J-S49027-16

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

KALVIN DRUMMOND,

Appellant No. 765 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of February 6, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0015052-2012

BEFORE: PANELLA and OLSON, JJ. and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JULY 22, 2016

Appellant, Kalvin Drummond, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered on February 6, 2015, as made final by the denial of his postsentence motion on February 18, 2015. We affirm.

The factual background of this case is as follows. On the evening of 

May 16, 2010, Appellant, Quentin Thompson (“Thompson”), and Seline 

Akines (“Akines”) were driving around the area of 57th and Hunter Streets. 

The three men discussed the fact that Don McGill (“McGill”) owed Thompson 

approximately $1,000.00 from a previous drug deal. Appellant and 

Thompson told Akines that they were going to “get” McGill. In the early 

morning hours of May 17, 2010, Appellant, Thompson, and Akines saw 

McGill and his girlfriend, Camille Geiger (“Geiger”) waiting for a trolley at 

59th and Lansdowne Streets. At that time, Appellant and Thompson exited 
J-S49027-16

- 2 -

the vehicle with a firearm. McGill was shot four times in the back, causing 

his death.

The relevant procedural history of this case is as follows. On January 

2, 2013, The Commonwealth charged Appellant via criminal information with 

ten offenses including, inter alia, murder,1conspiracy to commit murder,2

and carrying a firearm without a license.3 At trial, Akines and Geiger both 

identified Appellant as the shooter. On September 22, 2014, a jury found 

Appellant not guilty of murder, guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, and 

guilty of carrying a firearm without a license. On February 6, 2015, the trial 

court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 20 to 40 years’ 

imprisonment. On February 13, 2015, Appellant filed a post-sentence 

motion, which the trial court denied on February 18, 2015. This timely 

appeal followed.4

Appellant presents two issues for our review:

1. Was the evidence presented insufficient to sustain a conviction 

because the witness[’] statements were inconsistent and failed 

to prove [] Appellant’s participation in the alleged crime[s]?

 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502.

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903, 2502.

3 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1).

4 On May 21, 2015, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal (“concise statement”). See

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant filed his concise statement on August 4, 2015. 

The trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion on August 26, 2015. 

Appellant included both issues raised on appeal in his concise statement.
J-S49027-16

- 3 -

2. Was the weight of the evidence presented insufficient to support 

[] Appellant’s conviction because the witness[’] statements were 

inconsistent?

Appellant’s Brief at 5 (complete capitalization omitted). 

In his first issue, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to 

convict him of any offense. Specifically, Appellant argues that the witness’ 

statements were inconsistent. He also argues that the witnesses were 

offered protective relocation in return for their testimony. He argues that 

these inconsistent statements, combined with the fact that the witnesses 

were offered protective relocation in return for their testimony, resulted in 

insufficient evidence to prove that he conspired to commit the murder. 

“Whether sufficient evidence exists to support the verdict is a question of 

law; our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” 

Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d 788, 792 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal 

denied, 119 A.3d 351 (Pa. 2015) (citation omitted). In reviewing a 

sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must determine “whether the evidence 

presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in 

a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, support 

the [] verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Benito, 133 

A.3d 333, 335 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted). “The evidence does not 

need to disprove every possibility of innocence, and doubts as to guilt, the

credibility of witnesses, and the weight of the evidence are for the fact-finder 
J-S49027-16

- 4 -

to decide.” Commonwealth v. Forrey, 108 A.3d 895, 897 (Pa. Super. 

2015) (citation omitted).

Appellant cites Commonwealth v. Bennett, 303 A.2d 220 (Pa. 

Super. 1973) and Commonwealth v. Karkaria, 625 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1993) 

in support of his argument that the contradictory evidence presented at trial 

was insufficient to establish guilt. Bennett and Karkaria, however, are 

distinguishable from the case at bar. In Bennett, the only witness who 

testified against the defendant continually changed his story and gave 

contradictory testimony as to the “essential issues” in the case. Id. at 221 

(citation omitted). Thus, this Court found that the evidence was insufficient 

to convict Bennett. In Karkaria, the Commonwealth relied upon the 

testimony of the complainant. Id. at 1168 (“The Commonwealth's case-inchief rested upon the testimony of the complainant[.]”). The complainant’s 

statements and testimony repeatedly contradicted each other from the time 

the investigation began through trial. Thus, our Supreme Court found that 

the evidence was insufficient to convict Karkaria.

In the case at bar, there were no intra-witness contradictions 

regarding the essential issues in this case. The only intra-witness 

contradiction cited by Appellant is Geiger’s statements and testimony 

relating to whether she met or saw Appellant prior to the date of the 

murder. This was not an essential issue in the case, instead, it was a 

tangential issue. Thus, any contradiction in Geiger’s testimony was not so 
J-S49027-16

- 5 -

significant as to render her testimony unworthy of any weight.5 

Furthermore, Geiger’s testimony relating to the essential issues in the case 

was consistent with Akines’ testimony. As such, Bennett and Karkaria are 

inapposite. Appellant’s alternative sufficiency challenge argues that the 

Commonwealth’s offer to relocate Geiger and Akines made their testimony 

inherently unreliable. Appellant fails to cite any cases, and we are unaware 

of any, that stand for the proposition that the Commonwealth’s offer of 

protective relocation renders a witness’ testimony insufficient to convict a 

defendant. 

Viewed correctly, Appellant’s sufficiency claim is more accurately 

characterized as a challenge to the credibility and believability of the 

testimony presented at trial. These challenges are directed at the weight, 

not the sufficiency of the evidence. See Commonwealth v. Lopez, 57 

A.3d 74, 80-81 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, 62 A.3d 379 (Pa. 2013). 

Appellant’s sufficiency argument therefore merits no relief.

Finally, Appellant argues that the verdict was against the weight of the 

evidence. A challenge to the weight of the evidence must first be raised at 

the trial level “(1) orally, on the record, at any time before sentencing; (2) 

by written motion at any time before sentencing; or (3) in a post-sentence 

motion.” In re J.B., 106 A.3d 76, 97 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted). 

 

5 Appellant’s counsel cross-examined Geiger and exposed this inconsistency 

for the jury. See N.T., 9/16/14, at 139. This inconsistency may have led

the jury to acquit Appellant on the murder charge.
J-S49027-16

- 6 -

Appellant failed to challenge the weight of the evidence, via written or oral 

motion prior to sentencing. See generally N.T., 9/22/14; N.T., 2/6/15. 

Furthermore, he failed to raise a weight of the evidence claim in his postsentence motion. See generally Post-Sentence Motion, 2/13/15 (raising 

only a claim related to the discretionary aspects of sentencing). Accordingly, 

Appellant waived appellate review of his weight of the evidence claim.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/22/2016