J-S57038-16

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee

 v.

DEVELE LAMAR REID,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 183 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 13, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0009434-2012

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED AUGUST 29, 2016

Devele Lamar Reid (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

of an aggregate term of life imprisonment imposed after being convicted of, 

inter alia, second-degree murder. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the facts underlying this conviction as 

follows.

On June 18, 2012, Michael Shearn, his brother, codefendant Brandon Lind, and co-defendant Jon Lee were driving 

around in Lind’s car. Lind was driving, Lee was in the front 

passenger seat, and Shearn was in the back. While they were 

driving, Lee received a phone call.

Lee told the other occupants of the car that [Appellant] 

wanted to “hit a lick” or commit a robbery. Shearn, Lee, and 

Lind then picked up [D.M.] on the way to Edgewood. [D.M.] was 

sitting behind the driver’s seat. According to Shearn, Lee told 

[D.M.] what [Appellant] wanted to do and [D.M.] agreed to it.

[Appellant] called Lee again and told Lee where to pick him 

up. The group then drove to the Swissvale Police Station and 
J-S57038-16

- 2 -

parked, waiting for [Appellant]. When [Appellant] arrived, he 

asked if the others knew of anyone they could hit. Lind 

suggested a number of people, including the victim, Jordan 

Coyner. Lind and Coyner went to school together. Shearn 

testified that he didn’t know Coyner, but he knew of him, that he 

had “good marijuana” and made good money. He was chosen as 

the target because he was a “drug kingpin.” 

The group then drove to Homewood. [Appellant] got out 

of the car, entered a house, and returned with a firearm. [D.M.] 

identified the weapon as a semi-automatic. Shearn, Lee, and 

[D.M.] were in the back seat. [Appellant] passed the gun to 

Shearn, Lee, and [D.M.] in the back seat. Shearn refused to 

accept the gun. Lee took the gun and pulled down the back of 

the seat to put the gun in the trunk. Meanwhile, Shearn and 

Lind texted [] Coyner from Shearn’s phone. The pair used his 

phone because Lee’s phone was dead, [D.M.’s] was frozen, and 

Lind’s and [Appellant’s] were traceable. Shearn admitted that 

he sent the first text, although he had not previously 

acknowledged texting Coyner at all. The first text to Coyner 

claimed to be from Lee, asking for marijuana. Shearn admitted 

that he didn’t want the call to be traced to him. As they drove, 

[Appellant] told the group about “old licks” to make them more 

comfortable.

They drove to a cul-de-sac in an area near Robinson 

Township. Lind pointed out Coyner’s house. Lee, [Appellant], 

and [D.M.] got out of the car while Shearn and Lind remained 

inside. Lee removed the gun from the trunk and gave it to 

[Appellant]. [D.M.] was given an Air Soft pellet gun from the 

glove box in the middle console. Lee had no weapon at all. 

[D.M.] testified that Lind dropped them off in front of Coyner’s 

house and drove further down the street. Lee and [D.M.] stood 

at the top of the driveway by the bushes, and [Appellant] went 

behind the house. Neither Lee nor [D.M.] ever entered the 

house. They were acting as lookouts.

[Lee] and [D.M.] heard a gunshot and saw [Appellant] 

running toward them from the back of the house. All three 

started running toward the car. [D.M.] and Lee climbed into the 

backseat and [Appellant] got into the front. [Appellant] handed 

the gun to Lee, who put it back in the trunk. When the others 

asked what had happened, [Appellant] told them that Coyner’s 
J-S57038-16

- 3 -

father had stepped out and that he had shot him in the shoulder. 

(In reality, [Appellant] shot and killed the robbery victim, [] 

Coyner). [Appellant] had taken three grams of marijuana and a 

firearm from the house. Shearn deleted the messages on his 

cell phone and Lind smashed the phone, throwing it from the 

car. Shearn admitted that he was afraid of the police tracing it. 

They drove back to Homewood where [Appellant] dropped off 

the gun. They then dropped off [Appellant] in Swissvale and 

returned to Shearn’s father’s house. [D.M.] walked home from 

there.

[On June 19, 2012, Appellant was arrested charged with 

criminal homicide, robbery, criminal conspiracy, and carrying a 

firearm without a license.] After [Appellant] was arrested, he 

provided a voluntary taped statement to homicide detectives on 

June 19, 2012. The statement was played in [c]ourt during the 

trial. [Appellant] basically reiterates the facts that are stated 

previously but added that when he told the victim to give him 

the money, the victim first said he had no money. After 

[Appellant] hit him with the gun, the victim said I have money 

but it is upstairs. As the victim went to go inside, he tried to 

shut the door on [Appellant]. As [Appellant] pushed back on the 

door, he stated the gun went off and he ran.

After concluding the statement to the detectives on June 

19, 2012, [Appellant] was being walked from the Allegheny 

County homicide office to a police car. At that time, a WTAE (an 

ABC affiliate in Pittsburgh) television news camera and 

microphone were thrust at him and he admitted to the shooting 

and apologized. This videotape was played during trial.

