Com. v. Bankhead, R.

J-S69003-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
RODNEY BANKHEAD
Appellant No. 529 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 24, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0014137-2012
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
RODNEY BANKHEAD
Appellant No. 561 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 24, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012317-2009
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., and OLSON, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED DECEMBER 17, 2015
Appellant, Rodney Bankhead, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury
J-S69003-15
trial convictions for one (1) count of aggravated assault and two (2) counts
of criminal solicitation.1 We affirm.
The trial court set forth the relevant facts of this appeal as follows:
Complainant Rose Miller testified that in February 2009 she
lived with her aunt Vallerie Townes [in North Philadelphia]
with [Complainant’s] three children, ages 16, 13, and 11
years, two of whom [were] fathered by [Appellant].
[Complainant] explained that she first met Appellant while
working at a strip club, the One Nine Club[,] which
Appellant managed. After the birth of her daughter in
2001[,] Complainant left the strip club and ultimately
began working as a home health care provider.
At some point, Appellant left and upon his return the two
moved into [Appellant’s] father’s home in the West Oak
Lane section of Philadelphia. Complainant stated that soon
thereafter, Appellant began accusing her of having affairs
with other men while he was away. Their relationship
continually deteriorated to the point that Appellant became
physically abusive. [Complainant] described an incident
that occurred while she was at the home of one of her
clients and Appellant called her cell phone and did not get
an answer. When they finally spoke she told Appellant
where she was located[,] at which point he arrived,
grabbed her by the collar, and dragged her down the front
steps of her client[’s] residence. Complainant left the
premises and Appellant followed her in his car, ranting and
raving at her. Complainant returned home and Appellant
continued screaming and hollering at her and he kicked
and hit her. Appellant’s father’s wife arrived and called
police, whereupon Complainant gathered her belongings
and her children. Eventually [Complainant and her
children] went to live with her aunt.
Complainant testified that on February 21, 2009[,] she
went to the Pike Bar located near her aunt[’s] home. She
returned home after the bar closed at 2:00 AM the next
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702 and 902, respectively.
-2-
J-S69003-15
morning but went out shortly thereafter to purchase
cigarettes for her aunt. Complainant stated that upon
exiting the house, she observed Appellant standing on the
street besides his black jeep. Complainant explained that
she did not feel threatened by Appellant and that she got
into the jeep with him and engaged in a conversation
about their children. They traveled to Appellant’s
apartment house located in the 6500 block of 7th Street,
Philadelphia, PA. Complainant testified that en route, she
observed that Appellant had a black handgun on his right
hip in his waistband. After entering the house,
[Complainant] and Appellant went to Appellant’s bedroom
where Complainant observed tools, tape, rope, plastic, and
a piece of carpet laid out. Appellant then told Complainant
that he was going to ask her questions and that if she did
not answer truthfully he would hurt her. He also threw her
cell phone against the apartment wall and it broke into
pieces. Complainant testified that Appellant stated that he
had a plan and that he was going to cut her head off and
sit it on her aunt’s steps, and that he would then throw the
rest of her body into the river. Complainant stated that
Appellant was in a rage and began questioning her about
past relationships that she had with other people. As he
interrogated her, Appellant beat Complainant with…a
hammer multiple times about the head, arms and legs as
she sat on the bed crying. She further testified that
Appellant was also in possession of two knives. Appellant
pointed the larger of the knives at Complainant’s nose and
inflicted a cut. At one point he pinned Complainant down
onto the bed and pointed the knife at her chest.
Complainant injured her fingers trying to remove the knife
from her chest area. Complainant described that Appellant
then got up and grabbed the other knife. He swung it,
slicing her arm, while at the same time screaming that he
was going to kill her. As a result of the assault,
Complainant suffered injur[ies] to the back and thigh, a
deep knife wound to the left arm, deep bruising and
lacerations around the left eye and face. Eventually,
Complainant was able to free herself and she escape[d].
She testified that she ran down the street and began
knocking on the windows of the houses along the street
asking for help. Appellant caught up with Complainant and
pinned her to the ground. He told her that if she did not
come back to the house she would never see her children
-3-
J-S69003-15
again. Complainant returned to the house with Appellant
whereupon he directed Complainant to remove her
clothing and began beating her with the hammer as he
continued with his interrogation. Appellant kept
Complainant in his bedroom until the next Monday
morning at which time he prepared breakfast, which
Complainant ate, and he then transported Complainant to
the home of a client for whom she was scheduled to
provide care. She called her aunt and related the incident.
Later, the police were called and Complainant was
transported to the hospital for treatment.
Philadelphia Detective Gerard Winward testified that on
February 24, 2009[,] he conducted an interview with
Complainant and recorded her formal statement. As a
result of what Complainant reported to him, [Detective]
Windward prepared an Affidavit of Probable Cause and
obtained a warrant for Appellant’s arrest. Appellant was
finally arrested on July 23, 2009.
Timothy Burgess testified that in the summer of 2012 he
came into contact with Appellant while they were inmates
housed at the Philadelphia Detention Center where they
conversed and Appellant stated that he wanted [Mr.]
