J-S37008-16 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

WESLEY RASHAWN RICHARDS 

 Appellant No. 488 WDA 2015 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 11, 2015 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0000567-2014 

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and LAZARUS, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JUNE 28, 2016 

 Appellant, Wesley Rashawn Richards, appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, following 

his bench trial convictions for third-degree murder, persons not to possess 

firearms, and firearms not to be carried without a license.1 We affirm. 

 The trial court opinion set forth the relevant facts of this case as 

follows: 

This matter arises out of the shooting death of the

[V]ictim...on October 18, 2013 in a bar on the North Side 

of Pittsburgh. The Commonwealth presented the 

testimony of two eyewitnesses to the shooting and video 

surveillance which also showed the shooting. The 

eyewitnesses testified that in the early morning hours 

[Victim], [Appellant] and [Appellant’s] companion entered 

____________________________________________ 

1

 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c), 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), respectively. 
J-S37008-16 

- 2 - 

the bar and were searched by a security guard at the door. 

When [Victim] entered the bar the first time, the security 

worker, Brian Collins, searched him and found a pocket 

knife which he removed and placed behind the bar. Later, 

[Vicitm] left the bar and the knife was returned to him. 

Shortly thereafter, [Victim] returned and was searched 

again but the knife was not found. [Appellant] and his 

companion, Walter Banks, were also searched each time 

they entered or returned to the bar but [the guard] found 

no weapons. [Mr.] Collins knew [Appellant] for several 

years and also knew [Victim] from the neighborhood.

At some point [Mr.] Collins became aware of something 

happening towards the back of the bar and as he went 

towards that area he saw [Victim] falling to the ground 

and then saw [Appellant] come around the corner with a 

gun in his hand. [Mr.] Collins grabbed [Appellant] and 

pinned him against the bar but was then hit in the head 

with a bottle by [Mr.] Banks. Stunned by the blow to the 

head, [Mr.] Collins let go of [Appellant] and when he 

looked again he saw [Appellant] standing over [Victim] 

shooting at him three times as he lay on the ground. [Mr.] 

Collins then followed [Appellant] and [Mr.] Banks towards 

the back as they left but then returned to [Victim]. [Mr.] 

Collins found [Victim] still alive and saw a closed pocket 

knife on the ground next to him.1 

1 The autopsy showed [Victim] died of gunshot 

wounds to the trunk. The first entered in the central 

upper back and the second in the lateral left buttock. 

The Commonwealth also called the disc jockey who was 

working at the bar that night, Sylvanius Flowers, who also 

testified that he observed [Victim], [Appellant] and [Mr.] 

Banks standing near the bar together and they appeared 

to be laughing and joking. He then saw [Appellant]

backing up toward the stairs and pull a gun out. He 

testified: 

I’m standing there talking to a young lady. [Victim] 

is standing there with the other guy, his arm around 

[Victim’s] neck. And me and the young lady was 

talking on my right side. And I happen to look over 
J-S37008-16 

- 3 - 

and I see [Appellant] reach down beside his knees 

and pull out a gun. 

[Mr.] Flowers also testified: 

He pulls the gun up. He fires a shot. [Victim] 

duck[s] and take[s] the other guy’s arm off [from 

around his neck] and he tries to run. [Then] after

that he falls down. I don’t know if he was hit or not 

but he falls down. Then [Appellant] comes up from 

around the back, steps back some, and starts 

running back, and goes and shoots him three times 

in the back. 

[Mr.] Flowers testified that he never saw a knife in 

[Victim’s] hand and never saw him threaten [Appellant] 

with a knife. He also testified that he saw the security 

guard, [Mr.] Collins, grab [Appellant] and wrestle with him 

for the gun before [Mr.] Collins was hit in the head with a 

bottle. The bartender, Tylonda Northington, also testified 

that she heard shots and ducked behind the bar and then 

saw [Mr.] Collins struggling with [Appellant] and 

[Appellant’s] hand come over the bar with a gun in it. 

The Commonwealth also introduced video surveillance

taken from several cameras in the bar that showed 

[Victim], [Appellant] and [Mr.] Banks inside the bar before 

and during the shooting and confirmed the testimony of 

the eyewitnesses. The Commonwealth also introduced the 

certification that [Appellant] was not licensed to carry a 

firearm and it was stipulated that [Appellant] had a felony 

conviction that rendered him a person not to possess. 

(Trial Court Opinion, filed July 20, 2015, at 2-4) (internal citations omitted). 

Procedurally, the court convicted Appellant on November 3, 2014, of thirddegree murder, persons not to possess firearms, and firearms not to be 

carried without a license. The court sentenced Appellant on February 11, 

2015, to an aggregate term of twenty to forty years’ imprisonment. 

Appellant timely filed post-sentence motions on February 19, 2015, which 
J-S37008-16 

- 4 - 

the court denied on February 23, 2015. Appellant timely filed a notice of 

appeal on March 25, 2015. On April 1, 2015, the court ordered Appellant to 

file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Following the grant of an extension, Appellant timely 

complied. 

 Appellant raises one issue for our review: 

WERE APPELLANT’S STATE AND FEDERAL DUE PROCESS 

RIGHTS (AS GUARANTEED HIM BY PA. CONST. ART. I § 9 

AND U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV) VIOLATED WHEN HE WAS 

CONVICTED OF THE CRIME OF THIRD DEGREE MURDER—

RATHER THAN, AS HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN, OF 

VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER UNDER EITHER 18 PA.C.S. § 

2503—BASED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (THE 

COMMONWEALTH HAVING FAILED TO PROVE, BEYOND A 

REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT APPELLANT’S ACT OF KILLING 

THE DECEDENT...[WAS] NOT AN ACT THAT UNDER THE 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE CONSTITUTED EITHER 

IMPERFECT SELF-DEFENSE VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER 

OR HEAT-OF-PASSION VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER)? 

(Appellant’s Brief at 3). 

 After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Randal B. 

Todd, we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion 

comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. 

(See Trial Court Opinion at 4-7) (finding: Victim did not exchange words 

with Appellant, threaten Appellant, or make gestures or actions directed to 

Appellant which could reasonably be construed as serious provocation; no 

evidence suggested Victim threatened Appellant with knife Victim had in his 
J-S37008-16 

- 5 - 

possession or attempted to stab or injure Appellant; rather, eyewitness 

testimony and surveillance camera footage show Appellant acted with malice 

as he stood over Victim and repeatedly fired shots at him while Victim was 

lying on ground; record belies Appellant’s assertion that he acted in sudden 

and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by Victim; 

Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s 

conviction for third-degree murder).2 Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of 

the trial court’s opinion. 

 Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 6/28/2016 

____________________________________________ 

2

 Appellant also claims the evidence at trial supported a voluntary 

manslaughter conviction based on an “imperfect self-defense” theory. See

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2503(b) (explaining any person who intentionally or 

knowingly kills individual commits voluntary manslaughter if at time of killing 

he believes circumstances to be such that, if they existed, would justify 

killing, but his belief is unreasonable). Nevertheless, Appellant relied solely 

on the heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter theory at trial, so this claim 

is waived. See Commonwealth v. Gordon, 528 A.2d 631, 638 (Pa.Super. 

1987), appeal denied, 517 Pa. 621, 538 A.2d 875 (1987) (stating: “This 

Court cannot review a case upon a theory different from that relied upon in 

the trial court, or raised for the first time on appeal”).