Com. v. Williams, C. ( 2020 )

J-S15017-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHARLES WILLIAMS :
:
Appellant : No. 1164 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 24, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-CR-0004919-2016
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JUNE 18, 2020
Appellant, Charles Williams, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on June 24, 2019. We affirm.
The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this case:
Lisa Habedana testified at trial that she watched two black
men shoot at a car and run away. She called 911 and told
them a person may have been inside the car. Next, Brian
Kennelly testified that, while attending a family birthday
party, he heard a white car running and saw two black men
walking toward the car. [45] minutes later, he returned to
the area to retrieve his cell phone and observed that the
same white car was still there. When he returned once more
to the area after the birthday party, he saw that white car
had crashed into a curb, the passenger door was open and
the body of a deceased man, later identified as Chauncy
Howard, was leaning backward in the driver's seat.
Detective Christopher Braden testified that he was
investigating an unrelated offense when he heard gunshots.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S15017-20
He was dispatched to the area of the fleeing suspects. He
passed another officer while looking for suspects. He
received a radio call from Officer Matt Smith for backup, with
the call stating that the suspects were at gunpoint. Officer
Smith testified that he responded to a shots fired call and
while en route he received an update that males had fled the
scene. He stopped and spoke with Jay Ashley who told Officer
Smith that Ashley had seen two young black males running.
Officer Smith next observed a red jeep with five black males.
The jeep took off at a high rate of speed and ran a stop sign.
Officer Smith engaged his lights and siren and pursued the
vehicle. During this pursuit, Officer Smith observed the back
left passenger of the jeep throw a gun out of the window.
Two blocks later, the jeep made an abrupt stop and a
passenger exited the vehicle and ran. With the assistance of
other officers, Officer Smith secured the scene and recovered
the gun. He also observed a bag in the car which appeared
to him to contain narcotics.
Lorelei Como testified that she lived near the shooting and
saw someone jump over her wall and hide on her porch. She
called 911 and described the person on her porch as a young
black male wearing dark pants and a dark hoodie. The police
arrived shortly thereafter.
[Lieutenant] Kevin Faulds testified that he responded to the
man on porch call at Como's residence and discovered
Appellant hiding behind a bench on the porch. [Lieutenant]
Faulds said that Appellant yelled, "I don't have a gun."
[Lieutenant] Faulds observed that Appellant was looking from
side to side for a possible escape route. Eventually,
[Lieutenant] Faulds patted down Appellant and felt what he
thought was a folding knife. The item was actually a loaded
.380 caliber magazine. The officer also recovered Appellant's
cell phone at that time. A canine officer, "Bruno," alerted to
a nearby window well where the gun matching the magazine
was recovered.
In addition, Detective John Godleski testified as to the
evidence he recovered from the scene as part of his duties
within the Mobile Crime Unit. [Detective] Godleski collected
the weapon which had been thrown from the jeep and stated
that a magazine with six live rounds was found in the gun.
The gun from under the window well, a .380 Glock, was
-2-
J-S15017-20
collected and found to contain a magazine with only two
rounds. He also recovered .380 and .40 [caliber] shell
casings near the crashed white Chevy Malibu and a fired
bullet from the victim's lap, along with heroin, marijuana,
several phones, and $3253.37 in cash from inside the Malibu.
Dan Wolfe of the Allegheny County Crime Lab testified as an
expert witness on gun shot residue. A gunshot residue kit
was collected from Appellant and sent to the lab for testing.
In Wolfe's expert opinion, Appellant was exposed to gunshot
residue, meaning he either fired a gun, was near a gun that
was fired[,] or came into contact with a surface that had
residue on it. William Best, an expert on firearms and tool
markings, testified that the Glock .380 was operable. Sara
Bitner, an expert in forensic biology, testified that DNA was
recovered from the Glock and that Appellant could not be
excluded as a contributor to the DNA recovered. She further
stated that only 1 in 584,800 African-Americans could not be
excluded. She stated that she could not conclude a DNA
match between the Glock and Appellant due to the presence
of other DNA on the Glock. Dr. Willis Ennis, an expert in
forensic patholog[y], determined the cause of death to be
multiple gunshot wounds and the manner of death to be
homicide.
