J-S44036-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ARTTRELL WELLS, : : Appellant : No. 599 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 19, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002899-2015
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED OCTOBER 31, 2018
Arttrell Wells (“Wells”) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed
following his convictions of robbery, aggravated assault, criminal conspiracy,
and possession of an instrument of crime (“PIC”).1 We affirm.
In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant factual background
as follows:
Complainant, Rashad Harris [(“Harris”)], a reluctant Commonwealth witness, testified that on January 18, 2015, [Wells], in concert with others, went to [Harris]’s hotel room and asked both [Harris] and his girlfriend for money. [Harris] and his girlfriend informed [Wells] that they did not have any money. Later that day, [Harris] heard that [Wells] was on his way to [the home of Eric Miller (“Miller”),] located at 5513 Spring Street in the city and county of Philadelphia. [Harris] went to [] Miller’s home with the belief that [Wells] had stolen something from him and [Harris] wanted to get his things back.
[Harris] testified that when he questioned [Wells] about his stuff, [Wells] swung at him and they began fighting. Once the ____________________________________________
1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701(a)(1)(ii), 2702(a)(1), 903, 907(a). J-S44036-18
fight began, other individuals who were also present, joined in and began punching [Harris]. During the fight, [Wells] punched [Harris] approximately 20 times[,] and then, while [Harris] was on the ground getting punched by [] Miller, [Wells] grabbed a drinking glass and threw it at [Harris]. The glass struck [Harris] in the face and shattered. As a result, [Harris] sustained a broken nose, broken cheekbone, numerous stitches to his nose, and lacerations to his face.
After the assault, [Harris] testified that his brother[, Aaron Harris (“Aaron”),] “told me to give him the money out of my pocket” and “dug in my pocket and took my money, my cell phone, [and] my car keys.” [Harris] testified that he “fought [his] way out of the house.” [He stated: “]I was trying to get out of the house and they attacked me one more time, not trying to let me out of the house.” Once he finally managed to get out of the house, [Harris] “saw a cop car. The cop car stopped and called an ambulance.” After police banged on [Miller’s door], [Wells], along with [Aaron,] “went out the back door, [and] went over the fence.” Furthermore, while in the hospital, [Harris] testified that [Aaron] called to see if he was okay, when [Wells] then “got on the phone and told me don’t do that snitch stuff.”
***
On February 4, 2015, [Wells] was arrested and charged with numerous offenses, including, inter alia[:] [r]obbery – [t]hreatening [s]erious [b]odily [i]njury; [a]ggravated [a]ssault; [c]onspiracy – [r]obbery – [t]hreatening [s]erious [b]odily [i]njury; and [PIC].
On November 21, 2016, [Wells] waived his right to a jury trial. At the conclusion of his [bench] trial, [Wells] was found guilty on all charges. … [Wells] was sentenced to a total of 4½ to 9 years of incarceration in a state correctional facility, followed by 5 years of probation.
… On February 2, 2017, [Wells] timely filed the instant appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. On February 6, 2017, the [trial court] filed and served [Wells] an Order pursuant to Rule 1925(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, directing [Wells] to file and serve a Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal within 21 days of the [trial court]’s [o]rder.
-2- J-S44036-18
On February 27, 2017, [Wells] timely filed his [Concise Statement]….
Trial Court Opinion, 8/16/17, at 1-2, 3-5 (italicization added; citations and
footnotes omitted; paragraphs reordered).
On appeal, Wells raises the following question for our review: “Was the
evidence insufficient to support all of [Wells’s] convictions?” Brief for
Appellant at 2.
When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we
ascertain
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 [that of] 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 finder 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. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 39-40 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation
omitted).
-3- J-S44036-18
Wells alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support his
convictions for robbery, aggravated assault, criminal conspiracy, and PIC.
See Brief for Appellant at 4-12.
Concerning his conviction of robbery, Wells argues that he did not steal
from Harris, and that the evidence did not establish accomplice liability. Id.
at 6, 8-10. Wells claims that there was no evidence that he intended to
commit a theft from Harris, that he made an agreement with Aaron to steal
from Harris, or that he aided or attempted to aid Aaron to steal from Harris.
