### J-S07003-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. TYREE J. WATSON, Appellant No. 478 EDA 2017 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 5, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002444-2012 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E. , PANELLA, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 11, 2018 Appellant, Tyree Watson, appeals from the judgment of sentence of an aggregate term of 9 to 18 years’ incarceration, followed by four years’ probation, imposed after he was convicted by a jury of, inter alia, two counts each of attempted murder and aggravated assault. Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, and that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. We affirm. Briefly, Appellant was arrested based on evidence that he shot at an unidentified male (“John Doe”) on a public street in Philadelphia, with one of his errant bullets striking an innocent bystander, Charles Gilbert. Gilbert suffered paralysis of his left arm from the bullet that entered his neck/collarbone area. Appellant was charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault regarding both John Doe and Gilbert, as well as single

### J-S07003-18

- 2 -

counts of carrying a firearm without a license, carrying a firearm on a public street in Philadelphia, and possession of an instrument of crime. He proceeded to a jury trial in September of 2016. On September 13, 2016, the jury reached a verdict, finding Appellant guilty of the above-stated crimes. On January 5, 2017, the trial court sentenced Appellant to the aggregate term stated, supra. He filed a timely, post-sentence motion that was denied on January 17, 2017. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and he also timely complied with the trial court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. On June 27, 2017, the trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion. Herein, Appellant presents the following four issues for our review: [I.] Is the evidence sufficient[,] as a matter of law[,] to support the conviction for criminal aggravated assault as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S.[] § 2702(a)[,] graded as a felony of the first degree with respect to complainant John Doe or complainant Charles Gilbert? [II.] Is the evidence sufficient[,] as a matter of law[,] to support the conviction for criminal attempted murder with respect to complainant John Doe or complainant Charles Gilbert? [III.] Is the verdict of guilty with respect to the charge of aggravated assault as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S.[] § 2702(a), graded as a felony of the first degree, against the weight of the evidence and so contrary to the evidence that it shocks one’s sense of justice with respect to complainant John Doe or complainant Charles Gilbert? [IV.] Is the verdict of guilty with respect to the charge of attempted murder against the weight of the evidence and so contrary to the evidence that it shocks one’s sense of justice with respect to complainant John Doe or complainant Charles Gilbert? Appellant’s Brief at 7-8.

### J-S07003-18

- 3 -

We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law. Additionally, we have reviewed the thorough and wellreasoned opinion of the Honorable Giovanni O. Campbell of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, dated June 27, 2017. We conclude that Judge Campbell’s opinion accurately disposes of the issues presented by Appellant. Accordingly, we adopt his opinion as our own and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence on the grounds set forth therein. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 5/11/18

### 5 0-7 00 

### 3-/ Circulateaii2046eA044/7

IN 

### THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FORTHE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

### PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION

# - CRIMINAL COMMONWEALTH OF PA

V. 

### TYREE WATSON 

### CP-51-CR-0002444-2012 CP-51-CR-0002444-2012Comm v Watson, Tyree J Opinion

7967802351 

## Received JUN 2 7 2017 Office .iricoords Appealgivaifial 

### MEMORANDUM 

### OPINION CAMPBELL, J. June 274-714, 2017 

### Procedural History On 

### September 7, 2016, Appellant Tyree Watson 

### proceeded to trial beforethis Court, sitting with a jury. On 

### September 13, 2016, the

### jury returned a 

### verdict 

### of guilty on two 

### counts 

### of attempted murder, two counts 

### ofaggravated assault, carrying a 

### firearm without a license, 

### carrying

a firearm in 

### Philadelphia and 

### possession 

### ofan 

### instrument 

### ofa crime. A 

### motion for

### judgment

### ofacquittal was filed on 

### January 3, 2017, and denied on 

### January 5, 2017, Also on 

### January 5, 2017, 

### Appellant was sentenced to 9-18 years 

### incarceration on each 

### count 

### ofattempted murder, to run concurrently, and four years 

### ofprobation on the two firearms 

### charges and 

### possession 

### of an 

### instrument 

### of crime, with the 

### probationary sentences to run 

### concurrent to one 

### anotherand 

### consecutive to the 

### sentence 

### ofincarceration. Theaggravated 

### assault convictions merged with the 

### attempted murder convictions for purposes 

### ofsentencing. Post-sentence motions were filed on January 9, 

### 2017, and 

### denied on January 17, 2017. A 

### premature Notice 

### ofAppeal was filed on 

### January 13, 2017. 

### Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(2) and (3), the Court entered an 

