J-S27019-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MARQUISE WALKER-WOMACK

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1809 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 29, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007619-2013

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OTT, J. and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED July 3, 2017

Marquise Walker-Womack appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed on April 29, 2016, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia 

County, following his conviction by jury1on the charges of first-degree 

murder, conspiracy, firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying 

firearms in public in Philadelphia, and possession of an instrument of crime.2

Walker-Womack, who was fifteen years old at the time of the crimes, 

received a total sentence of 35 years’ to life imprisonment. In this timely 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Walker-Womack and his co-defendant, Warren Stokes, were originally tried 

in September, 2014. That trial ended with a hung jury. The two were 

retried in February, 2016, at which time both were convicted of first-degree 

murder and related charges.

2 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(a), 903, 6106(a)(1), 6108, and 907, respectively.
J-S27019-17

- 2 -

appeal, Walker-Womack claims only that the verdict was against the weight 

of the evidence.3 After a thorough review of the submissions by the parties, 

relevant law, and the certified record, we affirm. 

We rely upon the facts as related by the trial court in its Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a) opinion.

On August 5, 2009, Katora Wilson Bush travelled by bus to the 

5100 block of Chester Avenue in Southwest Philadelphia from 

dinner with her daughter, Amirajh Wilson, and her husband, 

Gerald Bush. Upon disembarking the bus, all three observed an 

African-American teenager in a black hooded sweatshirt, later 

identified as the Defendant, Marquise Walker-Womack, following 

them as they walked southwest along Chester Avenue.

As she travelled home with her family, Katora Wilson Bush 

observed her son, the decedent Niam Wilson Atif, at the corner 

near 5117 Chester Avenue talking to his neighbor, Allen Bryant. 

During Bryant and the decedent’s discussion about employment, 

an unidentified individual walked past the pair shouting, “it’s 

about to go down.” Seconds later, Bryant saw the AfricanAmerican teenager in the black hooded sweatshirt approach the 

decedent from behind, draw a revolver, and shoot him three 

times. [Walker-Womack] was fifteen-years-old at the time of 

the shooting.

Katora Wilson Bush heard the gunfire from her home eight doors 

away and saw her son lie bleeding on the corner of Chester 

Avenue and Paxon Street. Gerald Bush and Amirajh Wilson, 

from Katora Wilson Bush’s same vantage point, watched as the 

teenager fled the scene along Chester Avenue. Neither 

eyewitness identified [Walker-Womack] as the shooter.

At approximately 11:00 p.m., Philadelphia Police Officers 

Alexander Montes and Clara Martinez arrived at the scene and 

observed the decedent laying [sic] in a pool of blood emanating 

____________________________________________

3 This claim was preserved in a post-sentence motion filed on May 6, 2016.
J-S27019-17

- 3 -

from a large wound in the back-right side of his head.[4] Officer 

Martinez spoke to Amirajh Wilson, who described the assailant 

as a 5’8” African-American male in his teens, wearing a black 

hood.

According to Philadelphia Deputy Medical Examiner Dr. Albert 

Chu, and expert in forensic pathology, the decedent sustained 

three fatal, penetrating gunshot wounds to the left side of his 

head, the right side of his neck and his center back, respectively. 

Each bullet penetrated a vital organ, including the brain, jugular 

vein and the left lung. The medical examiner recovered all three 

projectiles from the body which were submitted to the Firearms 

Identification Unit. The decedents’ body did not exhibit stippling 

or any other indications of close-range firing. Dr. Chu 

concluded, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the 

manner of death was homicide caused by multiple gunshot 

wounds.

On October 7, 2009, Philadelphia police engaged in a foot chase 

with Tyreek Artis, a member of the Harlem Boys gang. Artis led 

police to an apartment complex at 5403 Harley Terrace and 

attempted to conceal himself in unit 3A. Unit 3A served as an 

epicenter for gang-related activity, housing several firearms and 

approximately sixty drug packets prepared for distribution. 

Inside, police discovered Artis, gang member Kareem Pittman, 

and co-defendant Warren Stokes, and recovered a loaded .38 

Special revolver.

Officer Jesus Cruz, a ballistics expert with the Philadelphia 

Firearms Investigation Unit, examined all three projectiles 

recovered from the decedent’s body and determined that all 

three bullets were fired from a single firearm. Each projectile 

exhibited “six left twist” rifling markings, an identification 

characteristic used to match a projectile to the weapon that fired 

it. Officer Cruz concluded that the projectiles were consistent 

with having been fired from the .38 Special recovered at 5403 

____________________________________________

4 We note the medical examiner testified the wound was penetrating (it did 

not exit the body), to the left side of the head, moving left to right, 

downward and a little bit front to back. See N.T. Trial, 2/2/2016 at 109-11. 

The difference in the description of the head wound does not affect the 

analysis.
J-S27019-17

- 4 -

Harley Terrace, as the firearm exhibited “six left twist” 

characteristics.

