J-S54014-16 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

ASIA TYLER, 

 Appellant No. 1533 WDA 2015 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 6, 2015 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Criminal Division at No(s): 

CP-02-CR-0007780-2014 

CP-02-CR-0012569-2014 

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 

 Appellant, Asia Tyler, appeals from the judgment of sentence of 50 to 

120 months’ incarceration, imposed after a jury convicted him (in case 

7780-2014) of robbery, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(i), and possessing an 

instrument of crime (PIC), 18 Pa.C.S. § 907(a). Appellant also pled guilty 

(in case 12569-2014) to robbery, and for that offense he received a term of 

36 months’ probation, to run consecutively to the sentence imposed in case 

7780-2014. Herein, Appellant solely challenges the weight of the evidence 

to sustain his convictions of robbery and PIC in case 7780-2014. After 

careful review, we affirm. 

 We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and 

the applicable law. Additionally, we have reviewed the thorough and well-
J-S54014-16 

- 2 - 

crafted opinion of the Honorable Jill E. Rangos of the Court of Common Pleas 

of Allegheny County. We conclude that Judge Rangos’ well-reasoned opinion 

demonstrates that she did not abuse her discretion in denying Appellant’s 

request for a new trial based on his weight-of-the-evidence claim. See Trial 

Court Opinion (TCO), 2/17/16, at 4-6. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Rangos’ 

opinion as our own regarding that issue, and affirm Appellant’s judgment of 

sentence on that basis.1

 Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 9/22/2016 

____________________________________________ 

1

 In her opinion, Judge Rangos also addresses a sentencing claim raised by 

Appellant in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. See TCO at 6-7. Appellant 

has not asserted that sentencing issue herein; consequently, we do not 

adopt, or express any opinion on, Judge Rangos’ analysis of that sentencing 

claim. 
J-S54014-16 

- 3 - 
2 

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(l)(i). 

2 . 18 Pa.C.S. § 907(a). 

on Appeal on October 28, 2015. 

Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on October 5, 2015 and a Statement of Errors Complained of 

This Court denied Appellant's Motion for Post Sentence Relief on September 28, 2015. 

Appellant to 36 months incarceration concurrent to the sentence imposed at CC #201407780. 

2015, Appellant pled guilty to one count of Robbery at CC #201412569. This Court sentenced 

sentenced him .to 50 to 120 months incarceration with 36 months probation. Also on April 6, 

and Possession of Instruments of Crime.' at CC #2014407780. On April 6, 2015, this Court 

On April 2, 2015, Appellant, Asia Shakeern Tyler, was convicted by a jury of Robbery' 

RANGOS,J. February 17, 2016 

OPINION 

Appellant. 

ASIA SHAKEEM TYLER, 

Appeal of: 

ASIA SHAKEEM TYLER 

CC No. 201407780 

CC No. 201412569 

v. 

COMMONWEALTI-1 OF PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

Circulated 08/24/2016 03:39 PM
3 

counter and held a knife to her throat. (TT 47) Additionally, the video showed an individual 

corroborated her testimony. (TT 44-50) The video showed that the perpetrator jumped over the 

At trial, Kadirova reviewed the store's surveillance video which substantially 

circle" tattoo dn his right arm, starting mid-forearm and ending below the elbow. (TT 41) 

body." Id. He wore tan pants and a white tank top. Id. She observed a "dragon and a small 

the perpetrator as "very tall, like six-one, six-two, neither fat nor skinny, but had a 'normal' 

"lucky dollar," which was underneath the cash register drawer. (TT 34, 55) Kadirova described 

I 

(TT 33) She 'opened the cash register and the man took approximately $191, including her 

33) She testified that he held a knife to her throat and demanded that she open the cash register. 