### order on January 23, 2017. 

### directing the filing 

### ofa 

### Statement 

### ofErrors Complained 

### ofon 

### Appeal, not later than 

### twenty-one (21) days afterentry 

### ofthe order.A new notice

### ofappeal was filed on January 25, 2017. An amended order 

### pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(2) and (3), was entered an 

### order on March 2, 2017. A Statement 

### ofErrors Complained 

### ofon Appeal was filed on March 23, 2017. 

### Factual History On the 

### afternoon 

### ofSeptember28, 2011, Appellant, as seen on a store security video, was 

### walking west on West 

### Butler Street, at the corner 

### ofPulaski Avenue and Butler, heading in the 

### direction 

### of 1811) Street. 

### Appellant was wearing a dark t-shirt and

### jeans. He had a blue backpack and was 

### carrying an iPad. 

### N.T. 9/7/16, pp. 62-64; C-33a-d, C-5. As 

### Appellant walked toward the 

### intersection

### of 18th and Butler Streets another securityvideo cameracaptured Appellant passing

an unknown man walking in the opposite direction, then stopping to look at that man before removing his backpackand 

### putting it onthe steps 

### ofthe Roman Grocery store, along with the iPad. N.T. 9/7/16, pp. 63-66, 121; C-33e-h; C-5. 

### Appellant removed a gun from the backpack, then headed east on Butler Street, the way he had

### just come and the 

### direction in which the man in the white t-shirt was heading. N.T. 9/7/16, pp. 91, N.T. 9/8/16, pp. 

### 21-22, 24, 44, 50-51, 70-71, 75- 77; C-5, C-33h. Atthe 

### corner 

### ofPulaski and Butler, the camera which firstpicked up 

### Appellant, caught the

man in the white t

### -shirt running east on Butler with a gun in his hand, then turning left (north) on Pulaski, 

### disappearing downthat street. I N.T. 9/7/16, pp. 65-66; C-33i -j. As the man in the white t- shirt ran 

### down Pulaski, away 

### from the intersection with Butler, Charles Gilbert, an 

### innocent

I Pulaski Avenue intersects West Butler Street on a diagonal, and actually runs generally northwest from Butler, intersecting North 18th Streets, and southeast from Butler toward North I Th Street. C-1, C- Ia. Butler at Pulaski, is a one-way street, running east. C-1, C4a. 2

### bystander who was 

### standing in front 

### of 1703 West Butler on the across Pulaski on the 

### northeast

corner 

### of Butler and Pulaski, 

### between 17'h and Pulaski, was struck in the 

### neck/collarbone by a bullet. N.T. 

### 9/7/16, pp. 54-55, 68, 114, 164, 172; C

### -la, C-2, C-4a, C-4a, C-5. Mr. 

### Gilbert saw the man in the white t-shirt running toward him holding a gun but not firing. The man 

### running behind the man in the white t-shirt fired his gun and Gilbert was struck. N.T. 9/7/16, pp. 159-160, 177-181,N.T. 9/8/16, pp. 96-98; C-7. Gilbert was struck in the lower left neck with the bullet trajectory extending through the 

