J-S61021-16 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

OLAHJUWAN DUANE BURTON 

 Appellant No. 1879 WDA 2015 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 1, 2015 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0003132-2015 

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 24, 2016 

 Olahjuwan Burton appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in 

the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County on October 1, 2015, 

following his non-jury trial conviction for robbery (bodily injury of the 

victim),1 theft by unlawful taking,2 simple assault,3 reckless endangerment,4

harassment.5 

 The trial court summarized the facts of this matter as follows: 

____________________________________________ 

1

 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(iv). 

2

 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921(a). 

3

 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1). 

4

 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705. 

5

 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1),(2),(3). 
J-S61021-16 

- 2 - 

Ms. Knauer testified she had just completed her shift at work 

and had stopped at a Giant Eagle supermarket on January 21, 

2015 in Homestead, Pennsylvania at approximately 9:00 p.m. 

After she completed shopping, Ms. Knauer waited at a bus stop 

near the Giant Eagle. She got on the bus and arrived in 

Duquesne, Pennsylvania at approximately 10:00 p.m. She 

began to walk to her residence. She was wearing a backpack 

and carrying her purse. She was also carrying a reusable tote 

that held the items she purchased from Giant Eagle. She was 

alone. She described the lighting as average. There were 

streetlights operating but they were not close to the area. She 

had walked less than a block when she was approached by 

Burton who began grabbing at the strap of her purse. The 

purse, however, got stuck under the backpack and Burton was 

unable to pull it from Ms. Knauer’s shoulder. During the tussle, 

Ms. Knauer ended up on the ground. Burton continued to 

forcefully attempt to take her purse. While Ms. Knauer was on 

the ground, Burton punched her three times in the face. One 

punch landed on her mouth. The other two landed near her 

right eye. The punches caused her tooth to break and she was 

bleeding. She continued to scream for help. Burton then 

reached to the ground, picked something up and fled the scene. 

Later, Ms. Knauer learned that her wallet had fallen out of her 

purse. She believed that Burton picked it up as he fled the 

scene. She then went to a nearby fire station to report the 

attack and to seek help. 

Ms. Knauer saw Burton’s face during the attack. She described 

Burton in detail to the police officers who investigated the attack. 

She described the assailant as being young, medium skinned 

black male and being slightly shorter than 5”8 with a medium 

build. At the time of the attack, he was wearing gray 

sweatpants, sneakers and a blue hoodie. He had a goatee. Ms. 

Knauer identified Burton in a photo array provided by the police 

about one week after the incident. Ms. Knauer also identified 

Burton as her assailant at trial. 

Officer Thiem from the Duquesne Police Department testified 

that he had observed the defendant in the area of the attack 

approximately 30 minutes before the attack occurred. Burton 

was known to Officer Thiem from prior interactions. At the time, 

Burton was wearing gray sweatpants and a blue hoodie. 

Trial Court Opinion, 4/19/2016, at 1-3 (citations omitted). 
J-S61021-16 

- 3 - 

 Following trial, the court sentenced Burton to a term of incarceration of 

no less than four years to no more than eight years, followed by a two-year 

term of probation. On November 2, 2015, Burton filed post-sentence 

motions, which were denied. On appeal, Burton raises one issue: 

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by finding that a guilty 

verdict was not against the weight of the evidence when the 

unreliable testimony of the only eyewitness was so 

untrustworthy that basing a verdict on this evidence was 

manifestly unreasonable? 

 Burton argues that the trial court abused its discretion in finding 

Burton guilty based on the victim’s/eyewitness’ identification of Burton as a 

perpetrator because the identification “was highly unreliable since her 

opportunity to witness the perpetrator was not good.” Appellant’s Brief, at 

11-12. He further argues that her “tenuous identification” was the only 

piece of evidence tying Burton to the crime in question. Id. 

 This court, when reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, 

must examine the record in order to determine if the trial court abused its 

discretion. Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211, 1225 (Pa. 2009). 

The focus of the review is the trial court’s exercise of discretion, and not 

whether the trial court’s verdict is in fact against the weight of the evidence. 

Commonwealth v. Rossetti, 863 A.2d 1185, 1191 (Pa. Super. 2004). 

Where the trial court has ruled on the weight claim below, an appellate 

court’s role is not to consider the underlying question of whether the verdict 

is against the weight of the evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to 

whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight 
J-S61021-16 

- 4 - 

claim. Commonwealth v. Rabold, 920 A.2d 857, 860-61 (Pa. Super. 

2007) (citations omitted). 

Discretion is an exercise of judgment, wisdom and skill, an ability to 

reach a neutral decision within the boundaries dictated by the law. 

Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000). Review of the trial 

court’s decision is extremely limited where the party challenges the weight 

of the evidence based on the credibility of trial testimony. Rossetti, supra

at 1191. This Court shall reject a weight of the evidence claim, “unless the 

evidence is so unreliable and/or contradictory as to make any verdict based 

thereupon pure conjunction.” Id. 

 When reviewing the decision of the trial court, this Court cannot 

substitute its judgment for that of the fact-finder. Commonwealth v. 

Small, 741 A.2d 666, 672 (Pa. 1999). A fact-finder is free to believe all, 

part, or none of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Jaroweski, 923 A.2d 

425, 433 (Pa. Super. 2007). Awarding a new trial is warranted if “the jury’s 

verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice and 

the award of a new trial is imperative so that right may be given another 

opportunity to prevail.” Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 

2013). However, the reviewing court should not award a new trial “because 

of a mere conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same facts 

would have arrived at a different conclusion.” Widmer, supra at 751. 

 The reliability of a challenged identification is to be judged under a test 

employing the totality of circumstances and the factors that are relevant to 
J-S61021-16 

- 5 - 

that determination. These factors include: the opportunity of the witness to 

view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’s degree of attention, 

the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty 

demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the 

confrontation. Commonwealth v. Ransome, 402 A.2d 1379, 1381 (Pa. 

1979). 

 The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the 

eyewitness’s testimony linked Burton to the charged crimes. It is clear from 

the record that the victim’s ability to observe the physical features of the 

assailant’s physique was good. The fact that it was dark at the corner where 

the assailant attacked the victim did not prevent the victim from noting 

major characteristics of his appearance. The victim gave a detailed 

identification despite the fact that the assailant possessed an averagelooking appearance. Although the event occurred in a short amount of time, 

the victim’s description of the assailant’s clothing matched what he wore 

thirty minutes before he attacked the victim. The victim did not hesitate 

when she chose Burton’s picture out of eight pictures from a photo array 

where all the individuals in the array were similar-looking. Prior to the trial 

and during the trial the witness’s identification was consistent, convincing 

and clear. We discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court in rejecting 

Burton’s weight of the evidence claim. Rabold, supra. 

 Judgment of sentence affirmed. 
J-S61021-16 

- 6 - 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/24/2016