' 

Kadirova returned to the front of the store and saw a masked man jurrip over the counter. (TT 

the store at approximately 4:25 p.m. while she was washing dishes in the back. (TT 29-30) 

2014. (Transcript of Jury Trial April 1-2, 2015, hereinafter TT 29-30) She heard someone enter 

was working at a sandwich shop in the Lawrenceville neighborhood of Pittsburgh on May 22, 

The testimony in this case is summarized as follows. Kymbat Kadirova testified that she 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

Sentencing Guidelines without stating its reasons for departing from the standard range. Id. at 3. 

discretion in sentencing at CC #201412569, because it sentenced in the aggravated range of the 

(Concise Statement of Errors at 2) Additionally, Appellant contends that the Court abused its 

Commonwealth's evidence was of such poor character as to shock the conscience of the Court. 

the verdict at CC #201407780 was against the weight of the evidence, because the 

Appellant, in his Concise Statement, raises two issues on appeal. Appellant contends that 

MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL 
4 

1095, 1098 (Pa.Super. 1997) (citing Com. v. Simmons, 662 A.2d 621, 630 (Pa. 1995)). 

Com. v. Taylor,'471 A.2d 1228, 1230 (Pa.Super. 1984). See also, Com. v. Marks, 704 A.2d 

Whether a new trial should be granted on grounds that the verdict is against the 

weight of the evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and 

[her] decision will not be reversed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of 

discretion .... The test is not whether the court would have decided the case in the 

same way but whether the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to make the 

award of a new trial imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to 

prevail. 

meritless. The standard for a "weight of the evidence" claim is as follows: 

Appellant's first issue, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, is 

DISCUSSION 

was recovered from Appellant's pants pocket. (IT 77-78) 

surrendered it to the police. (IT 69) Officer Stoddard testified that approximately $340 dollars 

68) The Officer testified that, once apprehended, Appellant removed a knife from his pocket and 

(IT 65-66) Officer Stoddard pursued on foot and eventually apprehended Appellant. (IT 67- 

Appellant, fled from the Officer's patrol car toward a set of railroad tracks in an industrial area. 

the crime scene. (IT 64-65) Officer Stoddard testified that the suspect, later identified as 

"very tall black male wearing tan pants and a white and red striped polo shirt" six blocks from 

responded to the 911 call. (IT 57) Officer Stoddard asked Kadirova which way the perpetrator 

ran. (IT 64-65) The Officer testified that he followed Kadirova's directions, and encountered a 

for the fact that Appellant was wearing a different shirt. (IT 50) 

Officer Daniel Stoddard of the City of Pittsburgh Police Department testified that he 

identification purposes, Appellant matched the individual who robbed her at knifepoint except 

wearing tan pants. (IT 50) Kadirova, however, testified when Appellant was brought to her for 
5 

$340 while only $191 was reported missing from the cash register. Appellant could have come 

that Appellant disposed of the "lucky dollar." Finally, Appellant was found in possession of 

that the police did not see the identifying mark, that the "lucky dollar" had no marking at all, or 

did not know to look for this dollar when they sorted through the cash. (TT 85) It is possible 

of the "lucky dollar," neither does it rule out that possibility. This Court notes that the police 

disposable. Although the testimony does not support a finding that Appellant was in possession 

the video may have been chosen by Appellant because it was ubiquitous and essentially 

likely caused by the polo shirt Appellant was wearing upon arrest. The white tank top seen in 

noticeably. The jury may have accepted the argument of the Commonwealth that the bulge was 

As seen in the store video, one of the pockets in the leg of Appellant's cargo pants bulged out 

the evidence. Appellant clearly had time to change his shirt before the police encountered him. 

these apparent discrepancies, alone or taken together, make the verdict contrary to the weight of 

possession of $340 when Kadirova testified only $191 was missing from the register. None of 

on video surveillance, he was not in possession of a dollar marked "good luck," and he was in 

, 

Appellant argued that when he was arrested, he was wearing a different shirt than shown 

not so contrary to the evidence as to make the award of a new trial imperative. 

apprehended six blocks from the crime scene in possession of cash and a knife. The verdict is 

jury corroborates Kadirova's testimony and description of Appellant. Appellant was 

part the description of Appellant. Video surveillance from the store which was shown to the 

of the perpetrator a year after the incident, his body structure, clothing, and tattoo, fits in large 

counter, held a knife to her throat, demanded cash, and robbed the store. Kadirova's description 

Kadirova testified that a suspect matching Appellant's description jumped over the 
6 

into possession 'of the extra cash in any number of legitimate or illegitimate ways, and this socalled discrepancy is of no moment. 

