Com. v. Armstrong, T.

J-S29012-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
TORRAIZE ARMSTRONG,
Appellee No. 2921 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered September 25, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0006200-2017
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 05, 2019
The Commonwealth appeals from the trial court’s September 25, 2018
order granting Appellee’s (Torraize Armstrong) motion in arrest of judgment
on his conviction for accidents involving death or personal injury, 75 Pa.C.S.
§ 3742(a). After careful review, we affirm.
Appellee was convicted of the above-stated offense, as well as accidents
involving death or personal injury while not properly licensed, 75 Pa.C.S. §
3742.1(a), following a jury trial that concluded on June 15, 2018. On
September 17, 2018, Appellee filed a motion for extraordinary relief, seeking
an arrest of judgment on both convictions. On September 25, 2018, the court
entered an order granting Appellee’s requested relief regarding his conviction
for accidents involving death or personal injury, but denying him relief
regarding his conviction for accidents involving death or personal injury while
J-S29012-19
not properly licensed. The court then sentenced Appellee to a term of 24 to
48 months’ incarceration for that offense.
The Commonwealth filed a timely notice of appeal, and it also timely
complied with the trial court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal. The court thereafter filed a Rule
1925(a) opinion. Herein, the Commonwealth states one issue for our review:
[I. Appellee], driving an SUV, knew that he ran someone over and
crashed into several other vehicles. [Appellee] provided his name
and address, but after a police officer asked for his registration
and proof of insurance, he left the accident scene. Was the
evidence sufficient to convict [Appellee] under the “hit and run”
statute (accidents involving death or personal injury)?
Commonwealth’s Brief at 2 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
Our standard of review of the Commonwealth’s claim is as follows:
When ruling on a motion in arrest of judgment, a trial court is
limited to ascertaining “the absence or presence of that quantum
of evidence necessary to establish the elements of the crime.” At
this stage in the proceedings, the trial court is limited to rectifying
trial errors, and cannot make a redetermination of credibility and
weight of the evidence….
For purposes of appellate review,
“[i]n passing upon such a motion [in arrest of judgment],
the sufficiency of the evidence must be evaluated upon the
entire trial record. All of the evidence must be read in the
light most favorable to the Commonwealth and it is entitled
to all reasonable inferences arising therefrom. The effect of
such a motion is to admit all the facts which the
Commonwealth’s evidence tends to prove.”
In order for a trial court to properly grant a criminal defendant’s
motion in arrest of judgment on the ground of insufficient
evidence, “it must be determined that accepting all of the evidence
and all reasonable inferences therefrom, upon which, if believed
[the verdict could properly have been based], it would be
-2-
J-S29012-19
nonetheless insufficient in law to find beyond a reasonable doubt
that the [defendant] is guilty of the crime charged.”
Commonwealth v. Marquez, 980 A.2d 145, 147-48 (Pa. Super. 2009) (en
banc) (quoting Commonwealth v. Melechio, 658 A.2d 1385, 1387 (Pa.
Super. 1995) (citations omitted; emphasis in original)).
In the case sub judice, we have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the
certified record, and the applicable law. We have also considered the well-
reasoned opinion authored by the Honorable James P. Bradley of the Court of
Common Pleas of Delaware County. We conclude that Judge Bradley’s
decision accurately disposes of the Commonwealth’s issue, and demonstrates
that the court did not err in granting Appellee’s request for an arrest of
judgment for his conviction of accidents involving death or personal injury.
See Trial Court Opinion, 11/26/18, at 2-10. Accordingly, we adopt Judge
Bradley’s rationale as our own, and affirm the order from which the
Commonwealth appeals.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/5/19
-3-