Com. v. Wilson, C.

J-S72016-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
CLINTON EDWARD WILSON, :
:
Appellant : No. 328 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 15, 2013,
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Criminal Division, at No. CP-02-CR-0002855-2012.
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED JANUARY 16, 2015
Appellant, Clinton Edward Wilson, appeals from the August 15, 2013,
judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County. We affirm.
The following is a summary of the procedural history of this case:
On May 8, 2013, [Appellant] was tried before this
Honorable Court without a jury, along with Co-Defendants,
Clifford Anthony Wilson and Dayton Shelton.
At the conclusion of the Non-Jury Trial, [Appellant] was
found guilty of all charges: Count I of Robbery (Inflicting
Serious Bodily Injury); 1 Count of Robbery of a Motor Vehicle
(Causing Bodily injury); 1 Count of Kidnapping, 1 Count of
Aggravated Assault (Causing Bodily Injury); 1 Count of Unlawful
Restraint; and 1 Count of Criminal Conspiracy.
On August 15, 2013, [Appellant] was sentenced by this
Honorable Court to not less than four (4) years, and no more
than eight (8) years of incarceration at Count I, with a minimum
____________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S72016-14
period of probation of five (5) years, and a maximum period of
five (5) years. [Appellant] also had the following conditions
imposed:
1. No contact with the victim;
2. Comply with DNA Registration;
3. Complete a GED Program; and
4. Pay restitution in the amount of $750.
As to the remaining Counts, no further penalties were
imposed.
[Appellant] filed Post-Sentence Motions on August 21,
2013, which were denied by Operation of Law on January 27,
2014. [Appellant] filed a timely Notice of Appeal on February
25, 2014. On February 26, 2014, this Court entered an Order
requiring [Appellant] to file a Concise Statement of Matters
Complained of on Appeal. On March 10, 2014, [Appellant] filed
his Concise Statement per the Order of Court.
Trial Court Opinion, 6/5/14, at 2-3.
The trial court summarized the factual history of this case as follows:
On August 19, 2011 at approximately 1 a.m., the victim
indicated he was sitting inside his motor vehicle, parked in front
of his house and talking on the phone with his girlfriend. At that
time, approximately 3-5 black males approached his vehicle.
The victim stated that two black males entered his vehicle (a red
1995 Pontiac Firebird), put a gun to his head and pushed him
into the back seat. The victim, during the [t]rial, identified one
of the males in the car with him, the one in the driver’s seat, as
[. . .] Dayton Shelton.
The victim next testified he struggled with one male
holding a gun; he attempted to take the gun away,
unsuccessfully, when another male pointed a gun/rifle at his
head. He was then hit with a stun gun. The victim stated he
was then driven to a set of row houses and brought outside the
vehicle. The males started to hit him in the face with their guns.
The victim next identified the other individuals in the alley way.
He stated two of them were in Court [. . . .] The record then
-2-
J-S72016-14
reflected the victim’s identification of [Appellant] and Clifford
Anthony Wilson.
The victim indicated he was then dragged into an
abandoned row house and put in the basement. The victim
testified the men duct taped his hands and feet together, and
put tape over his mouth. The victim clearly testified that he
never met any of these individuals before that day.
According to the victim, [Appellant] asked him where the
money was, and hit him across the face with the butt end of his
gun. The victim stated that [Appellant] asked the victim to call
his cousin, Frank Harris, for $150,000 or they would kill him.
The victim stated he gave [Appellant] Mr. Harris’ cell phone
number, and that man called Mr. Harris to make the demand.
After the men left the abandoned house, the victim stated
that he acquired a nail and used it to break the tape from around
his ankles and wrists. The victim next crawled out a back
window and escaped from the building. The victim stated he
realized he was a half block away from his home. When he
arrived at his home, his cousin, Frank Harris, and his nephew
were sitting in front of the house, and within 3-4 minutes the
Police arrived.
Eventually, the victim indicated he was able to search his
home to see if anything was missing. He noticed the living room
television, the bedroom television, and his PlayStation were
missing. The values of the items were approximately $2,300.
After the Police arrived, they showed [Appellant] some
photographs and he was able to identify Dayton Shelton from
that night. Later, Detective Duncan showed him a photo array
and he also identified Clifford Anthony Wilson. Detective Duncan
showed him another photo array, and again he was able to
identify Dayton Shelton.
