J-S18027-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

SEAN PATRICK KNOX JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 871 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 16, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): 

CP-25-CR-0001690-2022

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: September 9, 2024

Sean Patrick Knox Jr. appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

following his convictions for attempted criminal homicide, firearms not to be 

carried without a license, possessing instruments of crime, disorderly conduct, 

17 counts of recklessly endangering another person (REAP), and two counts 

of aggravated assault.

1 Knox challenges the amendment of the information, 

the denial of a jury instruction, and the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm. 

The Commonwealth filed a criminal complaint against Knox listing the 

above-mentioned offenses, including the 17 counts of REAP. See Criminal 

Complaint, filed 5/19/22. The magisterial district court’s docket listed the 

same charges. See Magisterial District Criminal Docket at 3. However, the

later-filed information listed only one count of REAP, rather than 17 counts. 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a), 2502, 6106(a), 907(b), 5503(a)(1), 2705, 

2702(a)(1), and 2702(a)(4), respectively. 
J-S18027-24

- 2 -

See Information, filed 8/30/22, at Count Seven. Regarding REAP, the 

information alleged that Knox fired “shots in a residential area from a semiautomatic pistol in the direction of several individuals including minor 

children[.]” Id. (emphasis added). The day before trial, the Commonwealth 

moved to amend the information to include 16 additional counts of REAP. See

Commonwealth’s Motion to Amend the Criminal Information, filed 1/3/23. The 

trial court granted the motion the following day, January 4, 2023, the day of 

jury selection. 

At trial, the Commonwealth presented the following evidence. Raheem 

Phelps2testified that he attended a children’s party on May 13, 2022, with his 

girlfriend and his daughter. N.T., Jury Trial Day 1, 1/4/23, at 29, 31-32; N.T., 

Jury Trial Day 2, 1/5/23, at 10. The party was outside on the street and at 

least 10 other people were attending the party when he arrived. N.T., Day 1,

at 31, 34. During the party, two people on bicycles passed by, “screaming, 

somebody coming with a gun.” Id. at 29, 34-35. About 30 seconds later,

somebody ran out and started shooting. Id. at 35. Phelps heard about 20 

shots coming from the shooter’s location. Id. at 40, 72. Phelps and others at 

the party fired back at the shooter. Id. at 39, 63. 

The Commonwealth then played a video that showed the shooting and

the 17 people at the party. Id. at 43. Knox was not identified as an attendee 

____________________________________________

2 The trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion references Raheem “Phillips.” See Rule 

1925(a) Opinion, filed 10/3/23, at 5. It also references Raheem Phelps. Upon 

reviewing the trial transcript, we believe the court’s reference to “Phillips” to 

be a typographical error. 
J-S18027-24

- 3 -

of the party. Phelps identified some of the persons in the video. See id. at 41-

52. The investigating officer, Detective Jason Russell, testified and identified 

the remaining individuals in the video that Phelps was not able to identify. 

See N.T., Day 2, at 70-77. Detective Russell explained that he had interviewed

Knox a month and a half before the shooting about an unrelated incident. Id.

at 96, 128. Detective Russell said when he reviewed the video from the instant 

shooting, he immediately identified Knox as the shooter. Id. at 96. He 

described Knox in the video as “a somewhat tall, thin build, dark skinned black 

male” with “two to three inch braids . . . or even three to four[.]” Id. at 91.

Detective Russell testified that Phelps said the shooter was someone 

known as “Dooderman,” whom Phelps described as a male with braids. Id. at 

133. Detective Russell said that “Dooderman” was the nickname of an 

individual named Rakwon Husband. Id. Detective Russell was “very familiar 

with Rakwon and I know that he does not have braided hair. His hair is more 

of a close-crop style.” Id. at 134. Detective Russell also noted that other 

individuals at the party said “Dooderman” was the shooter. Id. at 110. 

