Com. v. Hill, C.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: January 8, 2026
• Docket: 492 MDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S42038-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CORREY ANTONIO HILL : : : No. 492 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 20, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0005400-2021

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KING, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LANE, J.: FILED JANUARY 08, 2026

Correy Antonio Hill (“Hill”) appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed following his convictions for aggravated assault and possession of

firearm prohibited.1 After review, we affirm.

We glean the factual and procedural history of this matter from the

certified record. In December 2021, the Harrisburg Bureau of Police, filed a

criminal complaint charging Hill with one count of aggravated assault —

attempt to cause serious bodily injury or causes injury with extreme

indifference and one count of possession of a firearm prohibited. In January

2022, a grand jury indicted Hill. In August 2023, the Commonwealth filed a

notice of joinder, consolidating Hill’s case for trial with those of his co-

defendants, Raymeir Haynes (“Haynes”) and Deron Scott, Jr. (“Scott”).

____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a)(1), 6105(a)(1). J-S42038-25

The matter proceeded with a jury trial from October 16 through October

20, 2023. We summarize the evidence as follows. In June 2021, Erin Lapean

(“Lapean”) and her minor son, C.L., were sitting on the front porch of their

home on Berryhill Street when occupants of a white Kia (the “Kia”) opened

fire toward the porch. Bullets struck C.L. in both legs and Lapean suffered

multiple gunshot wounds, including one to the head, from which she later

died.

Multiple witnesses identified Hill as being present at the scene and

exchanging gunfire with occupants of the Kia. Brianna Roman, who had

known Hill for years, testified that she saw two masked men firing from the

front seats of a white sedan and observed Hill return fire from near a tree by

the porch. Richelle Brown similarly testified that she saw the Kia circle the

area, stop, and fire toward the porch before seeing Hill at the scene shortly

thereafter.

Probation officer Bernard Rendler (“Rendler”) testified regarding gang

activity in the Harrisburg area. Rendler testified that Sheldon Richardson

(“Richardson”), a male known on the street as “Shelbo,” is a validated member

of the All-Nighter Boys (“ANB”) gang, and that Hill is also a validated member

of the ANB gang. Rendler additionally testified that Scott is a validated gang

member of the Pop Out Gang (“POG”). Rendler testified to the ongoing feud

between ANB and POG, and to music videos and social media posts escalating

the conflict.

-2- J-S42038-25

Other witnesses provided context for motive. Randy Springer

(“Springer”) testified that he knew Hill. Springer came forward with

information regarding the June 2021 shooting despite having criminal cases

pending against him. He acknowledged that for his testimony, he entered a

plea agreement and received a sentence of probation for his criminal charges.

He explained that Hill told him shortly after the shooting that he had fired at

individuals in the Kia after they initially shot at him and Hill identified some of

the occupants. According to Springer, Hill stated that the incident stemmed

from a dispute involving a woman known as “Kalene,” and acknowledged a

prior confrontation in the “South” area earlier that day.

On cross-examination, Hill’s counsel highlighted inconsistencies in

Springer’s account regarding the timing of the earlier shooting, as Springer

gave conflicting statements about whether it occurred the same day as the

charged incident. Hill’s counsel also questioned Springer regarding a prior

conviction for providing false identification to law enforcement. Additionally,

Springer acknowledged that he had known Hill for only a short period before

the incident.

Tajaaye McIntyre (“McIntyre”), who was then dating co-defendant

Haynes, testified that Haynes and Scott were feuding with Richardson, who

she knew as Shelbo. McIntyre explained that Hill and Scott did not get along.

She described an earlier confrontation between Scott and Richardson at a

Dave & Busters in May 2021, after which tensions between the groups

-3- J-S42038-25

escalated. McIntyre testified that she entered a plea agreement to resolve

her own pending charges in exchange for her testimony about the June 2021

incident. She acknowledged giving at least six prior statements before trial

and admitted that some of those statements were false because she wished

to avoid getting into trouble.

