J-S09023-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ROSCOE WILLIAMS

Appellant No. 3144 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 18, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0010480-2014

BEFORE: SHOGAN, STABILE, and PLATT,*JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED MAY 24, 2017

Appellant Roscoe Williams appeals from the September 18, 2015 

judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia 

County (“trial court”), following his jury convictions for robbery and 

conspiracy to commit robbery. Upon review, we affirm.

The facts and procedural history of this case are undisputed. As 

summarized by the trial court:

On August 12, 2014, Timothy Matthews left his place of 

employment on City Avenue and took a “hack cab” to his home. 

The driver of the hack cab identified himself as “Major.” 

Matthews instructed Major to take him to 1611 West Loudon 

Street where Matthews resided at the time. Major drove on City 

Avenue toward Matthews’ home, but then drove past where he 

needed to turn for Matthews’ home. Matthews became 

suspicious because Major drove past where he needed to turn to 

get to his house. Matthews asked Major what was happening, to 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S09023-17

- 2 -

which Major responded that he needed to stop briefly to take 

care of his child.

After parking on the 5200 block of Hutchinson Street, 

Major entered a residence located at 5235 Hutchinson Street. 

While waiting for Major to return, two individuals—later identified 

as [Appellant] and co-defendant Jamal Wilson—aggressively 

approached Matthews. Matthews described the two individuals 

as a tall, skinny male wearing sweat pants and a white t-shirt 

and a fat male wearing a red hoody. Matthews observed 

[Appellant] exit the residence at 5235 Hutchinson Street—the 

same house Major entered—prior to [Appellant] approaching 

him. As [Appellant] and co-defendant Wilson approached, 

Matthews backed up onto a nearby porch. After backing 

Matthews onto the porch, co-defendant Wilson produced a small 

handgun from his waist and pointed it inches away from 

Matthews’ midsection. While co-defendant Wilson pointed the 

gun at him, Matthews removed $302 from his pockets and 

handed it to [Appellant], who was next to co-defendant Wilson.

After handing over the money, Matthews fled on foot and 

called 911. As he was running away, Matthews observed 

Philadelphia Police Officer Bacon, who was responding to the 911 

call. Officer Bacon returned with Matthews to the scene of the 

robbery where he had identified [Appellant] to Officer Bacon as 

the skinny male who took his money while co-defendant Wilson 

pointed the gun at him. Matthews identified co-defendant 

Wilson to Officer Bacon as the fat male who pointed the gun to 

his midsection.

Trial Court Opinion, 3/7/16, at 1-2 (record citations omitted). A jury

ultimately found Appellant guilty of robbery and conspiracy to commit 

robbery. On September 18, 2015, the trial court sentenced him to an 

aggregate term of 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment. Appellant timely appealed. 

On appeal, Appellant raises a single issue for our review. Appellant 

argues that the conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery was 

unsupported by the record.1 After careful review of the record and the 

____________________________________________

1 Our review of a sufficiency claim is governed by the following well-settled 

standard of review:

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S09023-17

- 3 -

relevant case law, we conclude that the trial court accurately and thoroughly 

addressed the merits of Appellant’s claim. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/7/16, 

at 4-5. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Appellant conspired 

with co-defendant to rob Matthews under the circumstances of this case. As 

the trial court reasoned “both approached Matthews and without the need to 

communicate with each other, co-defendant Wilson pointed the gun at 

Matthews’ midsection while [Appellant] took his money.2 See 

Commonwealth v. Poland, 26 A.3d 633, 518, 523 (Pa. Super. 2011) 

(holding that “the actors’ relationships and their conduct before, during and 

after the criminal episode established a unity of criminal purpose sufficient 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine 

whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable 

inferences drawn from that evidence, when viewed in the light 

most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, was 

sufficient to enable the fact finder to conclude that the 

Commonwealth established all of the elements of the offense 

beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth may sustain its 

burden by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Further, the 

trier of fact is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Taylor, 137 A.3d 611, 614 (Pa. Super. 2016)

A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons 

to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating 

its commission he ... agrees with such other person or persons 

that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which 

constitutes such crime ... or ... agrees to aid such other person 

or persons in the planning or commission of such crime[.]

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903(a).

2 To the extent Appellant asks us to discredit Matthews’ identification of him, 

we decline to do so. “As an appellate court, we do not assess credibility nor 

do we assign weight to any of the testimony of record.” Commonwealth v. 

