J-S47032-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MICHAEL DAVIS : : Appellant : No. 971 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 4, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002024-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MICHAEL DAVIS : : Appellant : No. 973 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 4, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002025-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MICHAEL DAVIS : : Appellant : No. 974 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 4, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002026-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA J-S47032-24
: v. : : : MICHAEL DAVIS : : Appellant : No. 975 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 4, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002027-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MICHAEL DAVIS : : Appellant : No. 1063 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 4, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002028-2021
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., SULLIVAN, J., and BECK, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED APRIL 22, 2025
Michael Davis (“Davis”) appeals from the judgments of sentence
imposed by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas (“trial court”)
following his convictions of first-degree murder, aggravated assault, firearms
not to be carried without a license, carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia,
and possessing instruments of crime (“PIC”). 1 Davis challenges the sufficiency
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(a), 2702(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), 6108, 907(a).
-2- J-S47032-24
and the weight of the evidence to support his convictions. As we find no merit
to either claim, we affirm.
The trial court summarized the background of this case as follows:
On October 8, 2020, at approximately 7:58 p.m., five men were hanging out on the sidewalk near 4937 Frankford Avenue in Philadelphia when [Davis] walked up and began shooting at them with a pistol. [Davis] shot and killed the decedent, Ammron Hargrove [(“Hargrove”)], and injured four other victims, Laquan Hayes, De Vaughn Hart, Darrel Bell, and Khalil Clowney. [Davis] is seen on surveillance video parking his car, a red Saturn Vue, on Wakeling Street, around the corner and a block away from where the victims were hanging out. [Davis] leaves the vehicle running with its lights on and walks west down Wakeling Street before turning the corner onto Frankford Avenue. [Davis] briefly steps in and out of two storefronts while walking down Frankford, first a Chinese restaurant called Super Garden, where he is seen on internal cameras adjusting the firearm in his waistband and then Dezzy’s Jamaican Restaurant. There was no internal camera in Dezzy’s to show what occurred inside. [Davis] is seen wearing a surgical mask, a blue jacket, dark blue Adidas pants with a distinctive light stripe down the side, and distinctive black shoes with a wavy white stripe.
[Davis] exits Dezzy’s with his hands in his jacket’s central pocket, walks by the victims, abruptly turns while pulling out a semi-automatic pistol and fires multiple shots at the men, striking five members of the group and a Ford Focus parked nearby. The men quickly scatter, except for the decedent, who falls head-first into the sidewalk and collapses onto the ground. Darryl Boggs [“Boggs”], a bystander, jumps out of his parked Ford Focus and begins shooting at [Davis], using a handgun with an extended magazine. [Davis] flees the scene, turning east down Allengrove Street and then north on Darrah Street, returning to the parked red Saturn Vue with its lights still on. [Davis] gets in the vehicle and drives away. Less than 20 minutes after the shooting, [Davis] is seen driving the same red Saturn wearing the same clothes pulling into the ambulance bay of Frankford Jefferson Hospital and is treated for gunshot wounds to his right leg and left arm.
Police investigators recovered forty-eight nine-millimeter fired cartridge casings (“FCC’s”) from two different weapons from
-3- J-S47032-24
the scene. Ballistics testing determined that sixteen of the FCC’s were fired from one weapon, while the other thirty-two FCC’s were fired from a second weapon.
The red Saturn Vue was found unoccupied at the Frankford Jefferson Hospital emergency room drop-off area. Pursuant to a search warrant for the vehicle, police recovered a single black Adidas sneaker from the driver’s side floor of the vehicle, paperwork in the glove compartment identifying [Davis]’s mother, Kimberly Smith, as the registered owner of the vehicle, and blood samples from stains on the center console and driver’s seat. The blood from the stains was tested and the DNA matched a DNA sample provided by [Davis]. Inside the hospital, a bag of property was recovered of clothing taken from [Davis].
Trial Court Opinion, 4/29/2024, at 2-3 (footnote omitted).
On October 27, 2020, [Davis] was arrested and charged with murder and related offenses, as well as four counts of aggravated assault. On September 13, 2023, a jury convicted [Davis] of [first-degree murder], firearms not to be carried without a license …, carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia …, [PIC], and four counts of aggravated assault. Sentencing was deferred for pre[]sentence investigation and mental health reports. [The trial court] received a pre[]sentence investigation report, but on November 15, 2023, [Davis] refused to participate in the mental health evaluation.