The victim stated he sustained a shattered cheek bone, a
broken nose, scars and lacerations due to the incident that
required hospitalization.
-3-
J-S72016-14
Detective Charlotte Hughes, from the Mobile Crime Unit,
testified for the Commonwealth. She indicated she was assigned
to meet with the Robbery Detectives and execute a Search
Warrant on a Pontiac Firebird. The first thing she did was
photograph the vehicle, then took DNA samples, photographed
the inside of the vehicle, and dusted it for fingerprints.
Detective Hughes identified Commonwealth’s Exhibit No. 3,
a photo of the trunk of the car, which showed a roll of masking
tape. She also fingerprinted five (5) CD’s located in the
passenger compartment, and she obtained four (4) fingerprints
from these CD’s. Once she lifted the fingerprints from the CD’s,
she took them back to the Office and they were submitted to the
Latent Print Examiner, John Godlewski.
John Godlewski also testified for the Commonwealth. He
stated he has been a Police Officer for twenty-one (21) years,
with the last fourteen (14) years being with the Pittsburgh
Mobile Crime Unit. He stated he is a Certified Latent Fingerprint
Examiner.
He testified that there were five (5) fingerprints involved in
this case that were evaluated to determine their value, either of
value, or no value. Once completed, four of the latented lifts
were determined to be of value. One of the lifts was submitted
through the automated system AFIX.
Detective Godlewski testified that as a result of AFIX, he
then compared the latent fingerprints to the known prints of
Clinton Edward Wilson. The four lifts of value in this case were
determined to match Wilson’s impressions.
***
Finally, Detective Godlewski opined the determinations he
made about these fingerprints [on one of the CD’s] belonging to
[Appellant] are held to a very high degree of scientific certainty.
Trial Court Opinion, 6/5/14, at 5-9 (internal citations omitted).
Appellant presents the following issue for our review:
-4-
J-S72016-14
1. Did the Trial Court err in determining that the fingerprint
evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction as to robbery of a
motor vehicle, and kidnapping, when it could not establish when
the fingerprints were left and when the fingerprints were
recovered from movable property inside the motor vehicle?
Appellant’s Brief at 4.1
When reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, we
evaluate the record in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as
verdict winner, giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences
to be drawn from the evidence. Commonwealth v. Duncan, 932 A.2d
226, 231 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted). “Evidence will be deemed
sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes each material element of
the crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Brewer, 876 A.2d
1029, 1032 (Pa. Super. 2005)). However, the Commonwealth need not
establish guilt to a mathematical certainty, and it may sustain its burden by
means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Id. Moreover, this Court may not
1
We note that Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the
robbery of a motor vehicle and kidnapping charges in his appellate brief.
When challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the Appellant’s
Pa.R.A.P. 1925 statement must “specify the element or elements upon which
the evidence was insufficient” in order to preserve the issue for appeal.
Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citations
omitted). However, Appellant failed to articulate in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement the specific charges he was challenging, let alone identify any of
the specific elements of the crimes he was challenging. For this reason, we
could find his claims waived. Gibbs, 981 A.2d at 281. For purposes of this
appeal, nonetheless, we find that his claims are sufficiently preserved to
allow this Court to conduct review of his issue.
-5-
J-S72016-14
substitute its judgment for that of the factfinder, and where the record
contains support for the convictions, they may not be disturbed. Id. Lastly,
we note that the finder of fact is free to believe some, all, or none of the
evidence presented. Commonwealth v. Hartle, 894 A.2d 800, 804 (Pa.
Super. 2006).
Appellant asserts that the evidence submitted by the Commonwealth
was insufficient as a matter of law to convict him of kidnapping and robbery
of a motor vehicle. Appellant’s Brief at 11. Appellant maintains that the
fingerprint evidence recovered on the CD’s from within the passenger
compartment of the victim’s car was insufficient to establish Appellant’s guilt
of these crimes. Id. at 12. Appellant argues that the evidence of record,
including the victim’s testimony and the fingerprint evidence, does not place
Appellant “inside or near the vehicle on the evening of August 19, 2012.”
Id. at 14.
Upon review of the issue raised, the credibility determinations made by
the trial court, the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the
applicable legal authority, we conclude that the trial court opinion entered on
June 5, 2014 comprehensively and correctly disposes of Appellant’s appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence, and we do so
based on the trial court’s opinion. The parties are directed to attach a copy
of that opinion in the event of further proceedings in this matter.