Detective Russell learned “that due to the close relationship between the 

individual whose known alias is Dooderman and Mr. Knox the term has kind

of become somewhat synonymous with both of them to a degree.” Id. at 112. 

He explained, “Because they’re so frequently together, that term, there’s 

Dooderman, I think that’s been kind of leveled towards both of them.” Id. at 

112-13; see also id. at 139. Detective Russell testified that one of the 
J-S18027-24

- 4 -

attendees at the party identified the shooter as Shizzy, which Detective Russell 

knew to be Knox’s “street name.” Id. 

Another officer, Officer Nicholas Strauch, testified that he monitored the 

social media profiles of teenagers in Erie, Pennsylvania, including Knox, whom 

he also knew as Shizzy. Id. at 142, 143-44. He had seen Knox over 100 times 

online, including in videos. Id. at 144, 155. Officer Strauch said that at the 

time of the trial, Knox’s street name was “Broad Day Shizzy.” Id. at 143. 

Officer Strauch testified that he also monitored Rakwon Husband’s social 

media account and that Rakwon’s nickname was Dooderman. Id. at 144. 

Officer Strauch said that he had seen Rakwon in person over a hundred times. 

Id.

Officer Strauch testified that he received a text message from Detective 

Russell with a still photograph showing a person at the shooting. Id. at 146. 

At the time, Officer Strauch “was unaware of the location, any logistical 

information, anything background to why [Detective Russell] wanted” the 

individual in the photograph identified. Id. at 147. Officer Strauch identified 

the person as Knox. Id. at 146. He also testified that the individual in the 

photograph did not have Dooderman’s facial features but rather Knox’s. Id.

at 148.

Four days after the shooting, police arrested Knox in a separate incident 

and recovered a firearm from his pants. Id. at 98, 100, 123. The 

Commonwealth introduced a video of “the booking counter” where Knox was 

processed for his arrest. Id. at 101. In the video, Knox had “three to four inch 
J-S18027-24

- 5 -

braided hair.” Id. at 102. Detective Russell explained that Knox had the same 

height, weight, and build as the individual he identified in the video of the 

shooting. Id. at 104. Corporal Dale Wimer compared cartridge cases from the 

crime scene with those from Knox’s firearm, concluding they were fired from 

the same weapon. Id. at 49-52, 54. 

Before closing arguments, counsel requested a jury instruction on selfdefense. See N.T., Day 3, 1/6/23, at 2. Counsel argued the instruction was 

warranted considering that Knox “was [a] victim of a shooting, . . . two months 

earlier.” Id. at 3. The court denied the request, stating, “I don’t think there’s 

any facts that can justify that.” Id. After instructing the jury, the court asked,

“Is there anything further that needs to be brought to the Court’s attention? 

Counsel.” Id. at 87. Counsel stated, “No, Your Honor.” Id.

The jury found Knox guilty of the above-mentioned offenses and the 

court sentenced Knox to an aggregate term of 11 to 22 years of imprisonment. 

Knox filed a post-sentence motion challenging the Commonwealth’s 

amendment of the information, the court’s denial of the self-defense jury 

instruction, and the sufficiency of the evidence identifying him as the shooter.

The court denied the motion, and this timely appeal followed.

Knox raises the following issues:

I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF 

LAW AND/OR ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT PERMITTED, 

OVER OBJECTION, THE COMMONWEALTH TO AMEND THE 

CRIMINAL INFORMATION ON THE DAY OF JURY SELECTION 

TO INCLUDE 16 NEW COUNTS OF RECKLESSLY 

ENDANGERING ANOTHER PERSON.
J-S18027-24

- 6 -

II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF 

LAW AND/OR ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED 

[KNOX] A JURY INSTRUCTION FOR SELF-DEFENSE.

III. WHETHER THE COMMONWEALTH FAILED TO PRESENT 

SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT [KNOX] BEYOND A 

REASONABLE DOUBT OF CRIMINAL ATTEMPT (HOMICIDE), 

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING 

ANOTHER PERSON, AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT. 