Id. at 8-10. Wells asserts that Aaron took Harris’s belongings at the end of
the encounter, after Wells had ceased to participate. Id. at 9.
Concerning his conviction of conspiracy to commit robbery, Wells alleges
that the evidence did not establish that he had an agreement with Aaron to
steal from Harris. Id. at 10, 12. Wells argues that he had no reason to believe
that Aaron was going to steal from Harris, and he took no action to enforce
the demands for money made by Aaron. Id. at 12. According to Wells, his
mere presence and involvement in the fight is insufficient to support his
conviction of conspiracy to commit robbery. Id.
Finally, concerning his conviction of aggravated assault and PIC, Wells
contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions because
he acted in self-defense. Id. at 13, 14. Wells alleges that Harris started the
fight, that he threw the glass at Harris in self-defense, and that the
Commonwealth did not meet its burden of disproving self-defense. Id. at 14.
-4- J-S44036-18
Wells specifically argues that (1) he believed he was in danger of serious bodily
injury when Harris asked Miller for help; (2) he did not provoke or continue
the fight, and (3) he was unable to retreat to safety. Id. at 14-15. Wells
states that his actions were in self-defense of himself, and of Aaron, who was
also provoked by Harris. Id. at 16; see also id. (claiming that since he threw
the glass in self-defense, it was not an instrument of crime).
In its Opinion, the trial court defined each of the offenses Wells contests,
cogently and thoroughly addressed his sufficiency challenges, and concluded
that the Commonwealth established all of the requisite elements of the
offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/16/17, at 6-
10; see also id. at 3-5 (wherein the trial court sets forth a recitation of the
evidence presented at trial). We agree with the sound reasoning and
determination of the trial court, as set forth in its Opinion, and therefore affirm
on this basis with regard to Wells’s sufficiency of the evidence claims. See
id. at 6-10.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 10/31/18
-5- Circulated 10/11/2018 11:25 AM
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 599 EDA 2017 v. CP-51-CR-0002899-2015 ARTTRELL WELLS
FILED OPINION AUG 16 2017 A�als/P091 Trial STATEMENT OF THE CASE Office of Judicial Records
This appeal arises out of an assault that took place at the home of Eric Miller,
located at 5513 Spring Street, on January 18, 2015. Defendant is appealing his convictions
on the charges of Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Conspiracy', and Possession of an
Instrument of a Crime with Intent. Defendant complains there was insufficient evidence
to support his convictions. Defendant's complaints are without merit
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 4, 2015, Defendant was arrested and charged with numerous offenses
including, inter aha: Robbery - Threatening Serious Bodily lnJury2, Aggravated Assault';
). l lllllll llllllIti . _!�90009901 I Co-conspirator Enc Miller, 544 EDA 2017 2 18 Pa CS A § 370l(a)(l)(11) 1 18 Pa CS.A § 2702(a) Conspiracy - Robbery - Threatening Serious Bodily Injury"; and Possession of an
Instrument of a Crime with Intent (PIC)5
On November 21, 2016, Defendant waived his right to a Jury trial. At the
conclusion of his waiver trial, Defendant was found guilty on all charges On January 19,
2017, Defendant was sentenced to 4 l,'2 to 9 years of incarceration in a state correctional
facility on the robbery charge. Defendant was also sentenced to a consecutive period of
probation of 5 years on the charge of robbery and three concurrent periods of probation of
5 years on the charges of aggravated assault> conspiracy, and PIC, all to be served
consecutively to the period of incarceration. Defendant was sentenced to a total of 4 Y2 to
9 years of incarceration in a state correctional facility, followed by 5 years of probation.
On February 2, 2017, Todd Michael Mosser, Esq., entered his appearance for the
Defendant On February 2, 2017, Defendant timely filed the instant appeal to the Superior
Court of Pennsylvania. On February 6, 2017, the Court filed and served Defendant an
Order pursuant to Rule l 925(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure,
directing Defendant to file and serve a Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal withm
21 days of the Court's Order.
On February 27, 2017, Defendant timely filed his Statement of Matters Complained
of on Appeal, raismg three issues, namely·
I. The evidence was insufficient to support Defendant's conviction for robbery because there was no evidence that Defendant took or attempted to take anything from Mr Harns.
