specific date for
the surveillance video, or the events depicted on it. Rather, the
Commonwealth merely presented evidence that the events took place at some
point during the week of April 6, 2019, while Kemp was on vacation. However,
our review of the record reveals that the Affidavit of Probable Cause asserts
the tire slashing occurred in the early morning hours of April 10, 2019. See
Affidavit of Probable Cause, 6/20/19, at 2.
4 This individual remains unidentified.
5Both Williams and Kemp own homes on East 10th Avenue, with one house in
between their residences. At the time of this incident, Williams was not
currently living at his home due to recent fire damage. However, Grayson
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2-
J-A08027-22
few moments later, at 3:01:28, Williams’ truck re-entered the video and
parked in front of his home.
At approximately 3:01:36, Williams exited his truck, left it running, and
approached his porch. As Williams approached his porch, the unidentified
male ran, from approximately 3:01:46 to 3:01:49, to Williams’ car and
entered the passenger seat. Eight seconds later, at 3:01:57, Williams began
walking toward his vehicle and looked into the passenger side of the truck for
2 seconds, from approximately 3:02:07 to 3:02:09. Williams walked around
the rear of his truck and, at 3:02:21, Williams entered the driver’s seat of his
truck.6 Williams and the unidentified man remained in the vehicle together
for approximately 1 minute and 30 seconds. Afterwards, the unidentified man
exited the truck and ran between two row houses, in the direction of Williams’
back yard, before he disappeared from view. Williams remained in front of
his home in his vehicle for roughly four more minutes before he drove away.
Williams did not file a police report.
____________________________________________
testified that Williams would regularly “come late at night[,] usually to [] check
his mail[.]” N.T. Non-Jury Trial, 2/4/20, at 16-17.
6 We note that, while the parties had supplemented the certified record with
the DVD containing the surveillance video, the video does not contain the final
5 minutes of the interaction. Nevertheless, this does not impede our review,
because both parties agree that the trial court’s summaries and timestamps
for the remaining 5 minutes are accurate. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/3/21,
at 3-5; Brief for Appellant, at 6-8 (adopting trial court’s factual summary);
Brief for Appellee, at 5-7 (adopting trial court’s factual summary).
-3-
J-A08027-22
Williams was charged with conspiracy to commit criminal mischief and
criminal mischief.7 On February 4, 2020, Williams proceeded to a non-jury
trial. At the close of the Commonwealth’s evidence, Williams made a motion
for acquittal on all charges. The trial court granted Williams’ motion with
respect to criminal mischief, but denied the motion as to criminal conspiracy.
Williams testified in his own defense. At the end of trial, the trial court
determined that Williams was not credible and convicted him of conspiracy to
commit criminal mischief. Immediately following trial, Williams proceeded to
sentencing, at which time the trial court sentenced him to two to twelve
months’ incarceration,8 20 hours of community service, and to pay $580.75
in restitution.
Williams filed a timely post-sentence motion, which was denied by
operation of law. Williams filed a timely notice of appeal and a court-ordered
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.
Williams now raises the following claims for our review:
I. Whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to
prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that [] Williams entered into
an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another
person or persons, as required to sustain a conviction for
[c]riminal [c]onspiracy?
II. Whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to
prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that [] Williams and another
person possessed mutual specifi[c] intent to carry out a mutual
____________________________________________
718 Pa.C.S.A. § 3304(a)(2).
8On March 16, 2020, Williams filed a motion for early parole in light of the
COVID-19 pandemic, which the trial court granted on March 18, 2020.
-4-
J-A08027-22
criminal objective, as required to sustain a conviction for
[c]riminal [c]onspiracy?
Brief for Appellant, at 5.
We address Williams’ claims together, as he does so in his brief.
Williams argues that the Commonwealth failed to present any evidence of an
agreement between Williams and the unidentified man. Additionally, Williams
asserts that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence that he
and the unidentified man had a shared conspiratorial intent to slash Kemp’s
tires. Williams argues, relying on Commonwealth v. Rosario, 248 A.3d 599,
611 (Pa. Super. 2021), that his mere presence at the scene and his mere
association with the unidentified man after the tire slashing are insufficient to
sustain his conviction. Brief for Appellant, at 26-27. Williams claims that the
trial court, in its opinion, did not find him guilty based on sufficient evidence,
but rather because the trial court did not believe Williams’ version of events.