### clavicle, fracturing the mid-clavicle, with one bullet 

### fragment lodging nearthevertebral spine. As

a result ofthe 

### gunshot would he suffered paralysis 

### ofhis left arm. 

### The projectile was still in his body at the time 

### oftrial. N.T. 9/7/16, pp 153-155,N.T. 9/8/16, pp. 123-124. Under a

### minutelater,the 

### Roman Grocery cameraback at 18'h and Butler captures

### Appellant returning from the 

### direction 

### ofButler and Pulaski where 

### Gilbert was shot, 

### placing an object back in the backpack, then picking up his backpack and iPad, before 

### walking into the street and 

### off

camera. N.T. 9/7/16, pp. 88; C-5. A minute or two 

### after the Mr. 

### Gilbert was shot, a light Blue Mercury Grand Marquis was captured on the first 

### camera as it turned from Butler onto Pulaski, 

### heading north in the 

### same direction as the man in the white t-shirt. N.T. 9/8/16, pp. 36-37, N.T. 9/8/16, pp. 120-119; C-5. 

### Subsequently, during the 

### course 

### ofthe 

### police investigation 

### ofthe 

### scene, the light blue 

### Mercury Grand Marquis, was found 

### about one block south 

### ofthe scene 

### ofthe shooting. N.T. 9/7/16, pp. 94-97, N.T. 9/8/16, p. 32, 54; C-10b-d. 

### Visible inside the car was a blue backpack like the one 

### Appellant was seen with in the videos, and an iPad. C-10d. The car was impounded and later 

### searched. The iPad was 

### found to 

### have photos 

### of Appellant as its lock-screen and 

### home-screen

3images. N.T. 9/8/16, pp. 111-113; C-22. The car wasowned by Bryan Seals, who was a long time 

### neighborhood and school friend 

### ofAppellant's, who was seen walking in the vicinity 

### of 18'1' and Butler after the 

### shooting, while police were on the scene. N.T. 9/8/16, pp. 52-53. Police staked out the car 

### after the 

### shooting and at 

### some point they 

### saw Seals and 

### Nafeese Moore enter the car. N.T. 9/8/16, pp. 

### 28-31, 33. Police approached the men, and upon 

### observing the blue backpack in the 

### rear seat, 

### secured the car for detectives. N.T. 9/8/16, p. 31. Officers Harley, Coulter, Wright and Graves, 

### testified that they 

### knew Appellant from 

### working at 

### Gratz High School 

### where Appellant attended and 

### played sports, from being 

### assigned

as a patrol 

### officer in the 

### neighborhood where 

### Appellant lived and from being assigned as a 

### narcotics unit 

### surveillance officer in that neighborhood, respectively. N.T. 9/7/16, pp. 127-130, 

### N.T. 9/8/16, pp. 15-17, 

### 47-48, 65-68. Each officer testified that they responded to the scene following the 

### shooting, viewed some the video inside the store, and were 

### immediately able to identify Appellant as the person with the backpack and iPad. N.T. 9/7/16, pp. 131-140, 144, N.T. 9/8/16, pp. 

### 21-27, 50-51, 55-57, 69-72, 74; C-16, 

### Discussion Appellant asserts the 

### following allegations 

### oferror: 1) 

### The evidence was 

### insufficient to 

### support the 

### convictions for attempted murder and 

### aggravated assault; 2) the verdicts 

### ofguilty on the 

### charges 

### ofattempted murder and 

### aggravated assault were 

### against the weight 

### ofthe evidence. A. 

### The evidence was 

### sufficient to 

### support the convictions for 

### attempted murder, and 

### aggravated assault. A claim 

### challenging the sufficiency 

### of the 

### evidence presents a 

### question 

### of law. 

### Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (2000). We 

### must determine "whether the 

### evidence is 

### sufficient to prove every element 

### of the crime beyond a 

### reasonable doubt."

4Commonwealth v. Hughes, 521 Pa. 423, 555 A.2d 1264, 1267 (1989). We "must view 

### evidence in the light most favorableto the 

### Commonwealthasthe

### verdict winner,and 

### accept astrue all 

### evidence and all reasonable 

### inferences therefrom upon which, 

### ifbelieved, the fact finder 

### properly could have based its verdict." Id. Our 

### Supreme Court has instructed: [T]he facts and

### circumstances establishedby the 

### Commonwealth need not 

### preclude every 

### possibility 

### ofinnocence. 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. Moreover, in 

### applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all 

### evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the trier 

### 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. Ratsatny, 594 Pa. 176, 934 A.2d 1233, 1236 n. 2 (2007). Commonwealth v. Thomas, 65 A.3d 939, 943 (Pa. Super. 2013). Moreover, a 

### conviction may stand oncircumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Roscioli, 309 A.2d 396, 398 (1973) ("Although the Commonwealth does not have to 

