Com. v. Espada, J.

J-S38025-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JEYDIUS ISAIAH ESPADA :
:
Appellant : No. 639 MDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 3, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-06-CR-0003866-2018
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: OCTOBER 7, 2020
Jeydius Isaiah Espada appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed
following his conviction for Third-Degree Murder, Aggravated Assault,
Firearms Not to Be Carried Without a License, and Possession of an Instrument
of Crime.1 On appeal, Espada claims the verdict for each count was against
the weight of the evidence, and that the evidence was insufficient to establish
that he possessed a concealed firearm, and possessed a firearm with the
intent to employ it criminally, rendering the evidence insufficient to support
any of the four guilty verdicts. We affirm on the basis of the trial court’s
opinion.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c), 2702, 6106, and 907 respectively.
J-S38025-20
In its opinion, the trial court sets forth the relevant factual and
procedural history of this case. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/22/20, at 1-5.
Espada was convicted of the aforementioned charges after a jury trial during
which the jury was entrusted to decide whether Espada or his associate,
Savage Guzman (“Savage”), was the shooter. Both Savage and his half-
brother Jerel Guzman (“Jerel”) testified that Espada shot the victim; however,
Espada accused Savage of having shot the victim. The jury found credible the
testimony of Savage and Jerel, and acquitted Espada of First-Degree Murder,
but found him guilty of all other charges.
Espada raises three questions on appeal.
Whether the verdicts convicting [Espada] of Murder of the Third
Degree, Aggravated Assault, Firearms Not to be Carried Without
a License, and Possession of a Firearm were against the weight of
the evidence?
Whether the evidence was insufficient to establish [Espada]
possessed a firearm in a vehicle or concealed on or about his
person?
Whether the evidence was insufficient to establish [Espada]
possessed a firearm concealed upon his person with intent to
employ it criminally?
Espada’s Br. at 11-12 (emphasis omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the parties’ briefs, the applicable
law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude that there
is no merit to the issues Espada has raised on appeal. The trial court properly
disposes of Espada’s weight and sufficiency challenges, and we do not find its
rejection of his weight challenge to be an abuse of discretion. See Trial Ct.
-2-
J-S38025-20
Op., at 5-13 (concluding that (1) guilty verdicts for Third Degree Murder,
Aggravated Assault, Firearms Not to Be Carried Without License, and
Possession of an Instrument of Crime were not against weight of evidence;
(2) evidence was sufficient to establish that Espada possessed a gun
concealed on his person, and used it to shoot his victim in the chest, killing
him). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/07/2020
-3-
,. i
Circulated 09/16/2020 09:21 AM
COMMONWEALTH OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PENNSYLVANIA OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DNISION
Vs.
JEYDIUS ISAIAH ESP ADA ASSIGNED TO: FUDEMAN, J.
Memorandum Opinion May 22, 2020 Madelyn Fudeman, J.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant, Jeydius Isaiah Espada, was charged by the Berks County District Attorney with
Count 1 - Murder of the First Degree 1, Count 2 - Murder ofthe Third Degree2, Count 3- Aggravated
Assault3, Count 4 - Firearms Not to be Carried without License", and Count 5 - Possessing
Instrument of Crirne5• Following a four (4) day jury trial, on January 16, 2020, Appellant was
found not guilty to Count 1; and guilty to counts 2, 3, 4 and 5.
On March 3, 2020, Appellant was sentenced to 17 years and 3 months to 34 years and 6
months to a state correctional facility. On April 17, 2020, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to
the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the order dated March 3, 2020. On April 23, 2020, this
court ordered Appellant to file a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal within
1 18 Pa.C.S.A § 2502 §§ A
2 18 Pa.C.S.A § 2502 §§ C
3 18 Pa.C.S.A § 2702 §§ A 1
SS :g �rt ZZ J. �..iCluZ
1
4
18 Pa.C.S.A § 6106 §§ Al
� 18 Pa.C.S.A § 907 §§ B
SlclftO'.J .:!O >ld:rlJ
. ,',.' , .. ,
.•,'.
i'
21 days from the order's entry on the docket, and on April 17, 2020, Appellant timely filed the
Concise Statement of Errors alleging the following:
1. The Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence to establish that Appellant
with malice caused the death of the victim.
2. The Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence to establish that Appellant's
conduct was an attempt to cause serious bodily injury.
3. The Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence to establish that Appellant
ever possessed a semiautomatic handgun regarding Count 4.
4. The Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence to establish that Appellant
ever possessed a semiautomatic handgun regarding Count 5.
5. The weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict of guilt entered against Appellant
for Count 2 - Murder of the Third Degree.
6. The weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict of guilt entered against Appellant
for Count 3 Aggravated Assault.