 

No more than one week after the murder, [Walker-Womack] 

bragged to Pittman and Harlem Boys gang member Tayale 

Shelton that he “put in some work” by killing the decedent. 

[Walker-Womack] and Stokes told both Pittman and Shelton that 

Stokes provided the .38 Special Walker-Womack used to kill the 

decedent. As [Walker-Womack] described the shooting to 

Pittman, Stokes displayed the firearm used to murder the 

decedent. [Walker-Womack] further informed Shelton that he 

shot the decedent at Stokes’ behest.

On October 6, 2010, federal authorities indicted Pittman and 

Shelton pursuant to the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt 

Organizations Act (“RICO”). Prior to trial, Pittman and Shelton 

pled guilty and entered into separate cooperation agreements. 

[

fn]

_________________

[

Fn] Shelton entered into his guilty plea agreement on April 

4, 2012, and Pittman entered into his on April 9, 2012. 

Both witnesses seek a USSG § 5K1.1 departure from the 

mandatory minimum sentences attached to their federal 

charges. Commonwealth Exhibit C-125-1; Commonwealth 

Exhibit C-126-1.

_________________

During an April 18, 2012 interview with Philadelphia homicide 

Detectives John McNamee and William Kelhower, Pittman 

explained that Stokes oversaw a splinter organization within the 

Harlem Boys, known as the Greenway Gorillas, consisting 

primarily of adolescent members, and that [Walker-Womack], 

known in the organization as “Littleman,” shot the decedent at 

Stokes’ behest. During a May 18, 2012 interview, Shelton told 

Detectives McNamee and Kelhower that [Walker-Womack] 

confessed to shooting the decedent on Stokes’ orders, as Stokes 

had been “beefing” with the decedent for some time prior to the 

shooting. Shelton further explained that the murder weapon 

was a “community” firearm that Stokes provided to [WalkerWomack]. 

After his arrest, [Walker-Womack] was incarcerated at the 

Philadelphia Industrial Correctional Facility (“PICC”) in a cell next 

to one occupied by Thomas Adams. In November 2014, while 
J-S27019-17

- 5 -

both Adams and [Walker-Womack] were incarcerated, [WalkerWomack] confessed to Adams that he shot the decedent three 

times with a .38 Special revolver.

At trial, both Pittman and Shelton described [Walker-Womack] 

as a member of the Greenway Gorillas, which served as a feeder 

group to the Harlem Boys gang that included Pittman, Shelton, 

and Stokes as members. Pittman and Shelton both testified that 

Greenway Gorillas members seeking to advance within the gang 

committed murders to impress Harlem Boys associates. 

[Walker-Womack] in particular looked up to Stokes and sought 

to earn his respect and approval.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/25/2016, at 2-5 (citations to record omitted).

Against this factual background, Walker-Womack argues the possible 

sentence reductions available to Pittman and Shelton “made it virtually 

impossible for them not to fabricate their testimony”5and Thomas Adams’ 

recantion of his prior statement to the police on the witness stand, renders 

the guilty verdict against the weight of the evidence. Our standard of 

review for a challenge to the weight of the evidence is well settled.

A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict is 

against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion 

of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 

319, 744 A.2d 745, 751-52 (2000); Commonwealth v. Brown, 

538 Pa. 410, 435, 648 A.2d 1177, 1189 (1994). A new trial 

should not be granted because of a mere conflict in the 

testimony or because the judge on the same facts would have 

arrived at a different conclusion. Widmer, 560 Pa. at 319-20, 

744 A.2d at 752. Rather, “the role of the trial judge is to 

determine that ‘notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so 

clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them 

equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.’ ” Id. at 320, 

744 A.2d at 752 (citation omitted). It has often been stated that 

____________________________________________

5 See Appellant’s Brief at 4.
J-S27019-17

- 6 -

“a new trial should be awarded when 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.” Brown, 538 Pa. at 435, 648 

A.2d at 1189.

An appellate court's standard of review when presented with a 

weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of 

review applied by the trial court:

Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the 

exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of 

whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. 

Brown, 648 A.2d at 1189. Because the trial judge has had 

the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, 

an appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the 

findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge when 

reviewing a trial court's determination that the verdict is 

against the weight of the evidence. Commonwealth v. 

Farquharson, 467 Pa. 50, 354 A.2d 545 (Pa. 1976). One 

of the least assailable reasons for granting or denying a 

new trial is the lower court's conviction that the verdict 

was or was not against the weight of the evidence and that 

a new trial should be granted in the interest of justice.

Widmer, 560 Pa. at 321-22, 744 A.2d at 753 (emphasis added).