Appellant next alleges this Court erred in sentencing in the aggravated range without 

placing its reasons for doing so on the record. Before addressing any alleged sentencing error, 

Appellant must first establish that a substantial question exists that his sentence is inappropriate 

under the Sentencing Code. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b); Commonwealth v. Urrutia, 653 A.2d 706, 

710 (Pa.Super, i995). The determination of whether a particular issue constitutes a "substantial 

question" can only be evaluated on a case by case basis. Commonwealth v. House, 537 A.2d 

361, 364 (Pa.Super. 1988). It is appropriate to allow an appeal "where an appellant advances a 

colorable argument that the trial judge's actions were: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision 

of the sentencing code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing 

process." Commonwealth v. Losch, 535 A.2d 115, 119-120 n. 7 (Pa.Super. 1987). Appellant has 

not raised a substantial question for appellate review because the Sentencing Court sentenced 

within the appropriate range considering Appellant used a deadly weapon in the commission of 

his crimes. The Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines require a sentencing court to use an 

enhanced sentencing matrix if the court finds that the offender possessed or used a deadly 

weapon. 204 Pa. Code§ 303.9. 

Assuming, arguendo, Appellant had raised a substantial question, he is still not entitled 

to relief. When: imposing a sentence, this Court is required to consider, inter alia, the protection 

of the public, the gravity of the offense in relation to the impact on the victims and community, 

and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant. 42 Pa. C.S. §9721(b). The standard of review 

with respect to sentencing is whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. Commonwealth 

v. Smith, 673 A.2d 893, 895 (Pa. 1996). A court will not have abused its discretion unless "the 
BY THE COURT: 

be AFFIRMED. 

For the 'above reasons, no abuse of discretion occurred and the rulings of this Court shall 

CONCLUSION 

Court to protect society from his violent actions. 

rules of society, and this sentence is reflective of his rehabilitative needs and the duty of this 

period. (ST 17) Appellant has not displayed the ability to conform his behavior to the reasonable 

violent criminal behavior displayed by Appellant and fashioned a sentence which was designed 

to allow Appellant to mature and demonstrate appropriate behavior during his incarceration 

violence in the commission of a theft. The Court indicated its concern over the pattern of 

he had merely made "impulsive" decisions. In both offenses, Appellant displayed significant 

machine. The two offenses establish a pattern of behavior that refutes Appellant's position that 

guilty to a separate incident of Robbery where he seriously beat a man operating an ATM 

Appellant used. a deadly weapon in the commission of his crimes. Additionally, Appellant pled 

aggravated sentencing range. This Court imposed a sentence in the enhanced range because 

Appellant argues that this Court did not state its reasoning for sentencing in the 

2003). 

may have reached a different conclusion. Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 613 A.2d 1038, 1046 (Pa. 

partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will." Id. It is not an abuse of discretion if the appellate court 

record discloses that the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of 
8 

James'J. Robtson, Law Clerk for Jill E. Rangos 

Melissa R. Ruggiero, Esq. 

Office of Conflict Counsel 

1405 Allegheny Building 

429 Forbes A venue 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

Michael Streily, Esq. 

District Attorney's Office 

401 Allegheny County Courthouse 

436 Grant Street 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

February 2016. 

mailed to the following individuals by first class mail, postage prepaid on the 17th day of 

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of this OPINION was 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

' I