Id. at 23. We agree.
Williams’ claims challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, for which we
adhere to the following standard of review:
[W]hether[,] 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 [re-
]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
-5-
J-A08027-22
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 received
must be considered. Finally, the [trier] 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. Smith, 97 A.3d 782, 790 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation
omitted).
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 attempt or
solicitation to commit such crime.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903(a).
Simplified, this requires proof of three elements: (1) an agreement, (2)
shared criminal intent, and (3) an overt act. See Commonwealth v.
Murphy, 795 A.2d 1025, 1037-38 (Pa. Super. 2002). The “overt act need
not be committed by the defendant; it need only be committed by a co-
conspirator.” Commonwealth v. Hennigan, 753 A.2d 245, 253 (Pa. Super.
2000). Our Supreme Court has explained:
At the heart of every conspiracy lies the common understanding
or agreement between the actors. Implicit in any conspiracy is
proof . . . that an accused agrees to participate in the alleged
criminal activity. The criminal union being prosecuted cannot be
based upon an agreement to complete a broad undefined
objective at some unknown point. Rather, the agreement must
rest upon the mutual specific intent to carry out a particular
-6-
J-A08027-22
criminal objective. The sine qua non of a conspiracy is the shared
criminal intent. Without this common purpose, a conspiracy
cannot be maintained.
Proving the existence of such an agreement is not always easy
and is rarely proven with direct evidence. 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. Indeed, a conspiracy may be proven inferentially by
showing the relation, conduct, or circumstances of the parties, and
the overt acts of alleged co-conspirators are competent as proof
that a criminal confederation has in fact been formed.
A conspiracy cannot be established based only upon mere
suspicion and conjecture. Preexisting relationships or mere
association of participants, without more, will not suffice to
establish a prosecutable criminal conspiracy. Mere association
with the perpetrators, mere presence at the scene, or mere
knowledge of the crime is insufficient to prove that a
particular actor was involved in a criminal conspiracy. . . .
The Commonwealth still must demonstrate the formation of an
illicit agreement, the attendant specific shared intent to promote
or facilitate the object offense, and an overt act. No level of
intimacy or history between actors can replace the elements of
the offense.
Commonwealth v. Chambers, 188 A.3d 400, 410 (Pa. 2018) (emphasis
added, citations and quotations omitted).
Our review of the record reveals that the facts of this case, summarized
above, do not support Williams’ conviction for criminal conspiracy. In
convicting Williams, the trial court relied almost exclusively on Williams’ lack
of credibility. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/3/21, at 6-7. However, Williams’
lack of credibility cannot replace the Commonwealth’s burden of proof. See
Commonwealth v. Torres, 766 A.2d 342, 345 (Pa. 2001) (disbelief of
-7-
J-A08027-22
defendant’s version of events “is no substitute for the proof the
Commonwealth was required to provide”).
Moreover, integral to our analysis of this case is the surveillance video.
The video shows that the unidentified man committed an overt act by slashing
Kemp’s tires, but does not support the trial court’s conclusion that Williams
and the unidentified man had entered into an agreement and had a shared
criminal intent. Rather, the video reveals that Williams arrived at the scene
after the tires had been slashed and that Williams had an eventual encounter
with the unidentified man for approximately 1 minute and 30 seconds in
Williams’ vehicle. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/3/21, at 4-5; see also
Commonwealth Exhibit 2, at 3:02:21. Importantly, the Commonwealth
presented no other evidence to support its case. Indeed, the record is devoid
of any phone records, conversations between Williams and the unidentified
man, or even the identity of the “mystery tire slasher.”
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the Commonwealth has not
presented sufficient evidence to establish that Williams and the unidentified
man entered into an agreement or shared a common criminal intent.
Chambers, supra. The Commonwealth is required to present something
more than Williams’ mere presence at the scene and eventual encounter with
the tire slasher. Chambers, supra. Even with all inferences in favor of the
Commonwealth, these facts cannot support Williams’ criminal conspiracy
conviction. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903(a); Smith, supra. Accordingly, we reverse
Williams’ conviction and vacate his judgment of sentence.
-8-
J-A08027-22
Conviction reversed. Judgment of sentence vacated. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Bender, J., Joins the Memorandum.
McCaffery, J., Concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/10/2022
-9-