Com. v. Contreras, Y.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: October 9, 2024
• Docket: 1497 EDA 2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S11044-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : YONI CONTRERAS : : Appellant : No. 1497 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 15, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0002970-2021

BEFORE: BOWES, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.: FILED OCTOBER 9, 2024

Appellant, Yoni Contreras, appeals from the judgment of sentence of 20

to 40 years’ incarceration imposed on him after he was convicted by a jury of

attempted murder with serious bodily injury and aggravated assault.1 For the

reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Appellant was charged with the above offenses and carrying a firearm

without a license for shooting a man (Victim) five times at close range in a

parking lot in Allentown, Pennsylvania on April 29, 2021. These charges were

tried to a jury from November 8 to 10, 2022. At Appellant’s trial, the

Commonwealth called 11 witnesses, including a woman who was at the scene

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 901(a), 2502(a), and 1102(c), and 2702(a)(1), respectively. J-S11044-24

at the time of the shooting, police officers who responded to and investigated

the shooting, and a physician who treated Victim and testified concerning the

extent of Victim’s injuries. In addition, the Commonwealth introduced a video

recording of the shooting from the surveillance camera at a nearby store and

recordings of four telephone calls between Appellant and state prisoners.

Appellant testified in his own defense.

The police officer who first arrived on the scene testified that while she

was on patrol nearby on April 29, 2021, she heard what she believed were

gunshots, that she immediately went toward the area from which the shots

came, and that she found Victim shot and covered in blood and saw fired

cartridge casings in the parking lot. N.T. Trial, 11/8/22, at 49-55. A police

officer who investigated the crime scene on the day of the shooting testified

that five fired cartridge casings were found at the scene. N.T. Trial, 11/9/22,

at 33-40, 45. All five fired cartridge casings were determined by firearms and

tool marks experts to have been from the same firearm, but the firearm was

never found. Id. at 202, 207, 212, 231-32; Commonwealth Ex. 68.

The surveillance video showed a man wearing a white t-shirt pull out a

gun and fire it multiple times at Victim. Commonwealth Ex. 3. The video

showed the shooter and a man wearing an orange jacket then get into a white

van and showed the van driving away after they got in. Id. The video also

showed the shooter interacting with the man wearing the orange jacket just

before he began shooting at Victim. Id.

-2- J-S11044-24

The woman who was at the scene at the time of the shooting testified

that she knew both Appellant and Victim and that the white van in the video

was her van. N.T. Trial, 11/8/22, at 96-97, 112-13. She testified that she

was in the parking lot where Victim was shot in the white van with her ex-

boyfriend, who was the driver, and two of her children. Id. at 98-99. She

testified that her ex-boyfriend got out of the van, that she remained in the

van with her children, talking on her phone, and that she did not see the

shooting or hear any gun shots. Id. at 103-04, 109-10, 115, 128-29. She

testified that her ex-boyfriend suddenly said “we’re leaving,” that Appellant

and another man got in the van, and that the van then drove off. Id. at 109-

11, 151-52. She also testified that Appellant was wearing a white t-shirt and

that the other man who got into the van with Appellant, who she knew as

Fetty, was wearing a yellow or orange jacket. Id. at 109-14.

In the prison calls, which occurred April 29 and 30, 2021, May 18, 2021,

and June 1, 2021, Appellant admitted shooting Victim. In calls on April 29,

2021, shortly after the shooting, and on April 30, 2021, the day after,

Appellant told the other party on the call that he was involved in “some

gangster shit” with Victim on April 29, 2021, and that Victim was shot and

was in the hospital. Commonwealth Ex. 48-51. In the May 18, 2021 call,

Appellant told the other person that he was on the run because he shot Victim.

Commonwealth Ex. 52-53. In the June 1, 2021 call, Appellant told the other

party that he was with Fetty, that Victim was disrespecting him, that he asked

-3- J-S11044-24

Fetty to “give me the jawn,” that Fetty “pass it to me,” and that he, Appellant,

shot Victim five times. Commonwealth Ex. 54-55.

At trial, Appellant denied shooting Victim and testified that he was at

the parking lot in a blue car when Victim was shot, that he drove away when

he heard gun shots, and that he did not get into the white van. N.T. Trial,

11/9/22, at 238-45, 261. Appellant admitted that he said in the prison calls

that he shot Victim but asserted that he was claiming to have shot Victim to

impress fellow members of his gang and protect himself from threats to his

safety. Id. at 251-55, 288-90, 299-307.

On November 10, 2022, the jury convicted Appellant of all charges. N.T.

Trial, 11/10/22, at 110-15. Immediately following the verdict, Appellant

moved for a judgment of acquittal on the charge of carrying a firearm without

a license on the ground that the Commonwealth had not proved that Appellant

lacked a license to carry a firearm, and the trial court granted that motion.

Id. at 115, 117-19. On March 15, 2023, the trial court sentenced Appellant

to 20 to 40 years’ incarceration for the attempted murder with serious bodily

injury conviction and imposed no sentence for aggravated assault on the

ground the aggravated assault conviction merged with the attempted murder

conviction. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion in which he sought,

inter alia, a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of

the evidence. The trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion, and

Appellant timely appealed from his judgment of sentence.