Detective Ray Murray of the Computer Crime Unit testified
that he ran a cell phone dump of the victim's phone which
generated an 850 page report. Of particular note, the victim
and Appellant exchanged text messages shortly before the
victim was killed. The last message, "Come outside," was
made from Howard's phone at 2:15 p.m. Appellant
responded "ait" at 2:22 p.m. The homicide call came in at
2:35 p.m., [13] minutes later.
Rachel Harden testified that she and Howard were in a
romantic relationship and that Howard was the father of her
child. She testified that Howard was a drug dealer and that
he used Appellant as one of his runners. She stated that
Appellant and Howard knew each other well and that the two
of them appeared in a rap video together. She testified that
she told a detective on the date of the murder that Appellant
and Howard had an argument the night before.
Trial Court Opinion, 9/17/19, at 3-5 (footnotes omitted).
-3-
J-S15017-20
The jury found Appellant guilty of third-degree murder, carrying a
firearm without a license, possession of a firearm by a minor, and persons not
to possess a firearm.1 On June 24, 2019, the trial court sentenced Appellant
to serve an aggregate term of 260 to 520 months in prison, followed by three
years of probation.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. He raises four claims on
appeal:
1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict
when the Commonwealth failed to present any physical
evidence or any credible evidence tending to establish every
material element of the crimes alleged?
2. Whether the circumstantial evidence relied in support of
the homicide charge was sufficient when the jury was forced
to rely on mere speculation, conjecture and random choice to
reach the verdict?
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the
case to be decided by the jury when the verdict is contrary
to the weight of the evidence?
4. Whether the trial court erred in denying [Appellant’s]
petition for writ of habeas corpus when the Commonwealth
failed to present prima facie evidence of the essential
elements of criminal homicide?
Appellant’s Brief at 4 (headings and some capitalization omitted).2
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c), 6106(a)(1), 6110.1(a), and 6105(a)(1),
respectively.
2 The trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal, in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
Procedure 1925(b). Appellant complied with the order and, within the Rule
-4-
J-S15017-20
First, Appellant claims that the evidence was insufficient “to sustain the
verdict when the Commonwealth failed to present any physical evidence or
any credible evidence tending to establish every material element of the
crimes alleged.” Appellant’s Brief at 4. We conclude that Appellant's claim on
appeal is waived, as Appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement does not sufficiently
identify the error or errors that Appellant intended to challenge on appeal.
As this Court has continuously held:
If Appellant wants to preserve a claim that the evidence was
insufficient, then the 1925(b) statement needs to specify the
element or elements upon which the evidence was
insufficient. This Court can then analyze the element or
elements on appeal. [Where a] 1925(b) statement [] does
not specify the allegedly unproven elements[,] . . . the
sufficiency issue is waived [on appeal].
Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2008)
(quotations and citations omitted).
In this case, Appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement vaguely declares that
the evidence was insufficient “to sustain the verdict when the Commonwealth
failed to present any physical evidence or any credible evidence tending to
establish every material element of the crimes alleged.” Appellant’s Rule
1925(b) Statement, 8/2/19, at 2. This statement fails to “specify the element
or elements upon which the evidence was insufficient” to support Appellant’s
____________________________________________
1925(b) statement, Appellant raised the same claims that are contained in his
brief to this Court. See Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, 8/2/19, at 1-2.
-5-
J-S15017-20
four convictions – and we must conclude that Appellant's first sufficiency of
the evidence claim is waived on appeal. Williams, 959 A.2d at 1257.
Next, Appellant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his
third-degree murder conviction. We review Appellant's sufficiency of the
evidence challenge under the following standard:
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence 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 [that of] 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
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. Vargas, 108 A.3d 858, 867-868 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en
banc), quoting Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544, 559–560 (Pa.