On December 4, 2023, [the trial court] sentenced [Davis] to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for [first-degree murder], concurrent sentences of one-and-a-half years to three years of incarceration for firearms not to be carried without a license, one to two years of incarceration for carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia, and five to ten years of incarceration for each count of aggravated assault. No further penalty was imposed for [PIC].
On December 13, 2023, [Davis] filed a timely post-sentence motion, which [the trial court] denied on March 1, 2024. [Davis] filed a timely notice of appeal and a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Id. at 1-2 (footnote and unnecessary capitalization omitted).
-4- J-S47032-24
Davis presents the following issues for review:
I. Whether [Davis’] convictions for murder and aggravated assault were based upon insufficient evidence of the identity of the shooter and of [Davis’] intent where the Commonwealth’s evidence consisted of an unclear composite video that merely demonstrated that [Davis] reacted to the movements and unrecorded words of the alleged victims and did not premeditate to harm others?
II. Whether [Davis’] convictions are against the weight of the evidence where the evidence established that [Davis] was shot and wounded in an unrelated incident in the 1600 block of Granite Avenue and that [Davis] was not present at the 4900 block of Frankford Avenue where the murder and assaults occurred, where [Davis] explained to Detective Crone that he was shot going into a store, where the alleged aggravated assault victims did not appear to testify at the trial, where the ballistician could not say that all the FCC’s found on Frankford Avenue were fired during the same incident and where [Davis’] blood was not found at the crime scene?
Davis’ Brief at 6 (issues reordered for ease of review).
In his first issue, Davis challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to
support his first-degree murder and aggravated assault convictions on two
bases. See id. at 20-22. First, Davis argues that the video of the shooting
that the Commonwealth presented at trial was insufficient to identify him as
the shooter. Id. at 20-21. Davis claims that the Commonwealth did not
present any eyewitness testimony identifying him as the shooter or any
ballistics evidence linking him to this shooting, as Davis maintains he was shot
during a different shooting on the night in question on the 1600 block of
Granite Avenue in Philadelphia. Id. Second, to the extent the video does
sufficiently identify Davis as the shooter, Davis asserts that it did not provide
-5- J-S47032-24
evidence that he acted with the necessary specific intent to kill Hargrove to
sustain a conviction of first-degree murder or that he recklessly attempted to
cause serious bodily injury to the four other victims of the shooting. Id. at
21-22. Davis maintains that he was merely reacting to those individuals
shooting at him first. Id. at 22.
“A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law.”
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). “We review
claims regarding the sufficiency of the evidence by considering 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.” Commonwealth v.
Miller, 172 A.3d 632, 640 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quotation marks and citation
omitted). Furthermore, “a conviction may be sustained wholly on
circumstantial evidence, and the trier of fact—while passing on the credibility
of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence—is free to believe all, part, or
none of the evidence.” Id. “In conducting this review, the appellate court
may not weigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the fact-finder.”
Id.
Our Supreme Court has set forth the elements of first-degree murder
as follows: “(1) a human being was unlawfully killed; (2) the defendant was
responsible for the killing; and (3) the defendant acted with malice and a
specific intent to kill.” Commonwealth v. Martin, 101 A.3d 706, 718 (Pa.
-6- J-S47032-24
2014) (citing 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a)). The Crimes Code defines specific intent
as follows:
(1) 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; and
(ii) if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist.
18 Pa.C.S. § 302(b)(1); Commonwealth v. Palmer, 192 A.3d 85, 88 (Pa.
Super. 2018).
“Specific intent may be formed in an instant … and it can be discerned
from the conduct and attending circumstances that show the perpetrator's
state of mind.” Commonwealth v. Newton, 318 A.3d 133, 139 (Pa. Super.
2024). ”The law does not require a lengthy period of premeditation. Indeed,
the period of reflection required for premeditation to establish the specific
intent to kill … can be formulated in a fraction of a second. Premeditation and
deliberation exist whenever the assailant possesses the conscious purpose to
bring about death.” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 323 A.3d 744, 753 (Pa.
