J-S67013-14 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

: PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee :

:

 v. :

:

LAMAR STEWART ALSTON, :

:

 Appellant : No. 266 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 16, 2014, 

Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, 

Criminal Division at No. CP-02-CR-0010059-2012 

BEFORE: DONOHUE, MUNDY and FITZGERALD*, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 25, 2014 

 Lamar Stewart Alston (“Alston”) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered following his convictions of first-degree murder, attempted 

homicide, aggravated assault, flight to avoid apprehension, recklessly 

endangering another person, and tampering with evidence.1 Alston 

challenges only his conviction of attempted murder. We affirm. 

 The trial court summarized the facts underlying Alston’s convictions as 

follows: 

On June 24, 2012, Jonathan Tillar drove down 

Stratmore Street in the West End of Pittsburgh. Tillar 

was driving his friend Mileek Grissom's car and 

Grissom was driving Tillar's car, because they traded 

cars that day. Tillar testified that he was trying to kill 

time that morning while he waited for Grissom to 

finish his appointment at a nail spa in Bridgeville. He 

stopped by his friend Nate Watt's [sic] house in the 

 

1

 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 901, 2702, 5126, 2705, 4910. 
J-S67013-14 

- 2 - 

West End. Tillar saw Rico Alston on the porch of the 

house. ‘Rico’ was the nickname of [Alston’s] half[-

]brother, Darrell Alston. ... A man and woman who 

Tillar identified as [Alston] and Hope Renee Barfield 

were also on the porch of the house. 

When Tillar walked up the steps, [Alston], Rico and

Hope told him Nate wasn't there. Tillar asked to talk 

to Rico about the accusations he had been making 

against him. [Alston] and Hope Barfield walked away

during the ensuing conversation. Tillar and Rico 

argued. At some point, [Alston] and Hope Barfield 

returned. Barfield walked up behind Tillar and put 

him in a bear hug, although Tillar was able to break 

free. ... Tillar punched [Alston], who pulled a gun on 

him. Tillar believed that he was being confronted for 

his role in the raid of Rico's house. ... . 

While [Alston] held Tillar at gunpoint, Barfield 

opened the door of the car, and took the car keys, 

some money and some marijuana that Tillar had in 

the car. Barfield tossed the keys to a friend of 

Tillar's who was waiting in the car and said, ‘it's got 

nothing to do with you.’ Tillar pretended to call 911 

to report the incident. Once Tillar pretended to 

make the call, [Alston] and Barfield walked away. 

Tillar became concerned that it wasn't safe at his 

house. He believed that [Alston] and Barfield knew 

where he lived. Tillar and his friend drove to Tillar’s 

house where Tillar told the mother of his children[] 

to get the children and herself ready and leave the

house. At that point, Nate Watts drove up to Tillar's 

house and began yelling at him, telling him not to go 

back to [Nate’s] house where he lived with his 

grandmother. 

After Nate Watts left, [Alston’s] brother Rico pulled 

up. He tried to tell Tillar that he had nothing to do 

with the confrontation involving Tillar, [Alston] and 

Barfield earlier that day. Tillar and Rico then got into 

a fist fight [sic] which was broken up by Mileek 

Grissom. Tillar testified that he had called Grissom 
J-S67013-14 

- 3 - 

after leaving Nate's house to tell him that he had 

just been robbed. As Grissom was trying to stop the

fight, [Alston] and Barfield drove up and got out of 

their vehicle. 

Robert Provident, a City of Pittsburgh Homicide 

investigator, interviewed Co-Defendant, Hope 

Barfield on July 15, 2012. At the [t]rial, [h]omicide 

investigator[] Robert Provident testified regarding

Co-Defendant Barfield's interview. Barfield stated 

that Rico Alston had called her and said that he was 

fighting with Tillar. Tillar testified that he heard 

Barfield shouting ‘shoot him’, ‘get him’, ‘shoot them’, 

‘take care of it’, and/or ‘go handle that’. Tillar 

asserted that Barfield was ordering [Alston] to go 

after Tillar and Mileek, or whoever was there. 

[Alston] began shooting. Barfield later told Police 

that [Alston] ‘was the one firing a gun’. Tillar 

testified that [Alston] pointed the gun at him before 

Tillar ducked behind a wall. Tillar testified he then 

saw [Alston] aiming and firing at Grissom. Tillar 

testified that Grissom had been standing right behind 

him before the shooting began. 

Tillar managed to evade getting shot. However, he 

heard Grissom say ‘I'm hit’. He tried to get Grissom 

into his car but he could not. The [p]olice and 

ambulances arrived shortly thereafter and Grissom 

was transported to the hospital. Grissom was 

pronounced dead at the hospital. 

Trial Court Opinion, 7/15/14, at 3-5 (citation to notes of testimony omitted). 