2. The evidence was insufficient to [sjupport Defendant's convictions for robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery because there ts no evidence from which to reasonably infer that Defendant agreed with anyone to do anything to Mr. Harris, particularly since it was Mr Harris who approached Defendant and threw the first
4 18 Pa C S A § 903 5 18 Pa CS A § 907(a)
2 punch. Even if something was removed from Mr Harris' person, that act was not perpetrated by Defendant Wells and there is no evidence, other than his mere presence at the scene, from which to infer that he had any knowledge that a theft would occur or that he agreed with anyone to commit or aid in the cornrrussion of a theft The insufficiency of the evidence regarding the conspiracy conviction is further evinced by the fact that it was Mr Harns who approached Defendant, not the other way around
3. The evidence was insufficient to support Defendant's convictions for aggravated assau1t and PIC because the Commonwealth did not disprove that Defendant was acting in self-defense after Mr. Hams served as the aggressor, approached Defendant, and threw the first punch in this incident.
EVIDENCE AT TRIAL
Complainant, Rashad Harris, a reluctant Commonwealth witness, testified that on
January 18, 2015, Defendant, in concert with others, went to Complainant's hotel room
and asked both Complainant and his girlfriend for money. Complainant and his girlfriend
mformed Defendant that they did not have any money. (N.T., 11121/16, pg. 24) Later that
day, Complainant heard that Defendant was on lus way to Enc Miller's home located at
5513 Spring Street in the city and county of Philadelphia. (N T., 11 /21/16, pgs. 13, 26)
Complamant went to Mr Miller's home with the belief that Defendant had stolen
something from him and Complainant wanted to get his things back (N.T., 11/21/16, pgs.
13-15,26)
Complainant testified that when he questioned Defendant about his stuff, Defendant
swung at him and they began fighting. (N.T, 11/21/16, pg. 26) Once the fight began, other
mdividuals who were also present, joined in and began punching Complainant (N.T,
11/21/16, pg. 26) During the fight, Defendant punched Complainant approximately 20
times and then, while Complamant was on the ground getting punched by Mr. Miller,
Defendant grabbed a drinkmg glass and threw it at Complainant. (N.T., 11/21/16, pgs 30
3 -31, 55 - 56) The glass struck Complainant in the face and shattered. (N.T., 11/21/16,
pgs 26, 31) As a result, Complainant sustained a broken nose, broken cheekbone,
numerous stiches to his nose, and lacerations to his face. (N.T., 11/21/16, pgs. 31 - 32, 34)
After the assault, Complainant testified that his brother "told me to give him the
money out of my pocket" and "dug in my pocket and took my money, my cell phone, my
car keys" (N.T., 11/21/16, pg 26, 57 - 58) Complainant testified that he "fought my way
out of the house. I was trying to get out of the house and they attacked me one more time,
not trying to let me out of the house." (N.T., 11121/16, pg. 59) Once he finally managed
to get out of the house, Complainant "saw a cop car. The cop car stopped and called an
ambulance." (N T , l l /21116, pg 26) After police banged on the door, Defendant, along
with Complainant's brother "went out the back door, went over the fence." (NT, 11/21/16,
pg. 88) Furthermore, while in the hospital, Complainant testified that his brother called to
see if'he was okay, when Defendant then "got on the phone and told me don't do that snitch
stuff" (N.T., 11/21/16, pg. 36)
Philadelphia Police Detecnve Matthew Carny testified that on January 19, 2015,
Complainant arrived at the 181h District and made a complaint about having been assaulted
the day before (N.T, 11/21/16, pg. 65) Detective Caray interviewed Complainant about
the incident and typed up his statement with Complainant seated next to him (NT.,
11/21/16, pgs 65 - 66) Detective Caray then gave Complainant the opportunity to review
the typed statement and to make any corrections. (N.T., 11/21/16, pg. 66) Complainant
did not make any corrections before signing the bottom of each page of the Investigatron
Review Record while in Detective Carays presence. (NT, 11/21/16, pgs 66 - 67)
4 During the interview, Detective Caray testified that Complainant seemed upset and
cried several times throughout the interview. (N .T., 11/21/16, pg 67) Additionally,
Detective Caray testified that Complainant did not appear to be under the influence of
anything, as he understood Detective Carey's questions and was able to provide narrative
responses to questions (NT, 11/21 /l 6, pg. 67) In addition, Detective Caray testified that
on February 17, 2015, when he picked Complainant up for the grand Jury heanng,
Complainant did not appear to be under the influence of anything and that he was able to
have normal conversations with Complainant (N T , 11/21116, pgs. 67 - 68)
DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES RAISED
THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT DEFENDANT'S
CONVICTIONS.