Vogelsong, 90 A.3d 717, 719 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted), appeal 

denied, 102 A.3d 985 (Pa. 2014). 
J-S09023-17

- 4 -

for the jury to find conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.”). Accordingly, 

we affirm Appellant’s September 18, 2015, judgment of sentence. We 

further direct that a copy of the trial court’s March 7, 2016 opinion be 

attached to any future filings in this case.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/24/2017
Matthews. Matthews described the two individuals as a tall, skinny male wearing sweat pants 

as Defendant Roscoe Williams and co-Defendant Jamal Wilson - approached aggressively 

at 5235 Hutchinson Street. While waiting for Major to return, two individuals - later identified 

After parking on the 5200 block of Hutchinson Street, Major entered a residence located 

briefly to take care of his child. Id at 52. 

Matthews asked Major what was happening, to which Major responded that he needed to stop 

became suspicious because Maj or drove past where he needed to turn to get to his house. 

Matthews' home, but then drove past where he needed to tum for Matthews' home. Matthews 

Street where Matthews resided at the time. Id. at 51. Major drove on City A venue toward 

identified himself as "Major." Matthews instructed Major to take him to 1611 West Loudon 

and took a "hack cab" to his home. N.T. 7/14/2015 at 45-51. The driver of the hack cab 

On August 12, 2014, Timothy Matthews left his place of employment on City Avenue 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

For the reasons stated below, the Superior Court should affirm the judgment of sentence. 

insufficient to support the convictions, and (2) the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. 

incarceration. Defendant filed a timely appeal in which he argues: (1) the evidence was 

conspiracy to commit robbery. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a total of 10 to 20 years of 

Following a jury trial, Defendant Roscoe Williams was convicted of robbery and 

OPINION 

ROSCOE WILLIAMS 

vs. 3144 EDA 2015 

COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA CP-51-CR-OO I 0480-2014 

FILED 

MAR O 7 2016 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTCi. . 

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Firsf'J'dn_a! Appears Unit 

TRIAL DIVISION - CRIMINAL u ,c,aJ District of PA 

Circulated 04/27/2017 02:20 PM
1. There Is Sufficient Evidence To Support The Convictions 

Defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support any of the convictions. 

Appellate courts review claims regarding the sufficiency of the evidence by considering 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. Commonwealth v. Bradley, 69 A.3d 253, 255 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). The 

appellate court must evaluate the entire record and consider all evidence actually received. Id. 

Further, a conviction may be sustained wholly on circumstantial evidence, and the trier of factwhile passing on the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence-is free to 

-2- 

DISCUSSION 

and a white t-shirt and a fat male wearing a red hoody. Id. at 56-61, 71, 112-13. Matthews 

observed Defendant exit the residence at 5235 Hutchinson Street - the same house Major entered 

- prior to Defendant approaching him. As Defendant and co-Defendant Wilson approached, 

Matthews backed up onto a nearby porch. Id. at 60. After backing Matthews onto the porch, coDefendant Wilson produced a small handgun from his waist and pointed it inches from 

Matthews' midsection. Id. at 64. While co-Defendant Wilson pointed the gun at him, Matthews 

removed $302 from his pockets and handed it to Defendant, who was next to co-Defendant 

Wilson. Id. at 70- 71. 

After handing over his money, Matthews fled on foot and called 911. Id. at 68-70. As he 

was running away, Matthews observed Philadelphia Police Officer Bacon, who was responding 

to the 911 call. Id at 145-149. Officer Bacon returned with Matthews to the scene of the robbery 

where he identified Defendant to Officer Bacon as the skinny male who took his money while 

co-Defendant Wilson pointed a gun at him. Id at 73, 158-59. Matthews identified co-Defendant 

Wilson to Officer Bacon as the fat male who pointed the gun to his midsection. Id. 
(Pa. Super. Ct. 1974). 

At trial, the evidence showed that Defendant approached Matthews in an aggressive 

manner, which prompted Matthews to back up onto a porch. While on the porch, co-Defendant 

Wilson produced a firearm and pointed it at Matthews' midsection. Defendant - who was 

standing next to co-Defendant Wilson - then took the money that Matthews removed from his 

pocket. Viewing this direct and circumstantial evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction for robbery, i.e., 

Defendant stole $302 from Matthew by intentionally threatening him with serious bodily injury. 

