Com. v. Worrell, D.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: August 27, 2025
• Docket: 948 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A16026-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : DONNIE WORRELL : : Appellant : No. 948 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 20, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005718-2022

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED AUGUST 27, 2025

Donnie Worrell appeals from the judgment of sentence entered after he

was convicted of burglary, criminal trespass, and criminal mischief. 1 He argues

that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, the verdict was

against the weight of the evidence, and that the court erred in granting

evidentiary rulings. We reverse in part.

On July 18, 2022, at around 4:45 a.m., police officers arrived on scene

of a U-Haul storage facility located on Woodland Avenue in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania. At the scene, Officer Knajee Byers noticed a broken window, a

tractor-trailer out front, and a ladder near the tractor-trailer. Once the officer

went inside the storage facility, he encountered Worrell pushing a lawnmower

toward an exit door. Worrell informed the officer that he was retrieving his ____________________________________________

1 18 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 3502(a)(4) (burglary of an unoccupied structure); 3503 (a)(1)(ii) (criminal trespass); 3304(a)(5) (criminal mischief). J-A16026-25

belongings from the storage facility and that he had broken the window.

Worrell stated that he never took anyone else’s belongings and only removed

his personal items from the storage facility. He also told Officer Byers that

before entering the storage facility, he had an argument with U-Haul staff.

Police retrieved an access card from Worrell, and he stated that his card was

denied on the door where he attempted to enter. The officers arrested Worrell

and charged him with burglary and related offenses.

The case proceeded to a non-jury trial on September 27, 2023. The

trial court found Worrell guilty of all charges. On November 20, 2023, at the

start of the sentencing hearing, Worrell’s counsel made an oral motion for

extraordinary relief on the burglary charge, which the court denied. The court

then sentenced Worrell to 9 to 18 months in custody with immediate parole

on the burglary charge, a concurrent sentence of 2 years reporting probation

on the criminal trespass charge, and no further penalty on the criminal

mischief charge. On November 27, 2023, Worrell moved for reconsideration,

which the court denied on March 8, 2024. Worrell timely appealed on March

20, 2024.

Worrell and the trial court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate

Procedure 1925. Notably, in its 1925(a) opinion, the trial court conceded that

the burglary sentence should be reversed based on sufficiency and weight of

the evidence. The court suggested that all other aspects of the sentence

should be affirmed.

-2- J-A16026-25

On appeal, Worrell raises three issues which we have reordered for ease

of disposition:

I. Whether the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law as to burglary, criminal trespass, and criminal mischief?

II. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence?

III. Whether the trial court erred in granting evidentiary rulings as to inadmissible evidence and adverse inference?

Worrell’s brief at 7.

In his first issue, Worrell challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for

each of his convictions. Our standard of review when reviewing a sufficiency

challenge is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v.

Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24, 37 (Pa. 2011).

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, [were] sufficient to enable the fact finder to conclude that the Commonwealth established all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Commonwealth v. Diamond, 83 A.3d 119, 126 (Pa. 2013).

The Pennsylvania Crimes Code provides that a person commits burglary

of an unoccupied structure when, “with the intent to commit a crime therein,”

he “enters a building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied

portion thereof that is not adapted for overnight accommodations in which at

the time of the offense no person is present.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. §3502 (a)(4).

-3- J-A16026-25

The “specific intent to commit a crime necessary to establish the intent

element of burglary may be found in a defendant’s words or conduct, or from

the attendant circumstances together with all reasonable inferences

therefrom.” Commonwealth v. Eck, 654, A.2d 1104, 1108-09 (Pa. Super.

1995). However, forced entry, without more, is insufficient evidence of the

intent required for burglary. Commonwealth v. Wilamowski, 633 A.2d

141, 144 (Pa. 1993). Whether the Commonwealth met its burden depends

on the “totality of the circumstances.” Id.

Worrell argues that the Commonwealth did not establish the burglary

charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Worrell contends that the Commonwealth

did not present evidence that he entered the U-Haul building with the intent

to commit a crime therein. Although Worrell was found inside the storage

facility, he had an access card with him that he believed would work, and he

entered the building to retrieve his personal equipment. He states that the

testimony of Officer Byers at the preliminary hearing established that he did

not take another person’s belongings, did not threaten or hit anyone, nor did

the officer see him committing any crimes within the facility.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we agree that

the evidence was insufficient to sustain Worrell’s conviction for burglary under

Section 3502(a)(4). At best, the evidence demonstrates that Worrell broke a

window and entered the U-Haul facility; however, there is no evidence to

support the requisite mens rea. The only direct evidence of Worrell’s intent

was his statement to Officer Byers that “he was coming to retrieve his items.”

-4- J-A16026-25

N.T., 9/27/2023, at 19. There was no other evidence, direct or circumstantial,

that Worrell intended to commit a crime inside the U-Haul facility. The

evidence does not support a reasonable inference that Worrell intended to do

anything other than retrieve his own items. Forced entry, without more, is

insufficient to support the intent required for burglary. Wilamowski supra.