+
7. The weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict of guilt entered against Appellant
for Count 4 - Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License.
8. The weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict of guilt entered against Appellant ·
for Count 5 - Possessing Instrument of Crime.
DISCUSSION
Statement of Facts
At approximately 1 am. on May 6, 2018, Appellant and Jose Almodovar ("Savage")
drove Indanesia Wright ("April") to an after-hours party at 326 North Front Street, Reading,
Berks County, Pennsylvania. Notes of Testimony, Jury Trial, January 13, 2020 through January
16, 2"1if/f,�f1J.?,Jdt.s6;�iJ7-l38. Appellant and Savage did not remain at the party. Id April
SS :8 kJ 2 c! A ii� LliOZ
2
was the girlfriend of Damian Hosking (''victim") N. T. at 54. The Victim was not present at the
party when April arrived, but he arrived later. N. T. at 57. Earlier in the day, Victim and April
had an argument and ignored each other at the party. N. T. at 58. April invited Savage to come
back to the party by text because Victim was flirting with other girls. Id April went outside to
wait for: Savage to arrive. N. T. at 59.
Appellant and Savage arrived at the party in a Ford Expedition a few minutes after
April's text. N. T. at 59; 13 9; Commonwealth Exhibit 200. The party was held in a private home
with an entrance hallway separating the first-floor apartment and the steps leading to the upstairs
apartment. NT. at 5 9; 80, 13 9. Savage entered the hallway and was patted down by a doorman
for weapons. N. T. at 60. The doorman found no weapon on Savage. id Appellant stayed at the
front door and was not searched for weapons. NT. at 61.
Victim who was in the entrance hallway yelled to Savage that he could not come into the
party. NT. at 62; 150. Savage said OK and began to walk away, and as he did, Victim started a
verbal altercation with Savage. N. T. at 62-63; 150-151. April testified that she could not hear
what was being said because the noise level was very loud with more than 70 people in the small
first-floor apartment of a city row home with music playing. NT. at 63. Victim threw either a
drink or a bottle near Savage and Appellant as they were departing. N. T. at 64. Savage claimed it
was a bottle of Corona, and it hit Appellant NT. at 152. At this point, other girls at the party
dragged April into the apartment so she only heard a lot of yelling and screaming and then heard
gunshots. NT. at 65-66.
Savage testified that Appellant yelled to Victim to come outside and cocked a handgun
back. fJ.'.Ri!Jf:.:J:?!��:·�ited the property and ran to the right.NT. at 153. Savage said he
SS :8 Wlt 22 JJ:,1 G�uz
3
s . '\.\i,11.!-'ti,: •
)
I
turned around and saw Appellant with the gun; saw a muzzle flash, and heard a single gunshot
and as he continued to run; he heard another gunshot. Id. Savage returned home in the Ford
Expedition. Id. Both Savage and his half-brother, Jerel Guzman ("Jerel") testified that Savage
told Jerel what had just transpired at the party and that Appellant shot Victim. N.T. at 154; 191.
After the gunshots, April testified that she came out of the apartment and saw Victim laying
there and she accompanied him to the hospital where he died. N. T at 66-67.
Jerel testified that he read on Facebook and in a newspaper article that Victim died. N.T.
at 191-192. After reading about the homicide, Jerel called Crime Alert and informed them that
his brother Savage, and Appellant were involved in the incident. N.T. at 192; 205. On May 8,
2018; days after the shooting, Jerel spoke to Appellant on the phone to find out where the firearm
was located. N. T at 193-195. Jerel testified that he pretended that he was assisting the
Appellant and did not want Appellant to know that he was co-operating with police. N. T at 195.
Jerel found the firearm with Appellant's assistance, and Appellant, Savage and Jerel met at a
property in Hamburg, Berks County, Pennsylvania to break apart the firearm, a .40 caliber semi-
automatic hand gun, wipe the parts with bleach and hide them. N. T at 193-195. Later, Jerel
asked Appellant to tell him what had happened that night at the party. N. T. at 197-198.
Appellant told Jerel basically the same story that Savage told him. ld.;207. In addition,
Appellant told Jarel that he shot the Victim to protect Savage and would do it again if necessary.
Id.: 207.
On May 9, 2020, Jerel learned that the Appellant was planning to go to Florida, so Jerel
called Detective Cedeno of the Reading Police to express his concern that Appellant would leave
before police could come to the Hamburg property. Id. Reading Police assembled a team and
4
went to the Hamburg property. N. T 306-307. A female allowed police to enter and they found
Jerel and Savage in the living room and found Appellant hiding behind a counter in the kitchen.
Id. Appellant was taken into police custody. N. T at 322.