Burgess to make sure Complainant did not come to court
on October 29, 2012. [Mr.] Burgess related that Appellant
emphasized that he wanted [Mr.] Burgess to do whatever
[was] necessary to make sure that Complainant did not
appear for court. [Mr.] Burgess explained that he was due
to be released from the Detention Center a few weeks later
and would then have an opportunity to complete the task.
Appellant described Complainant to [Mr.] Burgess, told him
that she had a tattoo of a rose on her arm, and directed
[Mr.] Burgess to the bar at Germantown Avenue and Pike
Street which Complainant frequented. [Mr.] Burgess
stated that he knew Appellant before they met in the
Detention Center, having frequented the strip club
Appellant managed. [Mr.] Burgess testified that he also
knew Complainant from the strip club and knew that she
was Appellant’s girlfriend. Appellant instructed [Mr.]
Burgess to put “Visine” into Complainant’s drink[,] saying
that it would act like a “mickey” and distort her memory.
[Appellant] explained that he did not want [Mr.] Burgess to
kill Complainant but nevertheless to do whatever [was]
-4-
J-S69003-15
necessary to prevent her from coming to court. Appellant
offered to pay [Mr.] Burgess $40,000 for completing the
task.
[Mr.] Burgess told Appellant he would take care of
preventing Complainant from appearing in court.
However, instead, [Mr. Burgess] sent a letter to the district
attorney and reported the incident.
(Trial Court Opinion, filed April 30, 2015, at 2-5). Procedurally, Appellant’s
initial trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury. The Commonwealth
retried Appellant, and a jury convicted Appellant on October 25, 2013, of
aggravated assault, criminal solicitation to commit aggravated assault, and
criminal solicitation to intimidate a witness or victim. On January 24, 2014,
the court sentenced Appellant to consecutive terms of ten (10) to twenty
(20) years’ incarceration for aggravated assault, ten (10) to twenty (20)
years’ incarceration for solicitation to commit aggravated assault, and five
(5) to ten (10) years’ incarceration for solicitation to intimidate a witness or
victim, followed by ten (10) years’ probation. Appellant filed a timely post-
sentence motion on January 31, 2014, which the court denied on February
5, 2014. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on February 17, 2014. On
May 14, 2014, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). After the
court granted two extensions, Appellant filed a Rule 1925(b) statement on
September 8, 2014, and requested permission to supplement the Rule
1925(b) statement following receipt of the trial transcripts. The court
granted Appellant’s request and ordered Appellant to file a supplemental
-5-
J-S69003-15
Rule 1925(b) statement by January 9, 2015. On January 21, 2015,
Appellant filed a supplemental Rule 1925(b) statement, which the court
accepted as timely filed.
Appellant raises a single issue for our review:
WAS THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A
CONVICTION OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT?
(Appellant’s Brief at 3).
In his sole issue, Appellant argues Complainant falsely told the police
that Appellant had forced her into the vehicle but later testified at trial that
she had entered Appellant’s vehicle voluntarily. Appellant asserts
Complainant again lied to the police again when she said she took a cab to
work after the incident but later testified at trial that Appellant had given her
a ride. Appellant further contends Complainant’s injuries were inconsistent
with her allegation that Appellant had repeatedly hit her on the head with a
hammer. Appellant claims the evidence also failed to show his conduct was
sufficiently reckless or intentional. Appellant concludes the evidence was
insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated assault. We disagree.
A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence implicates the following
legal principles:
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 the fact-finder. In
-6-
J-S69003-15
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. Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super. 2005)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Bullick, 830 A.2d 998, 1000 (Pa.Super.
2003)).
The Crimes Code defines aggravated assault in relevant part as
follows:
§ 2702. Aggravated Assault
(a) Offense defined.—A person is guilty of aggravated
assault if he:
(1) attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or
causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly
under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to
the value of human life[.]
* * *
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1). “Serious bodily injury” is defined as “[b]odily
injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious,
-7-
J-S69003-15
permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of
any bodily member or organ.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301.
Instantly, Appellant held Complainant in his apartment for over
twenty-four hours. During that time, Appellant intentionally and repeatedly
beat Complainant on her head, arms, and legs with a hammer. Contrary to
Appellant’s contention, Complainant’s emergency room doctor testified that
Complainant’s head injuries could have been caused by blunt force trauma
inflicted with a hammer. Moreover, Appellant swung a knife at Complainant
and inflicted a deep wound on her left arm, which required stitches.
Appellant’s assault left scars on Complainant’s head and arm. Thus,
Appellant’s aggravated assault conviction was supported by sufficient
evidence. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1).
To the extent Appellant points to relatively minor inconsistencies
between parts of Complainant’s statement to police (which did not concern
the nature of the assault) and her in-court testimony, Appellant challenges
the weight of the evidence. See Commonwealth v. Price, 616 A.2d 681,
683 (Pa.Super. 1992) (explaining sufficiency challenge asks whether
evidence exists on record to support conviction, whereas argument that
witness’ account is not credible goes to weight). The jury, however, was
free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence, including Complainant’s
testimony regarding the assault. See Jones, supra. Accordingly, we
affirm.
-8-
J-S69003-15
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/17/2015
-9-