### establish guilt to a 

### mathematical certainty, and may in the proper case rely wholly on 

### circumstantial evidence, the conviction mustbe based on morethan mere suspicion or

### conjecture."); Commonwealth v. Brewer, 876 A.2d 1029, 1032 (Pa. Super, 

### 2005) ("[T]he fact that the 

### evidence establishing a 

### defendant's participation in a 

### crime is 

### circumstantial does not 

### preclude a 

### conviction where the 

### evidence coupled with the 

### reasonable inferences drawn therefrom overcomes the 

### presumption 

### of innocence." (quoting Commonwealth v. Murphy, 795 A.2d 1025, 1038-39 (Pa. Super. 2002)).

1. 

### The evidence was sufficient to find 

### appellant guilty 

### of each count 

### of attempted murder. (a) The evidence demonstrated specific intent to commit murder.

5Specific intent to kill can be inferred "from the manner in which the homicide was 

### committed, such as, 

### multiple gunshot wounds." Commonwealth v. Hughes, 865 A.2d 761, 793 (Pa. 2004). Specific intent to kill may also be inferred from a 

### defendant's use 

### ofa deadly 

### weapon on a vital part 

### of the victim's body. Commonwealth v. 

### Robertson, 874 A.2d 1200, 1207 (Pa. Super. 2005). In order to sustain a 

### conviction for attempted 

### murder the 

### Commonwealth must prove: Under the Crimes Code, "[a] person commits an 

### attempt when[,] with intent to 

### commit a specific crime, he does any act which constitutes a 

### substantial step towards the 

### commission 

### of the crime." 18 

### Pa.C.S.A. § 901(a). A person 

### may be 

### convicted 

### ofattempted murder 

### if he-takes a 

### substantial step toward the 

### commission 

### of a killing, with the 

### specific intent in mind to

### commit such an act. The substantial step test broadens the scope

### ofattempt liability by 

### concentrating on the acts the defendant has 

### done[,] and 

### does not 

### any longer focus on the acts 

### remaining to be done before the actual 

### commission 

### ofthe crime. The 

### mens rea required for first

### -degree murder, specific intent to kill, may be 

### established solely from 

### circumstantial evidence. The 

### law permits the 

### factHfinder to 

### infer that one 

### intends the natural and probable consequences 

### ofhis acts[.] 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Jackson, 955 A.2d 441, 444 (Pa. 

### Super. 2008) (quotation marks and 

### some citations omitted). In the 

### context 

### of a sufficiency 

### of the 

### evidence claim concerning attempted murder:[I]ntent is a 

### subjective frame 

### ofmind, it is 

### ofnecessity difficult 

### ofdirect proof. We must look to all the evidence to 

### establish intent, including, but not limited to, [the] 

### appellant's conduct as it 

### appeared to his 

### eyes.... Moreover, 

### depending on the 

### circumstances[,] even a single

### punch may be 

### sufficient. Commonwealth v. Holley, 945 A.2d 241, 247 (Pa. Super. 

### 2008) (citation and 

### brackets omitted); 

### "Specific intent to kill can be proven where the 

### defendant knowingly applies deadly force to the 

### person 

### of another." Commotnreakh v. Stokes, 78 A.3d 644, 650 (Pa. Super. 

### 2013) (citation omitted).

6Here, the 

### evidence, read in the light most favorable to the 

### Commonwealth as verdict winner, demonstrated that 

### Appellant saw the man in the white t-shirt walk past him, then made a 

### conscious decision to try 

### to kill him. 

### Appellant stopped, put down his bag and iPad, retrieved a gunand gave chase, firing atleast two shots at the fleeing man. See e.g. 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Rogers, 2016 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. 