In his statement of errors, Defendant complains that the evidence at trial was
insufficient to support his convictions. Defendant's complaints are without ment.
"A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law."
Commonwealth v. Fisher, 47 A 3d 155, 157 (Pa. Super. 2012) citing Commonwealth v.
Widmer, 560 Pa 308, 319, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (2000) Evidence rs deemed sufficient to
support the verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime charged and the
commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Widmer, supra citing
Commonwealth v. Karkaria, 625 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1993). Where the evidence offered to
support the verdict is in contradiction to the physical facts, in contravention to human
experience and the laws of nature, then the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law.
Fisher, supra. When reviewing a sufficiency claim, the court ts required to view the
s evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, and give the prosecution the
benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Widmer, supra citing
Commonwealth v. Chambers, 599 A 2d 630 (Pa. 1991).
In considering a sufficiency claim, the Superior Court "may not weigh evidence, nor
substitute the fact-finder'sjudgrnent with this Court's" Commonwealth v. Hennigan, 753
A.2d 245, 253 (Pa. Super. 2000). The facts and circumstances which have been established
by the Commonwealth are not required to preclude every possibility of innocence Id A
court may draw inferences from the facts so long as the inferred facts are more hkely than
not to flow from the proven facts Commonwealth v. Wodjak, 466 A.2d 991, 996 (Pa.
1983) The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt by means of "wholly circumstantial evidence." Hennigan,
supra.
In his first statement of errors, Defendant complains the evidence was insufficient
to support his conviction for robbery "because there was no evidence that Defendant took
or attempted to take anything from Mr. Harris." Defendant's complaint misstates the
record and rs without merit.
Defendant was convicted of robbery pursuant to 18 Pa CS.A.§ 370l(a)(I)(ii} and
conspiracy to commit robbery (inflicts serious bodily injury) pursuant to 18 Pa C.S.A §
903. Robbery is graded as a felony of the first degree, which provides in part, that a person
commits robbery when in the "course of committing a theft" he "threatens another with or
intentionally puts him in fear of immediate serious bodily injury" A theft occurs when
one "unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, moveable property of another
with intent to depnve him thereof." 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921(a). Section 3_70l(a)(2) of the
6 robbery statute states that an act is in the "course of committing a theft" if it occurs "in an
attempt to commit theft or in flight after the attempt or commission." In other words, it is
not necessary that a defendant have successfully completed a theft in order to commit
robbery. See Commonwealtk v. Robinson, 936 A.2d l 07, l l O (Pa Super 2007)
The testimony of the Commonwealth's witnesses, as discussed above, establishes
that Defendant attempted to deprive Complamant of his property when he, in concert with
others, assaulted Complainant before fleeing the scene with Complainant's property, and
then later threatening Complainant while he was in the hospital. The Court finds that the
circumstantial evidence presented in this case by the Commonwealth is suffi cient to
support Defendant's convictions for robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery.
In his second statement of errors, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence for his conspiracy to commit robbery conviction "because there is no evidence
from which to reasonably infer that Defendant agreed with anyone to do anything to
Mr. Harris." Defendant's complaint is without merit.
Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery (inflicts serious bodily
injury) pursuant to 18 Pa. C.S.A § 903, which provides in part that a person commits
conspiracy if he "agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them
will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit
such crime."
"In most cases of conspiracy, it is difficult to prove an explicit or formal agreement;
hence, the agreement is generally established via circumstantial evidence, such as by "the
relations, conduct, or circumstances of the parties or overt acts on the part of co-
7 conspirators."? Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 623 Pa. 253, 303, 82 A 3d 943, 973 (2013)
Once a conspiracy has been established, the actions of each co-conspirator may be imputed
to the other conspirators In this regard, "[tjhe law in Pennsylvania ts settled that each
conspirator is criminally responsible for the actions of his co-conspirator, provided that the
actions are accomplished in furtherance of the common design." Commonwealth v.