2024).
Additionally, “[a] factfinder may presume the intent to kill based on the
accused’s use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the victim’s body or in the
general area in which vital organs are located.” Newton, 318 A.3d at 139
(quotation marks and citation omitted). “The deadly weapon presumption is
-7- J-S47032-24
a presumption of fact founded on human experience, [as] one does not
normally use a deadly weapon on a vital part of another’s body unless he
intends to kill.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).
“A person is guilty of aggravated assault 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.C.S. § 2702(a)(1). “Serious bodily injury” is
any “[b]odily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes
serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of
function of any bodily member or organ.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2301. “To prevail on
a theory of recklessness in a prosecution for aggravated assault, the
Commonwealth must show that the assailant’s recklessness rose to the level
of malice, a crucial element of aggravated assault.” Commonwealth v.
Riggs, 63 A.3d 780, 784-85 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted). Malice
consists of a “wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty,
recklessness of consequences and a mind regardless of social duty, although
a particular person may not be intended to be injured.” Id. (citation omitted).
Additionally, “malice is present under circumstances where a defendant did
not have an intent to kill, but nevertheless displayed a conscious disregard for
an unjustified and extremely high risk that his actions might cause death or
serious bodily harm.” Commonwealth v. Santos, 876 A.2d 360, 364 (Pa.
2005) (citation omitted, formatting altered).
-8- J-S47032-24
The record reflects that at trial, the Commonwealth presented a
compilation video of the shooter’s movements and actions prior to, during,
and immediately after the shooting that resulted in Hargrove’s death and
injury to four other individuals. See N.T., 9/12/2023, Commonwealth Exhibit
70. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth
as the verdict winner, the video revealed an individual who would later be
identified as Davis, park his Saturn Vue roughly a block from where the
shooting occurred, exit the car with its lights on, and head in the direction of
the shooting location. Id. On his way to the shooting, Davis stepped inside
two storefronts and in one of those stores, adjusted his waist area. Id. Davis
then walked past a group of individuals when he suddenly, and without
warning, fired several shots at close range into the group standing on the
sidewalk. Id. He shot Hargrove in the head, killing him, and shot four other
victims as they began to flee after Hargrove had already collapsed to the
ground. Id. The medical examiner testified that the gunshot wound to the
head was the cause of Hargrove’s death. N.T., 9/12/2023, at 23. The sole
act of aggression made towards Davis occurred after he began shooting, when
Boggs, whose vehicle Davis struck with gunfire, began shooting at Davis in an
apparent response to Davis’ shooting. N.T., 9/12/2023, Commonwealth
Exhibit 70.
After the shooting, the video showed Davis immediately returning to the
Saturn Vue with the firearm in his hand visible. Id. Davis then drove himself
-9- J-S47032-24
to Frankford Jefferson Hospital where he received treatment for gunshot
wounds to his arm and leg. Id. Blood samples police recovered from the
Saturn Vue belonged to Davis and Davis’ mother, Kimberly Smith, is the
registered owner of that vehicle. N.T., 9/12/2023, at 49-59, 149.
The record further reflects that the compilation video shows that the
shooter was wearing the exact same clothing the hospital removed from Davis
on the night in question. N.T., 9/12/2023, Commonwealth Exhibit 70.
Specifically, the shooter was wearing navy blue Adidas athletic pants with a
white or light-colored stripe down the side, black sneakers with a white stripe,
and red underwear. Id. Indeed, there is no mistaking that the video revealed
the shooter to be wearing red underwear, that Davis was wearing red
underwear as emergency medical personnel wheeled Davis into the hospital,
and that medical personnel removed red underwear from Davis while he was
at the hospital. See id.
Thus, contrary to Davis’ assertion, the record contains evidence clearly
identifying him as the shooter. Nor does the record support his claim that he
was somehow acting in self-defense. With respect to first-degree murder, the
record contains evidence that Davis acted with the specific intent to kill
because Davis shot Hargrove at close range and in the head, a vital part of
the body. See Anderson, 323 A.3d at 754 (explaining that the head is a vital
part of the body). Thus, the jury could infer that Davis acted with the specific
- 10 - J-S47032-24
intent to kill, as a perpetrator can form the specific intent to kill in an instant.