Alternatively, the evidence at trial supports Defendant's robbery conviction under an 

accomplice theory. A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another when he is an 

accomplice of such other person in the commission of the offense. 18 Pa.C.S. § 306(b)(3). A 

person is an accomplice if, with the intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of the 

offense, he aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing the 

-3- 

believe all, part, or none of the evidence. Id. In conducting this review, the appellate court may 

not weigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the fact-finder. Id. 

a. There Is Sufficient Evidence To Support The Conviction For Robbery 

To support the robbery conviction, the Commonwealth must have proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt that: (1) the defendant threatened another with, or intentionally put him in fear 

of, immediate serious bodily injury, (2) in the course of committing a theft. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701. 

The use of or threat of force, however slight, is an essential element of the crime. Commonwealth 

v. Bedell, 954 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008). A person commits a theft if he unlawfully takes 

the property of another with the intent to deprive him thereof. Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 

A.2d 910, 914 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). In addition, felonious intent can, and in most cases 

necessarily must, be inferred from the circumstances. Commonwealth v. Farmer, 361 A.2d 701 

- 
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 719 A.2d 778, 784-85 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998) (en bane). 

-4- 

" ... a conspiracy may be inferred where it is demonstrated that the 

relation, conduct, or circumstances of the parties, and the overt acts 

of the co-conspirators sufficiently prove the formation of a 

criminal confederation. The conduct of the parties and the 

circumstances surrounding their conduct may create a web of 

evidence linking the accused to the alleged conspiracy beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Even if the conspirator did not act as a principal 

in committing the underlying crime, he is still criminally liable for 

the actions of his co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy." 

from the conduct of the parties: 

Often times, the only evidence of a conspiracy is based upon circumstantial evidence 

person with whom he conspired. 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(e). 

overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy is alleged and proved to have been done by him or by a 

903(a). Additionally, no person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime unless an 

or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime. 18 Pa.C.S. § 

solicitation to commit such crime; or agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning 

or one or more of them, will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or 

beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant agreed with such other person or persons that they, 

To support the conviction for criminal conspiracy, the Commonwealth must have proven 

b. There Is Sufficient Evidence To Support The Conviction For Conspiracy 

onto the porch and then taking his money. 

co-Defendant Wilson in the commission of the robbery by approaching Matthews, backing him 

sufficient to support Defendant's conviction for robbery as an accomplice, i.e., Defendant aided 

circumstantial evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence was 

Matthews as co-Defendant Wilson pointed the gun at his midsection. Viewing this direct and 

Wilson in the commission of the robbery. In other words, Defendant took the money from 

offense. 18 Pa.C.S. §306(c)(l)(ii). Here, the evidence shows that Defendant aided co-Defendant 

.---...._ 
-5- 

demeanor of the witnesses who testified as well as their manner of testifying. Based upon those 

The trial court presided over the entire trial and had the opportunity to observe the 

Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). 

The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact who 

is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine 

the credibility of the witnesses. An appellate court cannot 

substitute its judgment for that of the finder of fact. Thus, [the 

Superior Court] may only reverse the lower court's verdict if it is 

so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice. 

Moreover, 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 claim. 

evaluating the weight of the evidence, the standard ofreview is as follows: 

Defendant asserts that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. When 

2. The Verdict Was Not Against The Weight Of The Evidence 

conspiracy. 469-532-3809 

Commonwealth, the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction for criminal 

respectively. Viewing this direct and circumstantial evidence in the light most favorable to the 

furtherance of the conspiracy by threatening Matthews with the firearm and taking the money, 

crime of robbery. Additionally both co-Defendant Wilson and Defendant committed overt acts in 

creates a reasonable inference that Defendant and co-Defendant Wilson agreed to commit the 

took his money. Defendant's receipt of the money through co-Defendant Wilson's use of force 

with each other, co-Defendant Wilson pointed the gun at Matthews' midsection while Defendant 

Defendant Wilson. As they both approached Matthews and without the need to communicate 

agreement and requisite intent can be inferred through the conduct of Defendant as well as coconspiracy with co-Defendant Wilson to commit the crime of robbery. The conspiracy 

Here, the evidence at trial was sufficient to prove that Defendant entered into a 
-6- 

DANIEL J. ANDERS, J E 

Dated: March 7, 2016 

Based on the foregoing, the judgment of sentence should be affirmed. 

CONCLUSION 

evidence and does not shock one's sense of justice. 

overwhelming evidence of Defendant's guilt discussed above, the verdict is not contrary to the 

credibility determinations that are irnbedded within their verdict. Moreover, in light of the 

observations and the consistency of their testimony, there is no basis to disturb the jury's 

.. --.....