Alston was tried jointly with Hope Barfield (“Barfield”). At the 

conclusion of a three-day bench trial, Alston was convicted of the offenses 

listed above. He subsequently received a sentence of life without parole on 

the first-degree murder conviction as well as a consecutive sentence of ten 
J-S67013-14 

- 4 - 

to 20 years of imprisonment on the attempted homicide conviction. No 

further penalties were imposed on the remaining convictions. 

This timely appeal followed. Alston presents one issue for our review: 

Did the trial court err in denying [Alston’s] motion 

for judgment of acquittal regarding count 2, 

attempted homicide of Jonathan Tillar, since there 

was insufficient evidence to prove, beyond a 

reasonable doubt, that [Alston] was shooting at 

Tillar, and the Commonwealth’s evidence indicated 

that [Alston] was shooting in the direction of and at 

Mileek Grissom, who was two houses away from 

where Tillar was positioned during the shooting? 

Appellant’s Brief at 3. 

 Our standard of review when presented with a challenge to the 

sufficiency of the evidence is as follows: 

We must determine whether the evidence is 

sufficient to prove every element of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt. We must view evidence 

in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as 

the verdict winner, and accept as true all evidence

and all reasonable inferences therefrom upon which,

if believed, the fact finder properly could have based 

its verdict. 

Our Supreme Court has instructed: 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. Moreover, in applying the above test, 

the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence 

actually received must be considered. Finally, the 

trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of
J-S67013-14 

- 5 - 

witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, 

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

Commonwealth v. Orie, 88 A.3d 983, 1013-14 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal 

denied, 2014 WL 4667501 (Pa. Sept. 17, 2014). 

“For the Commonwealth to prevail in a conviction of criminal attempt 

to commit homicide, it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

accused[,] with a specific intent to kill[,] took a substantial step towards that 

goal.” Commonwealth v. Robertson, 874 A.2d 1200, 1207 (Pa. Super. 

2005). 

The substantial step test broadens the scope of 

attempt liability by concentrating on the acts the 

defendant has done and does not any longer focus 

on the acts remaining to be done before the actual 

commission of the crime. The mens rea required for 

... specific intent to kill[] may be established solely 

from circumstantial evidence. The law permits the 

fact finder to infer that one intends the natural and 

probable consequences of his acts. 

Commonwealth v. Jackson, 955 A.2d 441, 444 (Pa. Super. 2008) 

(internal citations omitted). 

 Alston argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his 

conviction because there was no evidence he intended to shoot Tillar. In 

support of his claim, Alston points to Tillar’s alleged testimony from the 

preliminary hearing to the effect that at the time of the shooting, Alston was 

not aiming at him. Appellant’s Brief at 25. 
J-S67013-14 

- 6 - 

First, we note that the notes of testimony from the preliminary hearing 

have not been included in the certified record on appeal, and therefore we 

may not consider the contents thereof. See Commonwealth v. Holley, 

945 A.2d 241, 246 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“For purposes of appellate review, 

what is not of record does not exist.”). 

Second, our review of the evidence, in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, reveals support for the conclusion that Alston intended to 

kill Tillar and took a substantial step toward accomplishing that goal. Tillar 

testified at trial that earlier in the day, Alston held a gun on him while 

Barfield robbed him. N.T., 10/16/13, at 76-78. He further testified that 

when Alston and Barfield arrived at his house, Barfield yelled at Alston to 

shoot Tillar and Alston pointed the gun at him before Tillar ducked for cover 

behind a wall. Id. at 88, 140. Tillar then watched as Alston shot Grissom, 

who had been standing right behind Tillar, multiple times. Id. at 88. This 

evidence establishes both Alston’s intent to kill Tillar and a substantial step 

toward that end; specifically, the pointing of the loaded firearm at Tillar. It 

matters not that Alston did not fire the gun at Tillar, as we focus on the acts 

the defendant has done, not the acts remaining to be done before the actual 

commission of the crime. Jackson, 955 A.2d at 444. 

We note that a substantial portion of Alston’s argument points out 

inconsistencies and variances in Tillar’s testimony and highlights testimony 

from other witnesses that he believes undercuts Tillar’s credibility. See
J-S67013-14 

- 7 - 

Appellant’s Brief at 21-22, 24. These arguments are addressed to the 

weight, rather than the sufficiency, of the evidence. See Commonwealth 

v. Gaskins, 692 A.2d 224 (Pa. Super. 1997) (holding that a challenge to the 

credibility of witness testimony goes to the weight of the evidence rather 

than the sufficiency of the evidence). They have no bearing on the issue 

before us for review. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Mundy, J. joins the Memorandum. 

Fitzgerald, J. concurs in the result. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 11/25/2014