The primary trial witnesses for the Commonwealth, Savage and Jerel, each had
substantial and obvious personal interest in the outcome of the case. Appellant accused Savage
of killing Victim. Both Savage and Jerel testified credibly, and other than Appellant's testimony
that Savage shot Victim, the defense produced no testimony or evidence to rebut Savage and
Jerel. The jury clearly understood the potential impact of each of the witnesses' interest on their
testimony and weighed the testimony with all the other evidence.
Sufficiency of the Evidence - Standard of Review
Appellant alleges eight errors, four of which assert the evidence was insufficient to
support the jury's verdict. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting a defendant's conviction, an appellate court is required to evaluate the record "in the
light most favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable
inferences to be drawn from the evidence." Commonwealth v. Rahman, 75 A.3d 497, 500 (Pa.
Super. 2013) (citation omitted).
The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner and drawing all
proper inferences favorable to the Commonwealth, the jury could have determined that
5
all of the elements of the crime have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The
Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. The facts and
circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not be absolutely incompatible
with the defendant's innocence, but the question of any doubt is for the jury unless the
evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can
be drawn from the combined circumstances. Commonwealth v. Smith, 848 A.2d 973, 977
(Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted).
An appellate court "may not substitute [its] judgment for that of the fact finder; thus, so
long as the evidence adduced, accepted in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
demonstrates the respective elements of a defendant's crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the
appellant's conviction will be upheld." Rahman, 75 A.3d at 501.
Sufficiency of Evidence - Malice
Appellant's first challenge is that the Conunonwealth did not present sufficient evidence
to establish that Appellant with malice caused death of victim. Third-degree murder is defined in
the Crimes Code as "[all] other kinds of murder" other than first-degree murder or second-degree
murder. 18 Pa.CS.§ 2502(c). "The elements of third-degree murder, as developed by case law,
are a killing done with legal malice, but without the specific intent to kill required in first-degree
murder." Commonwealth v. Hill, 629 A.2d 949, 951 (Pa. Super. 1993). The Superior Court in
Hill cites Commonwealth v. Drum, 58 Pa. 9 (1868), to define malice: "recklessness of
6
consequences, and a mind regardless of social duty, although a particular person may not be
intended to be injured." 629 A.2d at 951. Malice may be inferred from the intentional use of a
deadly weapon on a vital part of the body. Commonwealth v. Hinchcliffe, 479 Pa. 551, 388 A.2d
1068, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 989, 99 S.Ct. 588, 58 L.Ed.2d 663 (1978).
Here, Savage was patted down for weapons by the doorman who decided which
individuals would be allowed into the party. NT. at 5 9-60. During the pat down, April observed
that the doorman did not discover any weapons on Savage. NT. at 60. Appellant was never
patted down because he never attempted to enter the party, remaining by the outside door.NT. at
6 0-61. This factual scenario creates at least a strong inference that Appellant was the shooter
because Savage did not possess a firearm on his person immediately prior to shots being fired.
Savage testified that after he ran out of the building, he saw Appellant holding a firearm, saw the
muzzle flash, and heard a shot fired.NT. at 153. As Savage continued to run, he heard another
shot fired. id This comports with the testimony of the pathologist, Dr. Neil Hoffman, who said
that Victim received two gunshot wounds. NT. at 247-248. The credibility of Savage's
testimony, as well as that of Jerel, and any other witness, is the sole province of the jury. This
jury knew the self-interest which may have influenced both Savage, his half-brother Jerel and
Appellant. According to Jerel, Appellant admitted that he shot the Victim trying to protect his
friend Savage and that he would do it again if ever necessary to protect Savage. NT. 197-198.
Clearly, as reflected by their verdict, the jury believed Jarel's testimony that Appellant knew
where the handgun was placed after the killing and directed Jarel on where it could be recovered.
NT. at 194.
Dr. Hoffman performed the autopsy on Victim and testified that cause of death was "a
7
bilateral hemothorax due to a gunshot to the chest." NT at 248-250. According to Hinchcliffe,
malice may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the body.
388 A.2d at 1068. A handgun is a deadly weapon and the chest and abdominal region contains
many vital organs. Appellant can be reasonably charged with the knowledge that gunshots to the
chest and abdomen are likely to cause grave injury or death. Accordingly, the facts adduced at
trial are sufficient to support the element of malice and the verdict of guilty to Count 2.
Sufficiency of Evidence - Serious Bodily Iniun::
Second, Appellant challenges that the Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence
to establish that Appellant's conduct was an attempt to cause seriously bodily injury. A person
may be convicted of aggravated assault graded as a first degree felony if he
"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.CS.§ 2702(a)(l).
"Serious bodily injury" means "[bjodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death
or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the
function of any bodily member or organ." 18 Pa. CS. § 2301.
