Com. v. Wilkins, H.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: September 23, 2025
• Docket: 2948 EDA 2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A14019-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : HANEF WILKINS : : Appellant : No. 2948 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 6, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008007-2021

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : HANEF WILKINS : : Appellant : No. 2949 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 6, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008013-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. *

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 23, 2025

Appellant Hanef Wilkins appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed

after a jury convicted him of third-degree murder and criminal conspiracy at

Docket No. 8007-2021,1 and criminal conspiracy, possessing an instrument of

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(c) and 903, respectively. J-A14019-25

crime (PIC), possession of a firearm without a license, possession of a firearm

in Philadelphia, and two counts of aggravated assault, at Docket No. 8013-

2021.2,3 On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency and weight of the

evidence, the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, and claims that the trial court

erred in denying a motion for a mistrial. After careful review, we affirm on

the basis of the trial court’s opinion.

The facts of the case are well known to the parties. See Trial Ct. Op.,

8/16/24, at 1-17. Briefly, on October 4, 2018, at approximately 8:00 P.M.,

there was a shooting at a gas station on the 2400 block of West Passyunk

Avenue in Philadelphia. Appellant, Yameen Mofield, Khalid Nyheem Harrison,

and Markell Davis were identified as the shooters, and Appellant and Mofield

were affiliated with the 31 st Street gang. The shooting resulted in the death

of one minor, R.B., and wounding of two additional minors, K.B. and Q.B. 4

The victims were alleged to be affiliated with the 27 th Street gang, and there

was a history of back-and-forth violence between the two rival gangs. See

id. Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the aforementioned

crimes. The trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of forty-five

to ninety years of incarceration. See id. at 19.

2 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 903, 907(a), 6106(a)(1), 6108, and 2702(a), respectively.

3 The appeals were consolidated sua sponte pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 513. See Order, 7/31/24.

4 All three victims were juveniles, and the trial court identified the victims by

their initials. See Trial Ct. Op., 8/16/24, at 1.

-2- J-A14019-25

Appellant filed post-sentence motions, which the trial court denied, and

Appellant filed a timely notice appeal. Appellant filed a concise statement of

errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and the trial

court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion in response.

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues:

1. Was the evidence insufficient to convict Appellant of murder in the 3rd degree and related charges for the killing of R.B., and aggravated assault and related charges as to the shooting of K.B. and Q.B. as there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed either offense?

2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not finding that the guilty verdicts entered against . . . Appellant were against the weight of the evidence?

3. Did the trial court err by granting the Commonwealth’s motion to admit other acts permitting the jury to hear that almost one year prior to the killing of R.B., Appellant was in possession of a firearm not connected to the charges in this case, and that eighteen months after the killing of R.B. that Appellant was in a stolen vehicle, where firearms were recovered, and [Appellant was] shot at another location in Philadelphia by unknown individuals?

4. Did the trial court err by not granting a mistrial after the prosecution called Khalid Nyheem Harrison, an alleged co- conspirator in the killing of R.B. who previously pled guilty to killing R.B., to testify about his involvement in the killing of R.B. and after Harrison refused to testify, specifically referenced Harrison’s guilty plea referencing that he killed R.B. with Appellant and Mofield?

Appellant’s Brief at 3 (some formatting altered).

Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and relevant legal

authority, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. See Trial Ct. Op.,

-3- J-A14019-25

8/16/24, at 1-61.5 The trial court set forth the correct standards of review for

each issue, thoroughly addressed Appellant’s claims of error, and concluded

that Appellant was not entitled to relief. See id. For these reasons, we affirm

based on the trial court’s well-reasoned opinion. 6

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 9/23/2025

5 As noted above, Appellant was convicted of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108. Recently, a panel of this Court concluded that Section 6108 was unconstitutional as applied to the appellant in that matter. See Commonwealth v. Sumpter, ___A.3d___, ___, 2025 PA Super 124, 2025 WL 1743218, at *8 (Pa. Super. filed June 23, 2025). As a new rule of law, the Sumpter decision applies retroactively to cases pending on direct appeal so long as the issue was preserved at all stages of adjudication. See Commonwealth v. Grooms, 247 A.3d 31, 37 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2021). Here, Appellant did not challenge the constitutionality of Section 6108. Therefore, Appellant has not preserved this issue, and we are constrained to find it waived in this appeal. See id.

6 The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court’s opinion in the

event of further proceedings.

-4-