The gun used to shoot [] Coyner was never found. Neither 

[Appellant], Lee nor Lind testified at trial, and none called 

character witnesses. In closing argument, trial counsel [] 

essentially argued for [third-degree murder] rather than a 

[second-degree murder] conviction.

Trial Court Opinion, 4/22/2016, at 5-8 (citations to notes of testimony and 

footnotes omitted).
J-S57038-16

- 4 -

Appellant was tried in a joint trial with Lee and Lind.1 A jury heard 

Lee’s case, and the trial court heard the cases of both Lind and Appellant 

without a jury. The trial court found Appellant guilty of second-degree 

murder, robbery, criminal conspiracy, and carrying a firearm without a 

license. The trial court found Lind guilty of third-degree murder and related 

crimes. The jury found Lee guilty of third-degree murder and related 

crimes. 

On March 6, 2014, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 

life imprisonment. No post-sentence motion or appeals were filed on 

Appellant’s behalf, but on March 11, 2015, Appellant filed timely a pro se

PCRA petition. Appellant’s post-sentence motion and direct appeal rights 

were reinstated nunc pro tunc. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion 

challenging the weight of the evidence, with particular reference to the fact 

that Appellant’s co-defendants were convicted of third-degree murder while 

Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder. That post-sentence 

motion was filed on September 28, 2015, and was denied by operation of 

law on January 28, 2016. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, and both 

Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

On appeal, Appellant argues that his second-degree murder conviction 

was against the weight of the evidence under these circumstances. He 

 

1 D.M.’s case was transferred to juvenile court. He pled guilty to thirddegree murder, robbery, and criminal conspiracy in exchange for his 

testimony against Appellant, Lee, and Lind.
J-S57038-16

- 5 -

suggests that all defendants should have been convicted of second-degree 

murder or that all defendants should have been convicted of third-degree 

murder, and it “shocks one’s sense of justice” otherwise. Appellant’s Brief at 

18. 

We consider this argument mindful of our well-settled standard of 

review.

When we review a weight-of-the-evidence challenge, we do not 

actually examine the underlying question; instead, we examine 

the trial court’s exercise of discretion in resolving the challenge. 

This type of review is necessitated by the fact that the trial judge 

heard and saw the evidence presented. Simply put, [o]ne 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. A new trial is warranted in this 

context only when the verdict is so contrary to the evidence that 

it shocks one’s sense of justice and the award of a new trial is 

imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to 

prevail. Of equal importance is the precept that, [t]he finder of 

fact ... exclusively weighs the evidence, assesses the credibility 

of witnesses, and may choose to believe all, part, or none of the

evidence.

Commonwealth v. Konias, 136 A.3d 1014, 1022–23 (Pa. Super. 2016) 

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

In considering Appellant’s issue, we observe that this Court has 

rejected specifically the claim that similarly-situated defendants have to be 

convicted of the same crimes or any crimes at all. See Commonwealth v. 

Wallace, 817 A.2d 485 (Pa. Super. 2002) (concluding that husband could 

be convicted of eight counts of endangering the welfare of children and wife 
J-S57038-16

- 6 -

could be acquitted of those crimes even though the entire family resided 

together and was responsible for maintaining the home because wife had put 

forth efforts to clean home and husband made no efforts to do so). 

Moreover, as with all arguments challenging the weight of the

evidence, Appellant acknowledges that his conviction for second-degree 

murder was legally sufficient. While Appellant could have been convicted of 

third-degree murder, and his co-defendants could have been convicted of 

second-degree murder, this was not a requirement. “Consistent verdicts are 

not required provided that there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict 

reached.” Commonwealth v. Merbah, 411 A.2d 244, 247 (Pa. Super. 

1979).

Further, the trial court offered the following conclusions.

[T]here is remarkably little dispute about the facts of the crime 

itself, at least as those facts relate to [Appellant]. All of the 

testimony in this case, including the taped statement by 

[Appellant] himself, establishes that [Appellant] wanted to “hit a 

lick.” All of the testimony shows that [Appellant] got out of the 

car and went to the back of Coyner’s house, to an open garage 

door. It is undisputed [Appellant] took the gun with him inside 

the house. All of the testimony establishes that [Appellant] had 

shot someone and that he fled the scene along with two 

lookouts. [Appellant] doesn’t claim he didn’t do the things of 

which he has been accused and convicted, but rather that others 

did the same things. Given the uniformity of the testimony 

about the crimes committed, it is unclear which facts [Appellant] 

would accord greater weight. 

Trial Court Opinion, 4/22/2016, at 13.
J-S57038-16

- 7 -

Here, Appellant’s role in this conspiracy was materially different than 

his co-conspirators. He was the one who came up with the idea for a 

robbery, secured the weapon, and then actually confronted the victim which 

resulted in the victim’s death. Because Appellant cannot demonstrate that 

the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the verdict did not 

shock its conscience, he is not entitled to relief. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/29/2016