### LEXIS 516, *18 (Pa. C.P. 

### 2016, Ransom, J.) ("Specific intent to kill can be 

### reasonably inferred from the actions taken by the 

### Appellant in 

### leaving the scene 

### of the argument, returning with a gun, 

### shooting at [the victim] 

### multiple times, and

### ultimately striking him in the chest."). In 

### affirming an 

### attempted murderconviction

### ofone 

### Thomas White, who pointed a handgun and fired in the 

### direction 

### ofseveral neighbors, the 

### Superior Court quotedthe apt 1793 

### observation 

### ofthe Supreme Court 

### ofNew Jersey: The designs 

### of the heart can rarely be proved in a 

### direct manner by the 

### testimony 

### of witnesses. When a man designs to 

### perpetrate a scheme 

### of wickedness, he seldom 

### communicates his intention unless to an accomplice; hence the intent must in most 

### cases be 

### collected from the 

### circumstances. These may 

### sometimes prove 

### deceptive; but when, without any forced 

### construction, they speak the intention in a 

### language clear and intelligible, they may be relied on as the best evidence which the nature 

### ofthe case will admit of. It is impossible to lay down any general rule, or to declare from what circumstances particular intentions are to be inferred. No two cases are 

### exactly similar

. . Commonwealth v. White, 323 A.2d 757, 759 (Pa. Super. 1974), 

### quoting State v. Wilson, 1 

### American Decisions, 216, 217, 219 N.J. 1793). The conduct 

### ofAppellant also 

### providesthe 

### requisite intentfor an 

### attempted murder against Charles Gilbert. The 

### transferred intent doctrine is codified in 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 303 and reads in 

### relevant part as follows: § 303. Causal 

### relationship between conduct and result

7* * * (b) 

### Divergence between result designed or 

### contemplated and actual result.

# - When 

### intentionally or 

### knowingly causing a 

### particular result is an 

### element 

### of an offense, the 

### element is not 

### established 

### ifthe actual result is not within the intent or the 

### contemplation 

### ofthe actor unless: 

### (I) the actual result differs from that designed or 

### contemplated as the case may be, only in the 

### respect that a 

### different person or different property is injured or affected or that the injury or harm designed or 

### contemplated would have been more 

### serious or 

### more extensive than that caused; 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 303(b). The Supreme Court has 

### explained: "The 

### transferred intent theory 

### provides that

### ifthe intentto 

### commit acrime exists, thisintent can be 

### transferred for the 

### purpose 

### of finding the intent 

### element 

### of another crime." Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 533 Pa. 539, 547, 626 A.2d 133, 138 (1993). The evidence here 

### demonstrated that appellant shot in the 

### direction 

### ofForbes even though he may have only intended to shoot Aitken. This evidence was sufficient to warrant the 

### transferred intent instruction. Where the 

### evidence is 

### sufficient to support an 

### instruction, a new trial is not warranted. Hence, this claim 

### warrants no relief. Commonwealth v. Thompson, 739 A.2d 1023, 1029-1030 (Pa. 1999). Here, the

### jury was entitled to 

### transfer Appellant's intent to kill Burch for the 

### purpose 

### of finding the 

### requisite mens rea for the attempted murder 

### ofDevine. See Commonwealth v. 

### Jackson, 2008 PA 

### Super 192, 955 A.2d 441, 450 (Pa. Super. 

### 2008) (when evidence established that 

### defendant specifically intended to 

### murder one 

### person, intent to commit aggravated assault was 

### transferred to 

### multiple bystanders endangered by bullets). 

### Accordingly, sufficientevidence supports Appellant's conviction 

### ofattempted murder. Commonwealth v. 

### Leach,2014 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2705, *13-14 (Pa. Super. Aug. 15, 

### 2014) Here, it matters not that 

### Appellant intended to kill the man in the 

### white t-shirt, but instead struck Charles Gilbert. 

### Appellant does not get a free pass because he is a 

### poor shot. His intent is deemed transferred, resulting in 

### culpability for both the 

### attempted murder 

### ofthe 

### unknown man in the white t-shirt and Charles Gilbert, the 

### innocent bystander who was left 

### partially paralyzed by 

### Appellant's errant bullet.
82. The 

### evidence was sufficient to find 

### appellant guilty 

### of each 

### count 

### of aggravated assault where the evidence 

### established thatAppellant intendedto inflict serious bodily injury and did so knowingly and recklessly. The Crimes Code defines the 