On cross-examination, McIntyre testified that an alleged earlier shooting

occurred on the same day as the charged incident. She acknowledged,

however, that she did not see who fired the shot and could not identify any

distinguishing characteristics of the shooter.

Detective Andrew Bath collected video footage in this matter. The video

footage captured the Kia’s movements before and after the shooting, and

investigators later recovered the vehicle bearing a bullet hole in the rear

driver-side door. Forensic investigators documented both .40-caliber and

9mm casings at the scene.

The Commonwealth also presented evidence of Hill’s admissions during

a December 2021 encounter at the Dauphin County Prison booking area,

during which Chief Corey Dickerson (“Chief Dickerson”) was present

undercover, posing as an inmate. While Chief Dickerson observed, Hill and

Haynes discussed who they believed had been talking to the police about the

June 2021 incident. Hill stated he was not cooperating with police because he

faced the same charges as Haynes. Haynes acknowledged that he had driven

to speak with Hill on the day of the shooting and that, after Hill began firing

-4- J-S42038-25

at the Kia, he returned gunfire. Haynes also remarked that shots appeared

to have come from both sides of the street, noting bullet holes on each side

of the vehicle, and stated he later had the Kia repaired. Hill and Haynes briefly

referenced the May 2021 altercation at Dave & Buster’s involving Richardson.

As Hill and Haynes continued questioning why they had been placed together,

Chief Dickerson ended the interaction for safety reasons.

Additional testimony addressed witness reluctance, prior inconsistent

statements, and Hill’s assault of Scott in the Dauphin County Prison in June

2022. The Commonwealth also introduced Hill’s prior convictions for

aggravated assault and robbery, to which he had pled guilty in 2010.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted Hill of aggravated

assault. The trial court separately found Hill guilty of possession of firearm

prohibited. Following the preparation of a presentence investigation (“PSI”)

report, the trial court sentenced Hill on December 20, 2023, to a mandatory

term of ten to twenty years’ incarceration for aggravated assault,2 followed by

a consecutive sentence of seven and one-half to fifteen years’ incarceration

for possession of firearm prohibited. In sum, the trial court imposed an

aggregate sentence of seventeen and one-half to thirty-five years’

incarceration.

2 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9714(a)(1) (mandating a minimum sentence of ten years

for defendants previously convicted of a crime of violence at the time of the current offense).

-5- J-S42038-25

Hill filed a timely post sentence motion requesting to modify his

sentence, and challenging the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, which

the trial court denied. Hill filed a notice of appeal. This Court issued an order

dismissing Hill’s appeal for failure to file a docketing statement.

Hill filed a pro se petition for post-conviction collateral relief (“PCRA”).3

The PCRA court appointed counsel who then filed an amended PCRA petition

seeking reinstatement of Hill’s direct appeal rights. The trial court issued an

order reinstating Hill’s direct appeal rights. Thereafter, Hill filed this timely

appeal. Both Hill and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Hill raises the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the evidence presented at trial by the Commonwealth was insufficient to sustain a conviction for aggravated assault and possession of a firearm prohibited?

2. Alternatively, whether the verdict, where the jury found [Hill] guilty of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm prohibited, was against the weight of the evidence, requiring that [Hill] be afforded a new trial?

3. Whether the trial court erred/and or abused its discretion in not considering the sentencing factors enumerated in 42 P.S.[A.] § 9721(b) when sentencing [Hill], specifically, the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on the community, and [Hill’s] rehabilitative needs?

Hill’s Brief at 5 (unnecessary capitalization omitted and issues reordered for

ease of discussion).

3 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.

-6- J-S42038-25

In his first issue, Hill challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain

his convictions for aggravated assault and possession of a firearm prohibited.

See Hill’s Brief at 16-19. Before proceeding to the merits of Hill’s sufficiency

arguments, we must determine whether he has preserved them for our

review. It is well-established that “any issues not raised in a [Rule] 1925(b)

statement will be deemed waived” for appellate review. Commonwealth v.

Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998). Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate

Procedure 1925(b) provides that in a statement of matters complained of on

appeal, an appellant “shall concisely identify each error that the appellant

intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify the issue to be raised for the

judge,” and issues that are not properly raised are deemed waived.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii), (vii). Additionally, this Court has stated:

[i]n order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, an appellant’s [Rule] 1925(b) statement must state with specificity the element or elements [of the challenged offense] upon which the appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient. . . . Such specificity is of particular importance in cases where, [an appellant] was convicted of multiple crimes[,] each of which contains numerous elements that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. . . .

Commonwealth v. Ellison, 213 A.3d 312, 321 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation

and quotation marks omitted, emphasis added).

Here, the jury convicted Hill of aggravated assault, and the trial court

separately convicted him of possession of a firearm prohibited. Notably, each

of these offenses contained numerous elements. In his Rule 1925(b)

-7- J-S42038-25

statement, Hill did not state with specificity any element of either offense that

allegedly went unproven at trial. Instead, he simply stated in boilerplate

fashion, that “the evidence presented at trial by the Commonwealth was

insufficient to sustain a conviction for aggravated assault and possession of a

firearm prohibited.” See Hill’s Concise Statement, 5/15/25, at unnumbered

1 (unnecessary capitalization omitted). As Hill failed to “specify the element

or elements upon which the evidence was insufficient,” we accordingly find

waiver. See Ellison, 213 A.3d at 321.

In his second issue, Hill challenges the weight of the evidence supporting

his convictions. Our review of a weight claim is well-established:

When reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, we review the trial court’s exercise of discretion. A trial court may sustain a weight challenge only if the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice. The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact, who is free to believe all, none or some of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. We defer to the trial court’s decision regarding a weight of the evidence claim because it had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented.

Commonwealth v. Clemens, 242 A.3d 659, 667 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citations

and quotation marks omitted).

Hill does not articulate how the verdict was contrary to the weight of the

evidence. Instead, he asserts that “[e]ven if the evidence presented by the

Commonwealth was sufficient to sustain a conviction in this matter, the

evidence presented was not creditable [sic] and the jury improperly relied on

the statements of [Springer] and [McIntyre] in reaching a verdict.” Hill’s Brief

-8- J-S42038-25

at 29. In support, Hill points to alleged inconsistencies in Springer’s account,

including discrepancies concerning the timing of a prior shooting and

Springer’s limited familiarity with Hill. Hill further contends that McIntyre’s

testimony lacked credibility because she entered into a plea agreement, gave

multiple prior statements, previously provided false information to law

enforcement, and acknowledged that she could not identify any distinguishing

characteristics of the shooter in the earlier incident that occurred the same

day.

The trial court thoroughly reviewed the evidence presented at trial and

concluded:

[S]everal days worth of evidence was presented at trial. This evidence supports Hill’s convictions for aggravated assault and possession of a firearm prohibited. Because Hill has not specifically highlighted how the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and discerning nothing in the verdict that shocks one’s sense of justice, we conclude that Hill's argument in this regard lacks merit.

Trial Court Opinion, at 9/6/25, at 23.

Based on our review, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court

in denying Hill’s post-sentence motion challenging the weight of the evidence.

The record demonstrates that the jury heard extensive testimony from

multiple eyewitnesses, law enforcement officers, and forensic investigators.

It was within the jury’s province to credit the testimony of Springer and

McIntyre, weigh inconsistencies, and resolve questions of credibility. See

Clemens, 242 A.3d at 667. Moreover, Hill’s generalized disagreement with

-9- J-S42038-25

the jury’s assessment does not meet the high standard necessary to overturn

a verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence. See id. We therefore

decline to disturb the trial court’s determination that the verdict did not shock

its sense of justice. Thus, Hill’s second issue affords him no basis for relief.