Thus, we agree with Worrell and the trial court, and we vacate the burglary

conviction.

With respect to criminal trespass, the Crimes Code provides a person

commits the offense when “knowing that he is not licensed or privileged

to do so, he breaks into any building or occupied structure or separately

secured or occupied portion thereof.” 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3503(a)(1)(ii)

(emphasis added).

Worrel argues that the Commonwealth did not prove the requisite mens

rea for the criminal trespass charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather,

Worrell contends he had reason to believe he was privileged and licensed to

enter the facility because he had an access card, and he rented a storage unit

on the premises. We disagree.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence

was sufficient to sustain Worrell’s conviction of criminal trespass. At trial, the

Commonwealth proved that Worrell came to the U-Haul facility in the middle

of the night, when no one was there; that he had an access card that he

acknowledged did not work; and that he broke in by smashing a pane out of

a glass door. N.T., 9/27/23. at 19-22. This evidence was sufficient to prove

-5- J-A16026-25

that Worrell knew that he did not have U-Haul’s permission to be on the

property at that time. Cf. Commonwealth v. Gordon, 477 A.2d 1342, 1348

(Pa. Super. 1984) (knowledge of defendant’s lack of privilege to enter a

building could be inferred from the evidence of the time and manner of his

entry). Thus, this sufficiency challenge fails.

Finally, the Crimes Code provides that a person is guilty of criminal

mischief under 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3304(a)(5) when he “intentionally damages

real or personal property of another.”

Worrell argues that the Commonwealth failed to prove the requisite

mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt. Worrell contends that the testimony

suggests that he did not intentionally break the window and instead could

have done so unintentionally as he was still emotional from his telephone

conversation with U-Haul. Worrell relies on the following testimony from

Officer Byers to support his claim:

Q: And you observed – the only damage that you observed in the entire facility was to the window, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: He also said that he was in an argument from someone from U-Haul prior to being inside there; is that correct?

Q: Okay. And did he seem like he was angry when you spoke to him?

A: Yeah, he was upset.

Q: He seemed angry?

-6- J-A16026-25

A: He was upset.

Q: When you asked him whether or not he broke the window and he said yes, is that all he said?

A: To my recollection, I believe he just said, yeah. I don’t know if he said anything else after that.

Q: But you weren’t there when the window was broken?

A: No.

Q: And you don’t know if he kicked the window intentionally or was angry? You just don’t know that information?

N.T., 9/27/2023, at 22-23.

Worrell asserts that it is difficult to determine intent based on his

statements to the officer alone and that the court could not infer his intent

based simply on these statements. Thus, he concludes that he did not have

the requisite intent to be found guilty of criminal mischief. Again, we disagree.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence

was sufficient to sustain Worrell’s conviction of criminal mischief. Worrell

admitted to breaking the window, and it could be reasonably inferred that he

did so intentionally. As the trial court noted, “no other inference would have

been reasonable.” Trial Court Opinion, 9/30/24, at 9. This sufficiency

challenge also fails.

Regarding Worrell’s first issue, we conclude the Commonwealth

produced insufficient evidence to support a conviction for burglary, but

produced sufficient evidence of criminal trespass and criminal mischief.

-7- J-A16026-25

In his second issue, Worrell challenges the weight of the evidence. Our

standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion.

Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 753 (Pa. 2000) (citations

omitted). The trial court first determines whether the verdict shocked its

conscience, we then review that determination for an abuse of discretion.

Commonwealth v. Sandoval, 266 A.3d 1098, 1101 (Pa. Super. 2021). “An

abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment but is rather (1) the

overriding or misapplication of the law, (2) the exercise of judgment that is

manifestly unreasonable, or (3) the result of bias, prejudice, ill-will, or

partiality, as shown by the evidence of record.” Id.

The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact, who is

free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the

credibility of the witness. Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403,

408 (Pa. 2003) (citations omitted). An appellate court cannot substitute its

judgment for that of the factfinder. Id. Further, we observe a logical

inconsistency in challenging the weight of the evidence after a non-jury

verdict. See Commonwealth v. Banniger, 303 A.3d 1085, 1095 (Pa. Super.

2023) (asking a judge in a non-jury trial, who determined the weight and

admissibility of evidence, to find their own verdict shocked their conscience

would be highly incongruous).

Here, Worrell argues that the testimony presented in this case did not

support a guilty verdict on the above charges. Again, the trial court conceded

that its burglary verdict was against the weight of the evidence. However,

-8- J-A16026-25

the trial court rejected Worrell’s weight claim as to criminal trespass and

criminal mischief. The court stated that “ample evidence proved his guilt of

these charges, and the verdicts were not against the weight of the evidence.”

T.C.O., 9/30/2024, at 9. Our review of the record supports the trial court’s

conclusion. We discern no abuse of discretion. Worrell’s second issue fails.