-4- J-S11044-24

Appellant raises the following two issues in this appeal:

A. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction if the Commonwealth failed to preset proof of the defendant being the shooter and possessing the firearm?

B. Was the verdict against the weight of all the evidence in regards to the proof of whether or not the defendant was properly proven to have been the perpetrator of the shooting?

Appellant’s Brief at 4 (description of trial court rulings omitted).

Our standard of review in a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence

is well-settled:

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 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. Tucker, 143 A.3d 955, 964 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa. Super. 2011)) (brackets

omitted).

-5- J-S11044-24

The Commonwealth is required to introduce sufficient evidence to prove

beyond a reasonable doubt both the statutory elements of the crimes and that

the defendant was the perpetrator of the crimes. Commonwealth v.

Smyser, 195 A.3d 912, 915 (Pa. Super. 2018); Commonwealth v. Brooks,

7 A.3d 852, 857 (Pa. Super. 2010). Appellant does not dispute that the

evidence was sufficient to prove the elements of the offenses of attempted

murder with serious bodily injury and aggravated assault. Rather, he argues

only that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was the person who

shot Victim. Appellant’s Brief at 6-10.

Contrary to Appellant’s contentions, the evidence introduced at trial was

sufficient to prove that Appellant was the person who shot Victim. The video

showed a person wearing a white t-shirt shoot Victim multiple times, showed

that person and a man wearing an orange jacket get into a white van after

shooting Victim, and showed the van then leaving the scene. Commonwealth

Ex. 3. A woman who was in that white van at the time of the shooting

identified Appellant as the person wearing a white t-shirt who got into her van

just before it left the scene. N.T. Trial, 11/8/22, at 109-14, 151-52. In

addition, Appellant admitted that he shot Victim in multiple phone calls to

individuals that he knew. Commonwealth Ex. 48-55.

Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he

committed the crimes because there was no “definitive proof that he was the

shooter” and no witness testified to seeing him shoot Victim or recognized him

-6- J-S11044-24

on the videotape. Appellant’s Brief at 6-10. That argument is without merit.

The absence of DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, and testimony of any

witness that they saw the defendant commit the crimes does not make the

evidence insufficient where other evidence is introduced that is sufficient to

show that the defendant was the perpetrator. Commonwealth v. Hobel,

275 A.3d 1049, 1069-71 (Pa. Super. 2022). Here, as discussed above, there

was an identification of Appellant as the person that the video showed was

the shooter, and Appellant admitted committing the crime. That was sufficient

to prove that Appellant was the shooter without any further identification

evidence or forensic evidence. Id. at 1070-71 (evidence was sufficient where

Commonwealth showed that defendant told his friend that he committed

robberies and that defendant was found with clothing and a gun that matched

what the perpetrator was wearing and carrying in videos of the robberies and

defendant was found with the same brand of cigarettes that the perpetrator

took in one of the robberies).

Appellant contends in his second issue that the verdict was against the

weight of the evidence based on the same alleged deficiencies as in his

sufficiency of the evidence argument and on basis of the alleged “weakness”

of the testimony identifying him coupled with his own testimony. Appellant’s

Brief at 6, 10. This claim likewise merits no relief.

A new trial may be granted on the ground that the verdict is against

the weight of the evidence only where the verdict is so contrary to the

-7- J-S11044-24

evidence that it shocks the trial court’s sense of justice. Commonwealth v.

Clemons, 200 A.3d 441, 463 (Pa. 2019); Commonwealth v. James, 268

A.3d 461, 468 (Pa. Super. 2021); Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d

736, 758 (Pa. Super. 2014). Our review of the denial of a motion for a new

trial based on weight of the evidence is limited. We review whether the trial

court abused its discretion in concluding that the verdict was not against the

weight of the evidence, not whether the verdict, in this Court’s opinion, was

against the weight of the evidence. Clemons, 200 A.3d at 463-64; Hobel,

275 A.3d at 1071 n.9; Commonwealth v. Delmonico, 251 A.3d 829, 837

(Pa. Super. 2021).

Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, an appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge …. One of the least assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial is the lower court’s conviction that the verdict was or was not against the weight of the evidence ….

Hobel, 275 A.3d at 1071 n.9 (quoting Delmonico).

The trial court found that the jury’s verdict was not against the weight

of the evidence because the jury could properly reject both Appellant’s

attempts to discredit the woman who identified him as the person in a white

t-shirt who got into her van and Appellant’s testimony that his admissions that

he shot Victim were false boasts. Trial Court Opinion, 8/10/23, at 10-12. That

conclusion was not an abuse of discretion. Moreover, the fact that no witness

testified that they saw him shoot Victim and that there was no DNA or

fingerprint evidence does not make a guilty verdict against the weight of the

-8- J-S11044-24

evidence where, as here, other evidence is introduced that is sufficient to show

that the defendant was the perpetrator. Hobel, 275 A.3d at 1071-72.

For the foregoing reasons, neither of Appellant’s issues merits relief.

Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 10/09/2024

-9-