In Hill’s third issue, he challenges the discretionary aspects of his

sentence, from which there is no automatic right to appeal. See

Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581, 585 (Pa. Super. 2010).

Instead, an appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence

must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test that

determines:

(1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.

Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935-36 (Pa. Super. 2013) (some

citations omitted). In determining whether the appellant has raised a

substantial question for our review, this Court may not look beyond the Rule

2119(f) statement. See Commonwealth v. Barnes, 167 A.3d 110, 123 (Pa.

Super. 2017) (en banc).

The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. A substantial question exists only when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.

- 10 - J-S42038-25

Commonwealth v. Thompson, 333 A.3d 461, 467 (Pa. Super. 2025)

(citations and quotation marks omitted).

Although Hill filed a timely notice of appeal, preserved a discretionary

sentencing issue in a post-sentence motion, and included a Rule 2119(f)

statement in his brief, he failed to properly invoke this Court’s review. See

Thompson, 333 A.3d at 467. The claims raised in Hill’s post-sentence

motion, Rule 1925(b) statement, and Rule 2119(f) statement differ. The sole

discretionary sentencing claim Hill preserved in both his post-sentence motion

and his Rule 1925(b) statement alleged that the trial court abused its

discretion by failing to consider or adequately weigh the sentencing factors

enumerated in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b). However, Hill’s Rule 2119(f)

statement does not address that claim, nor does it identify any sentencing

factor under section 9721(b) that the trial court allegedly failed to consider or

improperly weighed. Instead, Hill’s Rule 2119(f) statement discusses a

different discretionary sentencing claim — that the sentence is excessive

because the trial court should have imposed the sentences concurrently, as

they were interrelated and arose from the same event — a claim he did not

include in his concise statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)(iv) (stating that

“any issue not properly included in the Statement . . . shall be deemed

waived”). Thus, Hill has waived appellate review of his discretionary

sentencing challenge.

Even if Hill had preserved a discretionary sentencing claim for our

review, we would conclude that he failed to raise a substantial question and

- 11 - J-S42038-25

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sentence. See

Thompson, 333 A.3d at 467; see also Commonwealth v. Bowersox, 690

A.2d 279, 281 (Pa. Super. 1997) (holding that an allegation that the judge

failed to consider sentencing factors does not raise a substantial sentencing

question); Commonwealth v. Dortch, 343 A.3d 298, 310-11 (Pa. Super.

2025) (explaining that excessiveness claims premised on imposition of

consecutive sentences do not raise a substantial question for our review). As

the trial court explained,

[T]he the victims of crime, a mother and her young son, were standing on their front porch when they both sustained gunshot wounds. The court further noted that the mother died and while the boy physically recovered, he would never mentally or emotionally recover from the loss of his mother and being present (when she was shot and killed). The court noted that [Hill] had been involved in the system with serious charges before and instead of walking away from them continued to engage in activity which led to “this result today.” The court noted that it read the [PSI] report and acknowledged the loss to not only the victims’ family, but to [Hill’s] as well.

Id. at 5 (citations omitted).

The record reflects that the trial court thoroughly considered and

weighed numerous factors in fashioning Hill’s sentence, including “the

protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact

on the life of the victim and on the community, and [Hill’s] rehabilitative

needs.” Trial Court Opinion, 9/6/25, at 4. Additionally, the trial court

considered Hill’s involvement in other serious felony offenses. See id. The

record further reflects that the trial court was in possession of a PSI report

- 12 - J-S42038-25

and considered its findings. See id. at 5; see also Commonwealth v.

Watson, 228 A.3d 928, 936 (Pa. Super. 2020) (holding that where a PSI

report exists, we presume that the sentencing judge was aware of relevant

information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those

considerations along with mitigating statutory factors).

Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, we affirm Hill’s judgment of

sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judge Olson concurs in the result.

Judge King joins the memorandum.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 01/08/2026

- 13 -