Here, credible testimony at trial established that Appellant not only attempted to cause,
but he did in fact cause serious bodily injury to Victim by shooting Victim twice. N. T at 248-
250. The same analysis applied to the previous challenge is applicable to the instant one without
any need for further development.
8
Sufficiency of Evidence - Possession of Firearm
Third, Appellant challenges whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to
establish that Appellant possessed a semiautomatic handgun.
a) Offense defined.--
(I) Except as provided in paragraph (2); any person who carries a
firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed
on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of
business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this
chapter commits a felony of the third degree.
(2) A person who is otherwise eligible to possess a valid license under
this chapter but carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who
carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place
of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully
issued license and has not committed any other criminal violation
commits a misdemeanor of the first degree. 18 Pa.CS.A.§ 6106 Al.
Here, J erel testified that Appellant and Savage co-owned and shared a handgun. N. T. 203.
Video footage at trial shows Appellant arriving at the party wearing an oversized hoodie-type
sweatshirt. Commonwealth Exhibit 200; 268; N. T. at 323-325. Detective Cedeno testified:
Q Going back then to the camera at 350 North Front Street. I will
9
play one more time and then cut to the next pertinent timestamp. Do
you notice anything about the way that the defendant is walking or
what he is doing with his hands?
A He had his hands in his pockets. Left hand in his pocket. At one
point his right hand is almost like patting his pockets almost checking
if something is in there. N. T. 323-324.
The video shows how easily Appellant could have concealed a weapon under his hoodie. Prior
to Savage running, he said saw the Appellant cock back a handgun. N. T. at 151. Shortly
thereafter, Savage saw Appellant holding a handgun, saw a muzzle flash and heard the gunshots.
N. T. at 153. As discussed supra, Savage was patted down for weapons; Appellant was not. N. T.
at 60-61. According to Jarel, Appellant admitted that he shot the Victim. N. T. at 197-198, and
Appellant directed Jarel to the location of the discarded handgun. N. T. at 194. In addition,
Detective Cedeno testified that Appellant did not possess a license to carry a firearm nor was 236
North Front Appellant's home or place of business. N. T. 313; Commonwealth Exhibit 266.
Neither assertion was challenged by the Defense. The evidence is more than sufficient to support
the jury's guilty verdict on this count.
Sufficiency of Evidence - Possessing Instrument of Crime
Fourth, Appellant challenges that the Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence
that Appellant ever possessed an instrument of crime, namely a semiautomatic handgun.
(b) Possession of weapon.--A person commits a misdemeanor of the
10
first degree if he possesses a firearm or other weapon concealed
upon his person with intent to employ it criminally.
18 Pa.CS.A§ 907.
The same analysis applied to the previous challenge is applicable to the instant one
without further development. Additionally, by cocking the handgun back and yelling at the
Victim to come outside, by pulling the trigger and shooting the Victim. there is sufficient
evidence to establish that the Appellant had the intent to employ the handgun criminally.
''A person acts intentionally with respect to a material element of an offense
when:
(i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof. it is
his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a
result..;" 18 Pa.C,S.A. §(b)(l)(i).
The evidence is sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty to this Count.
Weight of the Evidence- Standard of Review
Appellant's last four errors claims that his conviction was against the weight of the
evidence. Appellant argues that the weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict of guilt for
Murder of the Third Degree, Aggravated Assault, Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License,
and Possessing Instruments of Crime.
11
"A true weight of the evidence challenge concedes that sufficient evidence exists to
sustain the verdict but questions which evidence is to be believed." Commonwealth v. Charlton,
902 A.2d 554� 561 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact who is free to believe all,
part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. An
appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the finder of fact. Thus, we may
only reverse the lower court's verdict if it is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's
sense of justice. Moreover, where the trial court has ruled on the weight claim below, an
appellate court's role is not to consider the underlying question of whether the verdict is
against the weight of the evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial
court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim. Commonwealth v.
Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa. 2003) (citations omitted).
Appellant claims that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. However, as set
forth above in this court's analysis of the sufficiency of the evidence, the verdict was not
unsupported by or contrary to the evidence. Rather, the competing evidence was provided by
witnesses who all had enormous personal interest in the outcome. When Jerel assisted Detective
Cedeno in recovery of the handgun and apprehension of Appellant, Jerel had no open charges.
NT J 99�201. However, atthe time of trial, Jerel was facing Felony Robbery charges and
testified that he was not promised anything in exchange for his testimony. Id. The jury
evaluated the testimony and evidence, determined the credibility of the witnesses and, when
assessing the weight of the evidence, believed the evidence presented by the prosecution and
rendered a guilty verdict. There was no testimony or evidence, other than that offered by
12
Appellant, contrary to or inconsistent with the verdict. The jury properly chose what testimony
to believe.
BY THE COURT:
13