Baskerville, 681 A.2d 195, 201 (Pa Super 1996)
Here, the Commonwealth presented evidence that Defendant acted together, with
his co-conspirator, Aaron Harris, with the intent of depriving Complainant of his
belongings. Defendant mflicted serious injury on Complainant, in furtherance of the
conspiracy to deprive Complamant of his money, cell phone, and car keys, before fleeing
the scene with lus co-conspirator Thus, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence
to support Defendant's conviction of conspiracy to commit robbery.
In his third statement of errors, Defendant complains that the evidence was
insufficient to support Defendant's convictions for "aggravated assault and PIC because
the Commonwealth did not disprove that Defendant was acting in self-defense after
Complainant served as the aggressor, approached Defendant, and threw the first punch "
Defendant's complamt is without merit.
Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S A.§ 2702(a),
which provides in part that a person commits 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
hfe." Complainant testified that Defendant punched lum m the face "[a]bout 20 times."
(N.T., 11/21/16, pg. 30)
8 Moreover, a person shall be found guilty of PIC under 18 Pa.C.S A. § 907(a) "if he
possesses any instrument of crime with intent to employ it criminally " The statute defines
an instrument of crime as"(]) [a]nythmg specially made or specially adapted for cnrmnal
use (2) Anythmg used for criminal purposes and possessed by the actor under
circumstances not manifestly appropriate for lawful uses it may have" 18 Pa. CS.A. §
907(d). Complainant testified that Defendant "threw a glass cup on my face and it broke
on my face '' (N T., 1 1121/16, pg 26) When asked about the extent of his mjunes,
Complainant testified that he suffered a "[b]roken nose, broken cheekbone, stitches to my
nose, a lot of cuts to my face." (N.T., 11/21116, pg. 34) It is apparent from the record that
Defendant plainly used the glass cup as an "instrument of crime" as defined in subsection
(a) of 18 Pa C S.A § 907 to cause further injury to Complainant after he was already
severely injured.
"When a defendant raises the issue of self-defense, the Commonwealth bears the
burden to disprove such a defense beyond a reasonable doubt The Commonwealth
sustains this burden if it establishes at least one of the following: (l) the accused did not
reasonably believe that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury; (2) the accused
provoked or continued the use of force; or (3) the accused had a duty to retreat and the
retreat was possible with complete safety The Commonwealth need only prove one of
these elements beyond a reasonable doubt to sufficiently disprove a self-defense claim."
Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A 2d 1 128, 1143 (Pa. Super. 2009) (Internal citations and
quotations ornitted.)
Furthermore, "[tjhe law does not require an accused to elect an avenue of retreat
where a reasonably prudent person would conclude that such a decision would increase his
9 or her exposure to the threatened harm." Id. at 1143-44 "Although the Commonwealth is
required to disprove a claim of self-defense a Jury rs not required to believe the
testimony of the defendant who raises the claim." Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d
1128, 1135 (Pa.2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Carbone, 574 A. 2d 584, 589 (Pa. 1990)
"It remains the province of the jury to determine whether the accused's belief was
reasonable, whether he was free from provocation, and whether he had no duty to retreat."
Commonwealth v. McC/endo11, 874, A.2d 1223, 1230 (Pa. Super. 2005) (Internal citation
omitted)
The testimony of the Commonwealth's witnesses, as discussed above, establishes
that Complainant was unarmed, outnumbered, and severely beaten. Retreat for Defendant
was possible without exposing him to additional harm Furthermore, there was no evidence
to suggest that Complainant was continuing the fight or that he was pursuing Defendant
To the contrary, 1t is clear from the testimony at trial that the Commonwealth met its burden
111 establishing that Defendant, instead of retreating, went after Complainant with a glass
cup and caused even more injury to Complainant by smashing the glass on his face
CONCLUSION
After a careful review of the record, the Court finds that there was sufficient
credible evidence to support Defendant's convictions.
BY THE COURT
August 16, 2017