-6-
J-S72016-14
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/16/2015
-7-
Circulated 12/23/2014 02:55 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, CRIMINAL DIVISION
CC21l1110SS6 ,;ZtJI;(.-()2J'S>
328 WDA2013
V.
CLINTON EDWARD WILSON, OPINION
Defendant
FILED BY:
THE HONORABLE PHILIP A. IGNELZI
COPIES SERVED BY FIRST CLASS
MAIL UPON:
",. ' , COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF:
E: •,.
0 :=:.
~ ~ •, MICHAEL W. STREILY, ESQUIRE
Ul Lf' , DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
-u..
-!
.,..,- ">-' .•
(") i£ I_I
, 436 GRANT STREET, RM 303
-
~,
<-'
,
• J .;"
u'
~
~
COURTHOUSE
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:
BRANDON M. HERRING, ESQUIRE
429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1405
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Circulated 12/23/2014 02:55 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, CRIMINAL DIVISION
CC 2012-02855
328 WDA2014
V.
0
~
;>
~
,--0
;0
'",
·n =
~
~ I-
.
.. ) .-::- r:: =
CLINTON EDWARD WILSON,
---. '- .."
~.
:z:
f
Defendant
;
'-'1 r
~
'" .-
"'" m
OPINION
.- ., a"" 0
<-
"
-- - ~
62 A.3d 1033, 1035-
37, (Pa. Super. 2013), the Superior Court upheld a Defendant's Burglary
conviction when the Commonwealth presented evidence that the Defendant's
fingerprints were found on an open soda bottle found in the burglarized
9
Circulated 12/23/2014 02:55 PM
residence. The owner of the home testified that the soda bottle was unopened
in a cabinet when she left the home the night before. Further, the owner
asserted that she never gave the Defendant permission to be in her home.
Upon affirming the Defendant's Judgment of Sentence, the Superior Court
thoroughly discussed past decisions which analyzed whether fingerprint
evidence constitutes sufficient proof to sustain a conviction.
The seminal decision of Commonwealth v. Cichy, 323 A.2d 817, (Pa.
Super. 1974), was an Appeal from a Judgment of Sentence for Burglary and
Larceny. The only question was whether the Commonwealth presented
sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction on the crimes charges .
In Cichy, a burglary occurred at a gas station one evening. The following
morning, the owners arrived and found tools and other articles missing. Entry
was made through a boarded window, and a cigarette machine was partially
pried open . A Police Investigation "lifted several fingerprints from objects in the
building, including one from a cellophane wrapper on a package of Marlboro
cigarettes found on the floor. All of the prints were found to be of no value,
except for the one on the cellophane. The Police expert identified the print as
belonging to the Appellant, Cichy. Based entirely upon this evidence, Cichy
was convicted of the Burglary and Larceny. His Appeal followed. !St. at 819.
10
Circulated 12/23/2014 02:55 PM
The Superior Court in Donohue discussed the Cichy opinion
stating:
... the accuracy of fingerprint evidence for purposes of
identification is established and that the probative value of
that evidence depends entirely on the circumstances of
each case. Unless the circumstances are such that the
fingerprint could only have been impressed at the time and
place the crime was committed, such evidence is
insufficient to sustain a conviction. On the other hand,
where circumstances indicate impression at the time of the
crime, and the Defendant's innocent presence is excluded,
such evidence has been held sufficient to convict.
Under these precepts, a conviction will be upheld
where fresh fingerprints are found at the place of illegal
entry to private burglarized premises where a defendant's
presence is unexplained. Similarly, if the prints are
discovered in a place accessible only by force or on
objects that the defendant could not have contacted under
legitimate circumstances, a conviction will be upheld.
However, the mere discovery of prints in a public place,
with which a number of people may have had Innocent
contact is insufficient by itself to convict. Additionally, if
the prints are located on a readily movable object in
common usage and the possibility of innocent contact with
that object is great, the conviction will not be sustained.
A comparison of the fingerprint cases established the
uniform application of these principles in Cichy, the
defendant was convicted solely based on the fact that his
fingerprints were discovered on a cigarette pack located
next to a vending machine in a public venue that was
burglarized. We ruled that the conviction was infirm, given
that the defendant admittedly had visited the scene of the
burglary during normal business hours before the date of
the burglary, no prints were discovered on the cigarette
machine, and there was no indication that the cigarette
package with the defendant's prints was taken from the
machine. Thus, in Cichy, there was an innocent
11
Circulated 12/23/2014 02:55 PM
explanation for the presence of the prints on the package,
which could have been left behind when the defendant was
on the premises during business hours. We concluded that
the discovery of the prints on a movable object in a public
venue is insufficient to establish a person's presence at the
crime scene during the commission of the crime.