Knox’s Br. at 4 (suggested answer omitted). 

Knox asserts that the trial court erred by allowing the Commonwealth 

to amend the information with 16 additional counts of REAP. He claims that 

the Commonwealth’s seeking to amend the information immediately before

the trial prejudiced him. Knox further contends that since he waived his 

preliminary hearing, he had no notice of the identity of the additional victims 

and was prevented from being able to present a defense “that included a 

challenge to the identity of the alleged victims.” Id. at 14. He also claims that

he was prejudiced “as the Commonwealth only presented one (1) victim to 

testify and supported the additional counts with video identification testimony 

that was introduced at trial for the first time.” Id. at 14-15. 

A court may allow an amendment of the information if “the information 

as amended does not charge offenses arising from a different set of events”

and “the amended charges are not so materially different from the original 

charge that the defendant would be unfairly prejudiced.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 564 

(emphasis added). When reviewing a challenge to an amendment, we 

consider: 

whether the crimes specified in the original indictment or 

information involve the same basic elements and evolved 
J-S18027-24

- 7 -

out of the same factual situation as the crimes specified in 

the amended indictment or information. If so, then the 

defendant is deemed to have been placed on notice 

regarding his alleged criminal conduct. If, however, the 

amended provision alleges a different set of events, or the 

elements or defenses to the amended crime are materially 

different from the elements or defenses to the crime 

originally charged, such that the defendant would be 

prejudiced by the change, then the amend[ment] is not 

permitted. . . . Where the crimes specified in the original 

information involved the same basic elements and arose out 

of the same factual situation as the crime added by the 

amendment, the appellant is deemed to have been placed 

on notice regarding his alleged criminal conduct and no 

prejudice to defendant results.

Commonwealth v. Moffitt, 305 A.3d 1095, 1101 (Pa.Super. 2023) (citation 

omitted). A court should also consider the following factors: 

(1) whether the amendment changes the factual scenario 

supporting the charges; (2) whether the amendment adds 

new facts previously unknown to the defendant; (3) whether 

the entire factual scenario was developed during a 

preliminary hearing; (4) whether the description of the 

charges changed with the amendment; (5) whether a 

change in defense strategy was necessitated by the 

amendment; and (6) whether the timing of the 

Commonwealth’s request for amendment allowed for ample 

notice and preparation.

Commonwealth v. Witmayer, 144 A.3d 939, 947 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citation 

omitted).

Knox has waived this issue. He maintains that he objected to the 

amendment but fails to identify where he raised his objection, and our review 

of the certified record does not reveal an objection. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(e).

Knox did not file a written response to the Commonwealth’s written motion to 

amend, and because he waived having a stenographer present during jury 
J-S18027-24

- 8 -

selection, any objection at that time is not of record. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); 

Commonwealth v. Jackson, 215 A.3d 972, 977-98 (Pa.Super. 2019).

Even if the claim were not waived, it is meritless. The Commonwealth’s 

amendment “involved the same basic elements and arose out the same factual 

situation as the crime added by the amendment[.]” Moffitt, 305 A.3d at 1101. 

The original information listed one count of REAP that alleged “several 

individuals including children” were in the area. Information at Count Seven.

Furthermore, the criminal complaint and the magisterial district court docket 

listed 17 counts of REAP. See Criminal Complaint, at Offense 7 (noting 17 

counts of REAP); Magisterial District Court Criminal Docket at 3 (listing 17 

counts of REAP). Considering these factors, the trial court did not err in

concluding that Knox was not prejudiced by the amendment. 

Next, Knox challenges the court’s denial of his request for a self-defense

jury instruction. Knox argues that there was “evidence on the record that an 

instruction of that nature was appropriate for the jury’s consideration.” Knox’s 

Br. at 17. He points out that one of the Commonwealth’s witnesses testified 

that two months before the shooting in this case, Knox had been a victim in 

the same neighborhood. Additionally, Knox notes that a witness testified that 

the shooter was on foot and alone and that once the shooting began, there 

were at least six people in the crowd who were armed. 