### offense 

### ofAggravated Assault 18 Pa. C.S. § 

### 2702(a)), in pertinent pad: § 2702. 

### Aggravated assault. (a) 

### Offense defined.--A 

### person is guilty 

### ofaggravated assault

### ifhe: (1) 

### attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or 

### causes such injury 

### intentionally, knowingly or 

### recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value 

### ofhuman life; There is no 

### questionthat 

### Appellantcaused serious bodily injuryto Charles Gilbert. Despite

a 

### layman's debate over 

### whether Gilbert was shot in the neck 

### or the shoulder,the 

### medical records, which were entered by 

### stipulation, establish that Gilbert was 

### struck in the lower left neck with the bullet trajectory extending through the clavicle, fracturing the mid-clavicle, with one bullet 

### fragmentlodgingnear the

### vertebral spine. As a

### result 

### ofthe 

### gunshot wound,he 

### suffered paralysis 

### ofhis left arm. The 

### projectile was still in his body at the time 

### oftrial. N.T. 9/7/16, pp 153-155, N.T. 9/8/16, pp. 123-124. As to the man inthe white t-shirt, 

### Appellant's actions in 

### chasing him 

### down the street firing shots at his fleeing back demonstrates an attempt to cause serious bodily injury. [E]vidence that Appellant intended to cause 

### serious bodily injury to Devine was not necessary. The

### jury could 

### properly find that 

### when 

### Appellant fired a 

### number 

### of shots at 

### close range while 

### Devine was sitting on the steps next to Burch, he took a 

### substantial step toward causing serious bodily injury Commonwealth v. Leach, 2014 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2705, *16 (Pa. Super. Aug. 15, 

### 2014) As 

### discussed in the 

### previous section,this intent

### transfers to Charles Gilbert for the 

### purposes 

### ofdemonstrating an attempt to cause serious bodily injury. 

### Moreover, as to Gilbert, the evidence,

9including his firing 

### shots at the man in the white t-shirt, where Gilbert was in the line 

### of fire, 

### establishes thatAppellant caused serious bodily injury 

### recklessly under 

### circumstances manifesting and 

### extreme indifference to the value 

### ofhuman life. A 

### person is 

### guilty 

### of 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 

### ofhuman life." 18 

### Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1). "For the 

### degree 

### ofrecklessness contained in the 

### aggravated assault statute to occur, the offensive act must be performed under 

### circumstances which 

### almost assure that injury or death will ensue." Commonwealth v. 

### O'Hanlon, 539 Pa. 478, 482, 653 A.2d 616, 618 (1995). Here, the evidence established that the first several 

### shots fired by 

### appellant narrowly missed 

### hitting Forbes. Forbes testified that initially he believed he had been struck by one 

### of appellant's bullets and was then forced to run and "zig zag" in 

### order to avoid being hit by the bullets. We find that this evidence was sufficient to 

### support the 

### aggravated assault and 

### recklessly endangering another person convictions. Commonwealth v. Thompson, 739 A.2d 1023, 1028-1029 (Pa. 1999). See 

### also Commonwealth v. 

### Jackson, 955 A.2d 441, 450 (Pa. Super. 2008) (when evidence 

### established that 

### defendant specifically intended to 

### murder one 

### person, intent to 

### commit aggravated assault was 

### transferred to 

### multiple bystanders endangered by bullets) The evidence was clearly sufficient to prove the 

### elements 

### ofaggravated assault, beyond a 

### reasonable doubtas to both the man in the white t-shirt and Charles Gilbert. B. 

### The verdicts were not 

### against the weight ofthe evidence. Appellant assertsthat the 

### verdicts were against the 

### weight 

### ofthe evidence. The Supreme Court has 

### explained: A 

### motion for new trial on the grounds that the 

### verdict is 

### contrary to the 

### weight 

### of the evidence, concedes that there is 

### sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. Commonwealth v. ,Whiteman, 336 Pa. Super. 120, 485 A.2d 459 (Pa. Super. 1984). Thus, the trial 

### court is 

### under no 

### obligation to view the 

### evidence in the light most 

### favorable to the verdict winner. Tibbs, 457 U.S. at 38 n. 11. [footnoteomitted] An allegation that the verdict is against the 

### weight 

### of the evidence is 

### addressed to the discretion 

### of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Brown, 538 Pa. 410, 648 A.2d 1177 (Pa. 1994). A new trial should not be granted because 