Super. 2011) (en banc).
According to Appellant, the evidence is insufficient to support his
third-degree murder conviction because “the jury was forced to rely on mere
-6-
J-S15017-20
speculation, conjecture and random choice to reach the verdict.” Appellant’s
Brief at 16. This claim fails. As the trial court explained:
when considered in the light most [] favorable to the
Commonwealth, as the verdict winner, [the evidence is
sufficient to support Appellant’s third-degree murder
conviction]. Cell phone evidence puts Appellant at the crime
scene. Gunshot residue [was found on Appellant’s person,
Appellant’s] DNA [was found on the discarded gun, Appellant
was found in possession of a] .380 [caliber] clip with missing
cartridges, [a] .380 [caliber firearm was] found discarded in
the window well near where Appellant was hiding[, and .380
caliber cartridge casings were found at the murder scene].
All of this evidence] tend[s] to prove that Appellant
possessed one of the two weapons involved in the homicide.
Evidence of Appellant's attempt to flee, hide, and destroy
evidence further support a finding of guilty. Text messages
put Appellant in communication with the decedent and show
that they planned to meet [around the time of the murder]
and testimony provides a motive. Any challenge to the
sufficiency [of the evidence] is without merit.
Trial Court Opinion, 9/17/19, at 6-7.
We agree with the trial court’s succinct analysis and conclude that
Appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence claim thus fails.
For his third claim on appeal, Appellant contends that the jury’s verdict
was against the weight of the evidence. Appellant's weight of the evidence
claim is waived, as Appellant failed to raise the claim before the trial court.
As our Supreme Court has explained:
in a challenge to the weight of the evidence, the function of
an appellate court on appeal is to review the trial court's
exercise of discretion based upon a review of the record,
rather than to consider de novo the underlying question of
the weight of the evidence. In determining whether this
standard has been met, appellate review is limited to whether
the trial judge's discretion was properly exercised, and relief
-7-
J-S15017-20
will only be granted where the facts and inferences of record
disclose a palpable abuse of discretion. It is for this reason
that the trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial based
on a weight of the evidence claim is the least assailable of its
rulings.
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211, 1225 (Pa. 2009) (quotations and
citations omitted).
A weight of the evidence challenge must first be raised with the trial
court either before sentencing or in a post-sentence motion. Pa.R.Crim.P.
607(a). In this case, Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion and, after
a thorough review of the record, we do not see where Appellant properly
raised his weight claim before the trial court. Further, Appellant’s brief does
not specify where he supposedly raised his weight of the evidence claim to the
trial court. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c) (declaring that, if reference is made to the
record, “the argument must set forth . . . a reference to the place in the
record where the matter referred to appears”); see also Commonwealth v.
Harris, 979 A.2d 387, 393 (Pa. Super. 2009) (“[w]hen an allegation is
unsupported any citation to the record, such that this Court is prevented from
assessing this issue and determining whether error exists, the allegation is
waived for purposes of appeal”). Thus, the claim is waived.
Finally, Appellant claims that the trial court erred when it denied his
pretrial petition for writ of habeas corpus, where he contended that the case
against him must be dismissed because the Commonwealth failed to present
a prima facie case. This claim is moot, as the jury found Appellant guilty of
crimes that included third-degree murder and we have concluded that the
-8-
J-S15017-20
evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction on that charge. See
Commonwealth v. Lee, 662 A.2d 645 (Pa. 1995) (defendant's adjudication
of guilt rendered moot any allegation that Commonwealth failed to establish
prima facie case of homicide at defendant's preliminary hearing);
Commonwealth v. McCullough, 461 A.2d 1229 (Pa. 1983) (that the
Commonwealth did not establish a prima facie case of robbery at the
defendant's preliminary hearing was immaterial where the Commonwealth
met its burden of proving the underlying offense at trial beyond a reasonable
doubt).
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/18/2020
-9-