This claim is waived due to Knox’s failure to object before the jury retired 

to deliberate. See N.T., Day 3, at 87; Commonwealth v. Pressley, 887 A.2d 

220, 225 (Pa. 2005) (holding “the mere submission and subsequent denial of 
J-S18027-24

- 9 -

proposed points for charge that are . . . omitted from the instructions actually 

given will not suffice to preserve an issue, absent a specific objection or 

exception to the charge or the trial court’s ruling respecting the points”); 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 647(C) (stating an objection to a jury instruction must be made 

“before the jury retires to deliberate”). 

In his final issue, Knox challenges the sufficiency of evidence for 

attempted homicide, aggravated assault, REAP, and disorderly conduct. Knox 

argues that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to 

“establish the identity of [Knox] beyond a reasonable doubt as the person who 

fired shots into the crowd[.]”. Knox’s Br. at 19, 23, 24, 25, 26. Knox claims 

“it was impossible for the jury to establish his identity as the shooter beyond 

a reasonable doubt as there was another plausible individual that could have 

been the shooter that was never put before the jury for their consideration.” 

Id. at 21. Regarding his convictions for aggravated assault, Knox also argues 

that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence of his intent to 

cause serious bodily injury to another. He states that the record shows “that 

the bullets fired by the shooter . . . were not directed towards any individual” 

and no one was injured. Id. at 23.

Our standard of review is settled: 

The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the 

evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at 

trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there 

is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every 

element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In 

applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and 

substitute our judgment for the fact-finder[’s]. In addition, 
J-S18027-24

- 10 -

we note that the facts and circumstances established by the 

Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of 

innocence. 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. The 

Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every 

element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means 

of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the 

above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all 

evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the 

finder 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. Enix, 192 A.3d 78, 81 (Pa.Super. 2018) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Estepp, 17 A.3d 939, 943–44 (Pa.Super. 2011)). 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 

the evidence sufficiently identified Knox as the shooter. While some witnesses 

identified “Dooderman” as the shooter, it was not “impossible,” as Knox 

suggests, for the jury to determine that Knox was the shooter. To the 

contrary, the evidence of record was sufficient to prove identification. Both 

Detective Knox and Officer Strauch immediately identified Knox as the shooter 

in the video. Detective Russell had over 100 in-person interactions with Knox,

and Officer Strauch viewed Knox’s social media account over 100 times. 

Furthermore, officers recovered a firearm from Knox with cartridges that 

matched the discharged cartridges at the crime scene. 

We also conclude that the evidence sufficiently established Knox’s intent

to cause serious bodily injury. A person is guilty of aggravated assault where 

the Commonwealth shows that he attempted “to cause serious bodily injury 
J-S18027-24

- 11 -

to another” or caused “such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under 

circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the human life.” 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1). “[F]or the degree of recklessness 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. Palmer, 192 A.3d 85, 96 n.8 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation 

omitted). A person is also guilty of aggravated assault where the 

Commonwealth shows that he attempted “to cause or intentionally or 

knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 2702(a)(4). “A person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit a 

specific crime, he does any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the 

commission of that crime.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901(a). 

Knox fired his gun numerous times into a crowd of people attending a 

children’s birthday party. This was an offensive act likely to incur death or 

injury. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 

the evidence sufficiently established Knox’s intent to cause serious bodily 

injury. Palmer, 192 A.3d at 95-96 (concluding sufficient evidence of intent 

for aggravated assault where appellant fired 10 times into a group of people); 

Commonwealth v. O'Hanlon, 653 A.2d 616, 618 (Pa. 1995) (referencing

examples of recklessness for aggravated assault including cases where “the 

defendant could reasonably anticipate that serious bodily injury or death 

would be the likely and logical consequence of his actions”). We affirm. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 
J-S18027-24

- 12 -

DATE: 09/09/2024