### ofa mere conflict in the 

### testimony or 

### because the

### judge on the same

1.0facts would have arrived at a 

### different conclusion. Thompson, supra. A trial

### judge must do more than reassess the 

### credibility 

### of the 

### witnesses and 

### allege that he would not have assented to the verdict 

### ifhe were a

### juror. Trial

### judges, in 

### reviewing a claim that the 

### verdict is against the weight 

### ofthe evidence do not sit as the thirteenth

### juror. Rather, the role 

### of the trial

### judge is to 

### determine that 

### "notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so 

### clearly 

### ofgreater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal 

### weight with all the facts is to deny

### justice." Id. Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 319-320, 744 A.2d 745, 751-752 (Pa. 2000). Further: The 

### decision 

### ofwhether to grant a

### new trial on the basis 

### ofa 

### challenge to the weight 

### ofthe evidence is 

### necessarily committed to the sound 

### discretion 

### ofthetrial courtdue to the

### court's observation 

### ofthe 

### witnesses and the evidence. Brown, 538 Pa. 410, 648

### A.2d 1177. A trial court should award a new trial on this ground only when the verdict is so 

### contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense 

### ofjustice. Commonwealth v, Whitney, 511 Pa. 232, 512 A.2d 1152(Pa. 1986). A motion 

### alleging the verdict was against the weight 

### ofthe 

### evidence should not be granted 

### where it merely identifies contradictory 

### evidence presented by the 

### Commonwealth and the defendant. Commonwealth v. 

### Chamberlain, 612 Pa. 107, 133-134, 30 A.3d 381, 396 (Pa. 2011). Whether from fear or 

### neighborhood pressure, it was clear that Charles Gilbert was a 

### reluctant witness, He did not 

### want to bethere. NT 

### 9/7/16, p. 151. A 

### warrant had to be 

### issued for his arrest to compel his 

### appearance. He was then taken into 

### custody in 

### Camden, and 

### brought to Court. NT 9/7/16, pp. 166-167. When testifying he suffered convenient memory lapses redounding to 

### Appellant's benefit, including admitting portions 

### ofhis 

### statement and

### claiming not to 

### remember others. 

### NT 9/7/16, pp. 157-161. Clearly the

### jury was skeptical 

### ofthese 

### efforts to 

### exculpate Appellant, as was this Court. The video tapes, the 

### physical evidence, the 

### events recalled by Mr. Gilbert, and Mr. 

### Gilbert's prior signed 

### statement to police (C-7), all 

### combined to 

### demonstrate conclusively that 

### Appellant fired the shot that missed the man in the white t

### -shirt and struck Charles Gilbert. The defense efforts to 

### undermine the video and 

### other evidence, to exploit Mr. 

### Gilbert's reluctance, and

to attempt to 

### attribute the 

### gunshot to, variously, the man in the white t-shirt, Bryan Seals, some
11unknown person or

### persons in 

### Seals' blue Mercury Grand 

### Marquis,Nafeese Moore, and 

### someone who looked like 

### Seals' father, were 

### unavailing and did not 

### overcome the strong evidence 

### ofguilt. The 

### Court's conscience was in no way shocked by the verdicts 

### ofguilty, which were not at all 

### contrary to the 

### overwhelming weight 

### ofthe relevant 

### credible evidence. 

### Conclusion Accordingly, for all the 

### reasons set forth here 

### Appellant's convictions and sentence should be affirmed.

12

### Commonwealth v. Tyree Watson Case Number: 

### CP-51-CR-2444-2012 

### PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I am this day 

### serving the 

### foregoing upon the person(s), and in the manner indicated above, which service satisfies the 

### requirements 

### ofPa.R.Crim.P. I 14: Defense Counsel/Party:James Richard Lloyd, Esquire 1617 John F Kennedy Blvd Suite 999 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Type 

### ofService: ( ) Personal (X) First Class Mail District Attorney: Hugh Burns, Esquire Office

### oftheDistrict Attorney Three South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 Type 

### ofService ( ) Personal (X) First Class Mail



### Dated: 

### June 27, 2017 

# Aug,/

# 41-4, Vanessa A. 

### Montone Judicial Secretary to 

### Honorable Giovanni 

### 0. Campbell