Donahue, 62 A.3d at p. t 036. (citations and quotations omitted).
In the case of In re M.J.H., 988 A.2d 694 (Pa. Super. 2010), the Superior
Court applied Cichy and overturned an adjudication of delinquency that was
based upon the juvenile's commission of acts constituting burglary and theft. In
In re: M.J.H., a clothing store was torn apart and burglarized , and the juvenile's
fingerprints were found on a clothing rack clearly open to the public, but not at or
near the point of the illegal entrance into the store. In addition , evidence was
introduced that, on two or three occasions prior to the burglary, the juvenile was
observed in the store during regular operating hours.
Because the juvenile's fingerprints were discovered at a location where his
presence was explained through innocent behavior and from an object with
which he cou ld have had legal/innocent contact, the Superior Court found that
the possibility that the juvenile had made legitimate contact with the clothing
rack was too great to permit a finding that he was the one who ransacked and
burglarized the store.
12
Circulated 12/23/2014 02:55 PM
However. in numerous other cases, Pennsylvania Courts have upheld the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction premised solely on the fact
that the defendant's fingerprints were at the scene of the crime . Pursuant to
these decisions, fingerprints can support sufficient evidence for a conviction as
long as the facts exclude an innocent explanation for the presence of the
defendant's imprints on an object. Donohue, 62 A.3d at 1037.
In Commonwealth v. Price, (278 Pa. Super. 255), 420 A.2d 527, (Pa.
Super.1980), the Superior Court upheld a conviction of burglary based upon
fingerprint evidence alone. The defendant was convicted of burglarizing a
private home, and the lone evidence linking him to that crime was the fact that ,
after the burglary, his imprints were discovered on a television located in the
residence near the pOint of illegal entry. The homeowners left their house at 6:00
p.m ., locked it, and closed the window. When they returned six hours later, they
discovered items had been taken from their home. There were no fingerprints at
the point of entry, an opened window. but the defendant's fingerprints were
found on a television near the window. The owners testified that they did not
know the defendant and that he did not have permission to enter their residence.
Since there was no plausible innocent explanation for the defendant's imprints
13
Circulated 12/23/2014 02:55 PM
on the television , the Superior Court ruled that the evidence was sufficient to
uphold the conviction .
In Commonwealth v. Wilson, (258 Pa. Super. 231), 392 A.2d 769 (Pa.
Super.1978), the defendant and a cO'conspirator burglarized a private
residence and terrorized the occupants. The owners testified they never met the
defendant before. The defendant's identification as a burglar was based on the
fact that his fingerprints were found inside the house. The defendant challenged
the sufficiency of the evidence , and he claimed that "lacking eyewitness
identification evidence or other circumstantial evidence, fingerprint evidence
alone is not sufficient to convict him." Id. at 771.
The Superior Court again disagreed with his sufficiency challenge because
there was "simply no logical explanation for finding [defendant's) fingerprints on
the lamp and closet in the ... residence, except that he inadvertently placed them
there while burglarizing the ... home and terrorizing its occupants." Id.
Based upon foregoing case law and this Court's review of the Trial
Transcript, it is abundantly clear that Defendant's convictions must be upheld for
the following reasons:
14
Circulated 12/23/2014 02:55 PM
a) Defendant's presence in the vehicle was unexplained;
b) His prints were discovered in a place accessible only by
illegitimate/illegal circumstances;
c) The motor vehicle was a private, not public place
,
;
d) Although the prints were on a movable object, it was in a private motor
vehicle and there was no logical explanation as to why Defendant's
prints were in the CD ;
e) The victim testified that he never met the Defendant prior to the day in
question, and as such , Defendant could not have been in the victim's
car with permission anytime prior to the crime in question; and
f) The victim positively identified the Defendant in Court during the Trial
as one of the perpetrators of the crime.
CONCLUSION
Based upon all of the above , this Court respectfully requests the
convictions of Defendant be upheld and his Appeal be DENIED,
./ -f'r ;-
6. {/'..;?' "("
Dated: ~:. ,'I v(/~ -
15