This does not mean that the exercise of discretion by the trial 

court in granting or denying a motion for a new trial based on a 

challenge to the weight of the evidence is unfettered. In 

describing the limits of a trial court's discretion, we have 

explained:

The term “discretion” imports the exercise of judgment, 

wisdom and skill so as to reach a dispassionate conclusion 

within the framework of the law, and is not exercised for 

the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge. 

Discretion must be exercised on the foundation of reason, 

as opposed to prejudice, personal motivations, caprice or 

arbitrary actions. Discretion is abused where the course

pursued represents not merely an error of judgment, but 

where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable or where 

the law is not applied or where the record shows that the 

action is a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.
J-S27019-17

- 7 -

Widmer, 560 Pa. at 322, 744 A.2d at 753 (quoting Coker v. 

S.M. Flickinger Co., 533 Pa. 441, 447, 625 A.2d 1181, 1184-85 

(1993)).

Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1054-55 (Pa. 2013).

In denying Walker-Womack’s post-sentence motion for a new trial 

based upon his weight of the evidence claim, the Honorable Barbara A. 

McDermott reasoned:

[Walker-Womack] argues that Pittman[’s] and Shelton’s 

testimony is unbelievable because each witness agreed to testify 

against [Walker-Womack] in exchange for a USSG § 5K1.1 

downward departure from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. At 

the time of trial, both Pittman and Shelton awaited sentencing 

for their RICO convictions. At trial, both Pittman and Shelton 

testified that [Walker-Womack] murdered the decedent at the 

behest of his co-defendant, Warren Stokes, in order to advance 

within the Harlem Boys organization. During cross-examination, 

trial counsel sought to impeach both Pittman[’s] and Shelton’s 

credibility by thoroughly interrogating each witness about his 

cooperation agreement with the federal government. Through 

this line of questioning, trial counsel successfully elicited to the 

jury that both witnesses faced a maximum penalty of life 

imprisonment and that a USSG § 5K1.1 departure afforded them 

the possibility of early release. Ultimately, the jury had an 

opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility 

as they maintained and repeated their version of events.

Pittman[’s] and Shelton’s testimony is corroborated by the 

eyewitness testimony of Allen Bryant, Katora Wilson Bush, 

Gerald Bush and Amirajh Wilson. Katora Wilson Bush testified 

that a person fitting [Walker-Womack’s] description dressed in a 

black hoodie was pacing near decedent’s location immediately 

prior to the murder. Bryant and Amirajh Wilson each testified 

that a skinny teenager, approximately 5’7” or 5’8” and wearing a 

black hoodie, approached the decedent from behind and short 

him three times, including in the back of the head. Bryant 

further testified that there was animosity between the decedent 

and residents of another block. Katora Wilson Bush, Gerald 

Bush, and Amirajh Wilson each witnessed a person fitting 

[Walker-Womack’s] description flee the murder scene. That the 
J-S27019-17

- 8 -

jury chose to believe Pittman[’s] and Shelton’s testimony, 

especially considering the corroborating evidence, does not 

shock this Court’s conscience. See Commonwealth v. Holley, 

945 A.2d 241, 246 (Pa. Super. 2008) (the finder of fact is free to 

believe the testimony of Commonwealth witnesses and free to 

disregard the testimony of others).

[Walker-Womack] further avers that, because Thomas Adams 

recanted his out of court police statement on the witness stand, 

that his verdict is against the weight of the evidence. In 

November 2014, Adams was incarcerated in Cell 49 of the 

Philadelphia Industrial Correctional Center, next to [WalkerWomack] at Cell 50. At that time, [Walker-Womack] told Adams 

the he was incarcerated for a shooting and that, on the night of 

the murder, [Walker-Womack] wore a black hoodie pulled up 

over his head and ambushed the decedent, shooting him in the 

head, neck, and back with a .38 Special revolver. These 

conversations were memorialized in Adams’ police statement. At 

trial, Adams claimed that he fabricated his entire statement in 

order to secure favorable treatment by law enforcement, having 

used [Walker-Womack’s] discovery to aid his narrative.

The jury was free to believe Adams’ statement to police, 

notwithstanding his attempt to recant at trial. Adams’ out of 

court statement that [Walker-Womack] wore a black hoodie 

before shooting the decedent is corroborated by Allen Bryant’s 

eyewitness testimony, and Pittman[’s] and Shelton’s testimony 

corroborates the type of weapon [Walker-Womack] used. Even 

if the jury chose not to believe Adams’ statement, the combined 

weight of Pittman[’s], Shelton[’s], and the eyewitnesses’ 

testimony strongly supports a guilty verdict. Again, the jury’s 

verdict does not shock the Court’s sense of justice.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/25/2016, at 6-8 (citations to record omitted).

Having independently reviewed the certified record, we find no abuse 

of discretion in the trial court’s ruling. It bears repeating that the jurors 

heard all the impeachment testimony Walker-Womack cites in this appeal 

and opted to reject it, as they are permitted to do.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
J-S27019-17

- 9 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/3/2017