See Newton, 318 A.3d at 139.
Likewise, for his convictions of aggravated assault, the record contains
evidence that Davis acted with recklessness with respect to the four other
shooting victims. As this Court has held regarding aggravated assault
convictions, “[t]he jury could find under the totality of the circumstances that
[the appellant] fired into the group of people with intent to inflict serious bodily
injury upon someone within that group.” Palmer, 192 A.3d at 96.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, the evidence the
Commonwealth presented at trial plainly identified Davis as the shooter, that
Davis acted with the specific intent to kill Hargrove, and that Davis’ actions
were reckless as to the four other shooting victims. See Miller, 172 A.3d at
640. We therefore conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Davis’
convictions of both first-degree murder and aggravated assault.
For his second issue, Davis argues that the verdict was against the
weight of the evidence. See Davis’ Brief at 16-19. Specifically, Davis argues
that the compilation video was of too low quality to identify Davis as the
shooter and that the Commonwealth failed to disprove that he had been shot
at an unrelated shooting that occurred at the 1600 block of Granite Avenue in
Philadelphia. Id. at 16-18. Davis also asserts that the verdict was against
the weight of the evidence because none of the four surviving victims of the
- 11 - J-S47032-24
shooting testified at trial or identified Davis as the shooter. Id. at 18. Finally,
Davis contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence
because “the ballistician could not say with any certainty when the ballistics
evidence deposited at the … shooting scene occurred and therefore could not
positively link it to the events that led to Hargrove’s death” and because police
did not recover any of Davis’ DNA from the scene of the shooting. Id. at 18-
19.
The following legal principles apply to a trial court’s consideration of a
challenge to the weight of the evidence supporting a conviction:
An allegation that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. A new trial should not be granted because of a mere conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same facts would have arrived at a different conclusion. A trial judge must do more than reassess the credibility of the witnesses and allege that he would not have assented to the verdict if he were a juror. Trial judges, in reviewing a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence do not sit as the thirteenth juror. Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.
Thus, to allow an appellant to prevail on a challenge to the weight of the evidence, the evidence must be so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the trial court.
Commonwealth v. Juray, 275 A.3d 1037, 1046-47 (Pa. Super. 2022)
(quotation marks and citations omitted).
Our standard of review for weight of the evidence claims, however,
differs from that of the trial court:
- 12 - J-S47032-24
Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. 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 when reviewing a trial court’s determination that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. 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 and that a new trial should be granted in the interest of justice.
Id. at 1047 (citation omitted).
In rejecting Davis’ weight claim, the trial court explained:
The jury’s verdict is not so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice. The evidence of [Davis’] guilt was overwhelming. As discussed above, the evidence established that [Davis] parked his car around the corner a block away, leaving the lights and possibly the engine on, walked to where the victims were hanging out with his firearm concealed in his jacket, pulled out the firearm and shot sixteen times at the five men. Accordingly, [Davis’] claim that his conviction is against the weight of the evidence fails.
Trial Court Opinion, 4/29/2024, at 7.
As explained above, the compilation video the Commonwealth
presented at trial more than convincingly identifies Davis as the individual who
killed Hargrove and shot four other individuals. See N.T., 9/12/2023,
Commonwealth Exhibit 70. While there may have been another shooting that
occurred at the 1600 block of Granite Avenue in Philadelphia on the night in
question, the Commonwealth was not required to disprove that Davis was shot
during that shooting. Further, Davis does not point to any evidence (and our
- 13 - J-S47032-24
review of the evidence presented at trial reflects there was none) linking him
to the shooting that occurred at the 1600 block of Granite Avenue.
The Commonwealth was only required to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that Davis committed the shooting that occurred in this case. See
Commonwealth v. Sami, 243 A.3d 991, 998 (Pa. Super. 2020) (explaining
that the Commonwealth must only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant has committed the particular crime of which he is accused). As our
review of Davis’ challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence of his first-degree
murder and aggravated assault convictions concluded, there was ample
evidence that Davis was perpetrator of the shooting in question. Accordingly,
we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that
the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
As we find no merit to Davis’ sufficiency and weight of the evidence
claims, he is not entitled to relief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Date: 4/22/2025
- 14 -