In his third issue, Worrell challenges two evidentiary rulings by the trial

court. Worrell contends that the trial court erred: (1) by granting certain

evidentiary rulings regarding testimony based on an improper foundation of

knowledge or expertise and (2) by not drawing an adverse inference against

the Commonwealth for its failure to produce video evidence.

First, Worrell claims that Officer Byers did not have the requisite

knowledge or expertise to offer his opinion on whether U-Haul was open for

business on the day in question. Worrell argues that this was prejudicial as

the officer's testimony goes directly to the charges for which he was convicted.

Second, Worrell argues that the trial court should have drawn an

adverse inference against the Commonwealth because the Commonwealth

failed to produce video evidence as it related to Worrell's mental state and

actions when the window was broken and when Worrell entered the storage

facility. Worrell's counsel claimed that the Commonwealth submitted that it

had a video and a witness on call, who was the custodian of the video. The

Commonwealth never called this witness or produced the video footage.

Because the Commonwealth did not call the witness or play the video for the

-9- J-A16026-25

trial court, Worrell contends that the court should have drawn an adverse

inference that the video footage would have been in his favor.

Decisions regarding evidence are within the sound discretion of the trial

court and will not be reversed absent a flagrant abuse of that

discretion. Commonwealth v. Meadows, 553 A.2d 1006 (Pa. Super 1989)

(citations omitted). The admission or exclusion of evidence, regarding

relevance, is a matter committed to the trial court’s discretion. Moreover,

when the court is sitting as factfinder, it is presumed that the court disregards

inadmissible evidence and considers only relevant and competent

evidence. Commonwealth v. Davis, 421 A.2d 179 (Pa. 1980).

Here, the trial court reasoned that the Commonwealth laid an adequate

foundation for Officer Byers to testify that U-Haul was closed at 4:45 a.m.:

The officer’s testimony that there were no customers or employees at the facility when he arrived, along with his prior observations that the facility was deserted at 4:45 a.m., were a sufficient foundation for his opinion that the business was closed. See Pa.R.E. 602. Moreover, even if this [c]ourt erred in admitting the testimony, the error was harmless. The relevant question was not whether, in theory, people other than [Worrell] could do business at the facility at 4:45 a.m.; it was whether [Worrell] knew that he, in particular, was not allowed to be there. As discussed above, the testimony that [Worrell] broke into the facility in the middle of the night and angrily told Officer Byers that he was in an “argument” with the facility's owners proved [Worrell]’s knowledge.

T.C.O., 9/30/24, at 10.

The trial court went on to state that even if it had erred in admitting the

testimony, the error was harmless. Regarding the video, the trial court stated

- 10 - J-A16026-25

that they had no information about the video, other than Worrell’s counsel's

unsupported arguments. The court did not hear any evidence of whether a

video existed; what the video contained; whether anyone preserved it;

whether the police or the District Attorney's office ever had a copy of it; or

whether, and to what extent, the Commonwealth was at fault for the fact that

the video was not produced. Given this lack of information, the trial court

explained that it could not fairly infer from the video's absence that the video's

contents were damaging to the Commonwealth.

We discern no abuse of discretion regarding the trial court’s handling of

either of Worrells evidentiary challenges. Again, the trial court, in a bench

trial, is presumed to consider only relevant and admissible evidence. Davis,

supra. Officer Byers’ testimony as to whether the U-Haul facility was open

was not prejudicial to Worrell, because Worrell admitted that his access card

did not work and that he broke the window.

Also, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it failed to draw an

adverse inference against the Commonwealth for not presenting video footage

or calling the custodian of the video to testify. The record contains no

evidence, other than Worrell's counsel's assertion, that such a video even

exists. Because Worrell failed to show that the video was in the

Commonwealth's exclusive control, or that it was ever in its control at all, an

adverse inference was not permitted. See e.g. Commonwealth v. Evans,

664 A.2d 570, 574 Pa. Super. 1995) (“to allow [an adverse inference], the

[evidence] must be available only to the Commonwealth and not the

- 11 - J-A16026-25

defendant”). Moreover, evidence must be material before a court may permit

an adverse inference. Commonwealth v. Miller, 172 A.3d 632, 645 (Pa.

Super. 2017). Here, however, Worrell did not show materiality. Instead, he

admitted that he “[did not] know what [the video] would show.” N.T.,

9/27/23, at 32. Finally, any adverse inference would only be permissible; it

is not mandatory. See Commonwealth v. Brown, 407 A.2d 36, 39 (Pa.

Super. 1979). Thus, the court was not required to find an adverse inference

even if one was permitted under the facts. Worrell’s final issue fails.

Conviction for burglary reversed. Remaining convictions affirmed.

Judgment of sentence vacated as to burglary only. 2 Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 8/27/2025

____________________________________________

2 Because the probation sentence for criminal trespass was concurrent to the

burglary sentence for which Worrell was immediately paroled, our vacating the burglary sentence does not disrupt the overall sentencing scheme. The trial court agreed that the sentence for the remaining convictions would remain the same. T.C.O., 9/30/24, at 12. Thus, we need not remand for resentencing on the convictions that we affirmed.

- 12 -