Com. v. Washington, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Com. v. Washington, A.

DecidedJuly 21, 2015

Docket969 EDA 2014

StatusUnpublished

This text of Com. v. Washington, A. (Com. v. Washington, A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Com. v. Washington, A., (Pa. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

J-S37015-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

ANTHONY WASHINGTON

Appellant No. 969 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 13, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011611-2011

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and LAZARUS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JULY 21, 2015

Appellant, Anthony Washington, appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas,

following his jury trial convictions for first-degree murder, criminal

conspiracy, and possessing instruments of crime (“PIC”).1 We affirm.

In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant

facts and procedural history of this case.2 Therefore, we have no reason to

restate them.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 903(c), and 907(a), respectively. 2 On September 5, 2014, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On October 2, 2014, Appellant untimely filed a Rule 1925(b) statement, but requested the court to consider the statement as timely. The court (Footnote Continued Next Page) J-S37015-15

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO AN ARREST OF JUDGMENT ON ALL CHARGES, INCLUDING MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND PIC, WHERE THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICT?

IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL ON ALL CHARGES WHERE THE VERDICT IS AGAINST THE GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?

(Appellant’s Brief at 3).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Steven R.

Geroff, we conclude Appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence claim merits no

relief.3 The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly

disposes of the question presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed

December 19, 2014, at 60-61) (finding: Victim’s cause of death was ruled

homicide; during altercation at bar between Appellant and others several

days earlier, Victim’s friend shot at Appellant; evidence demonstrated

Appellant planned to kill Victim; on date of murder, Appellant learned of

Victim’s location, arrived at location armed with .40 caliber Beretta, recruited _______________________ (Footnote Continued)

subsequently entered an order on October 7, 2014, which accepted Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement as timely filed. 3 In his first issue, Appellant fails to provide any argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions of conspiracy and PIC. Therefore, these claims are waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080, 1088 (Pa.Super. 2014) (stating: “Appellate arguments which fail to adhere to these rules may be considered waived, and arguments which are not appropriately developed are waived”).

-2- J-S37015-15

lookouts and getaway driver, and waited in alleyway for Victim to come out

of local club and get into car; Appellant walked up to Victim’s car and fired

gun at Victim’s vital body parts (head and chest); expert testimony

established that any of fired shots would have killed Victim; Appellant sold

gun following murder to “boy in South Philly,” and ballistics evidence linked

gun recovered from trunk of buyer’s car to fired cartridge casings and

bullets; Appellant told multiple people about murdering Victim and bragged

about it; killing was willful, deliberate and premeditated; evidence was

sufficient to sustain murder conviction). The record supports Appellant’s

convictions. Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s sufficiency issue on the basis

of the trial court’s opinion.

In his second issue, Appellant challenges the weight of the evidence.

“[A] challenge to the weight of the evidence must be raised with the trial

judge or it will be waived.” Commonwealth v. Gillard, 850 A.2d 1273,

1277 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 672, 863 A.2d 1143 (2004)

(internal quotation marks omitted). A claim challenging the weight of the

evidence generally cannot be raised for the first time in a Rule 1925(b)

statement. Commonwealth v. Burkett, 830 A.2d 1034 (Pa.Super. 2003).

An appellant’s failure to avail himself of any of the prescribed methods for

presenting a weight of the evidence issue to the trial court constitutes

waiver of that claim, even if the trial court responds to the claim in its Rule

1925(a) opinion. Id. Instantly, Appellant failed to raise a timely claim

-3- J-S37015-15

regarding weight of the evidence. Rather, Appellant raised the claim for the

first time in his Rule 1925(b) statement. Therefore, Appellant’s weight of

the evidence claim is waived. See id.

Moreover, even if properly preserved, Appellant’s weight of the

evidence claim would merit no relief. The court concluded:

[T]he jury may regard evidence relating to the contents of any prior inconsistent statement as proof of the truth of anything each of these witnesses said in any earlier statement, as well as consider this evidence to help the jury assess the credibility and weight of the testimony of each of these witnesses at trial. Although multiple witnesses in the present case did not remember their earlier statements against [Appellant] and made various excuses for their memory lapses (for example, using opiates for years (Rice); being shot in the face twice (Childs); engaging in excessive drinking and fighting with his wife (Cropper)), all of those witnesses made prior statements to police. Those statements were damaging to [Appellant], and the jury was free to believe them.

* * *

In the present case, witnesses Darian Brown (Blizz), William Childs (O), and James Newsome (Hawk) had criminal involvement in the death of [Victim] Omar Williams, and as such, they were accomplices in the crime. Although accomplice testimony was supported by copious independent evidence in the present case, even in the absence of such evidence the jury could still have found [Appellant] guilty solely on the basis of accomplice testimony if the jury was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accomplice had testified truthfully and that [Appellant] was guilty.

Here, the evidence presented at trial viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner established that [Appellant] has committed the crime of murder of the first degree. The malice could have been inferred, inter alia, from [Appellant’s] use of a deadly

-4- J-S37015-15

weapon on vital parts of [Victim’s] body—his head and chest. The evidence also demonstrated that [Appellant] engaged in extensive planning for [Victim’s] murder and employed other people to act. This court has noted that “this could have almost been like an organized crime case” complete with lookouts and a getaway driver. [Appellant] then took a substantial step in furtherance of the conspiracy by firing shots at [Victim] thereby murdering him. In addition, the evidence demonstrated that [Appellant] was in possession of an instrument of crime and that he intended to employ it criminally.

Upon review of the challenge to the weight of the evidence, this court concludes that the verdict was consistent with the evidence.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI