J-S53010-16

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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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

FLOYD EDWARD PATTERSON

Appellant No. 1307 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 17, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0000903-2014

BEFORE: BOWES, SHOGAN AND FITZGERALD,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED AUGUST 23, 2016

Floyd Edward Patterson appeals from the judgment of sentence of 

fifteen to forty years imprisonment that was imposed after a jury convicted 

him of aggravated assault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another 

person, and conspiracy. We affirm. 

The following evidence was adduced at trial. On the night of January 

11, 2014, Robert Mohler, a homeless man, was sleeping inside a laundromat 

on Penn Street, Reading. The owner of the laundromat had given Mr. Mohler 

permission to take shelter in the business due to the cold. The laundromat 

and surrounding area were monitored with security cameras. While Mr. 

Mohler was asleep, Ana Ferrer-Reyes and Keith Allison entered the 

laundromat and punched and kicked Mr. Mohler, who remained on the 
J-S53010-16

- 2 -

ground. As soon as the pair exited the laundromat, Mr. Mohler called 911. 

The call abruptly ended when Ferrer-Reyes and Allison returned to the 

laundromat in the company of Appellant and Irich Colon. The four cohorts 

proceeded to viciously beat Mr. Mohler and also took his cell phone.

Colon testified at trial. She indicated that she encountered Appellant, 

Ferrer-Reyes, and Allison, all of whom were acquainted with each other, 

outside of the laundromat and, after Ferrer-Reyes represented that Mr. 

Mohler had harassed her, the four people decided to assault the victim, by 

repeatedly kicking and punching him while he was curled up on the floor. 

Appellant used a wet-floor sign to inflict some blows. The entire attack was 

captured on a videotape, which was shown to the jury. 

When Reading police officers arrived at the scene, Ferrer-Reyes and 

Allison were still near the laundromat. Reading Police Officer Vincent Leazier 

saw them talking and then observed Ferrer-Reyes “miming as punching into 

her hand --- going into an open hand and she was yelling, “Bop, bop, bop[.]” 

N.T. Trial, 6/15/14, at 64-65. Officer Leazier testified that Ferrer-Reyes 

said, “I f ed that n up.” Id. at 65. Officer Leazier stopped the pair and 

placed Ferrer-Reyes under arrest as she had an open warrant. A search 

incident to that arrest revealed that she was in possession of Mr. Mohler’s 

cell phone. Allison was also arrested at the scene.

Due to the extent of his injuries, Mr. Mohler was immediately 

transported to the hospital. The parties read the following stipulation into 
J-S53010-16

- 3 -

the record. Dr. Marc Lewbart was the emergency room physician working 

for Saint Joseph’s Medical Center, where the victim was first transported at 

12:30 a.m. on January 12, 2014. Mr. Mohler told Dr. Lewbart that had been 

“kicked and punched in the chest, arm, face and head.” Id. at 88. The 

victim was transferred to Reading Hospital and Medical Center at 

approximately 2:15 a.m. The emergency room doctor at that facility, Dr. 

Thomas Geng, Jr., would have testified that, during the attack, Mr. Mohler 

suffered an acute subdural hematoma on the right cerebral hemisphere of 

his brain and a small subdural hemorrhage at the left parietal region. Dr. 

Geng also would have reported that an acute subdural hematoma is a clot of 

blood that develops between the surface of the brain and the brain’s outer 

covering and that an “acute subdural hematoma is a serious bodily injury.” 

Id. at 89. 

Immediately after the incident, the laundromat’s owner retrieved a 

tape of the assault from the surveillance cameras surrounding the 

establishment, and gave it to Reading police, who were unable to identify 

Appellant and Colon. Police released the surveillance footage to the public 

and received an anonymous tip that one of the assailants was Appellant. 

Additionally, after Colon viewed the videotape, she immediately turned 

herself into police and told them that she was involved in the assault and 

that the other unidentified person on the videotape was Appellant, whom 

Colon identified by his street name. 
J-S53010-16

- 4 -

Appellant was arrested, and, on February 14, 2014, Reading Police 

Sergeant John M. Solecki and Criminal Investigator Aaron Demko conducted 

an interview. The interview was recorded and that recording was shown to 

the jury. After he was administered Miranda warnings, Appellant 

repeatedly admitted to punching the victim as well as throwing a garbage 

can at him. Mr. Mohler died after the incident and did not testify at trial. 

Based on this evidence, on June 17, 2015, a jury convicted Appellant 

of aggravated assault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another 

person, and conspiracy to commit each of those crimes. On June 17, 2015, 

Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of fifteen to forty years 

imprisonment1as to the aggravated assault and conspiracy to commit 

aggravated assault convictions. On June 26, 2015, Appellant filed postsentence motions for a judgment of acquittal, a new trial, and to modify the 

sentence. The trial court denied those motions, and Appellant filed a timely 

pro se notice of appeal. Thereafter, Appellant was appointed another 

lawyer, who filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal. Therein, the following issue was raised, “The 

verdict was contrary to the sufficiency of the evidence.” Concise Statement 

____________________________________________

1 Appellant had prior convictions for two burglaries, a robbery, a theft, and

delivery of heroin, and his prior record score was five. N.T. Sentencing, 

6/17/15, at 9, 12. 
J-S53010-16

- 5 -

of Matters Complained of on Appeal, 8/26/15, at 1. In his brief, Appellant 

presents two issues for our review:

A. Whether the evidence presented at trial was insufficient as a 

matter of law wherein the Commonwealth’s evidence 

presented at trial failed to establish the identification of 

Appellant?

B. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence 

wherein the verdict is so contrary to evidence and shocks 

one’s sense of justice where there was no credible testimony 

as to Appellant’s identity?

Appellant’s brief at 4. 

Appellant first avers that there was insufficient evidence to establish 

that he was one of the attackers. He claims that Colon’s report that 

Appellant was involved was not credible. He also suggests that the 

recording of his confession “was wrought with errors,” which Appellant fails 

to delineate, and he challenges the tape’s “authenticity and accuracy.” 

Appellant’s brief at 10. In this context, we employ the following standard of 

review: 

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. In addition, 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 
J-S53010-16

- 6 -

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. Roberts, 133 A.3d 759, 767 (Pa.Super. 2016) 

(emphasis added) (quoting Commonwealth v. Brooks, 7 A.3d 852, 856–

57 (Pa.Super. 2010)). 

As the above language demonstrates, the jury was free to credit 

Colon’s identification of Appellant as one of the people involved in the attack. 

Additionally, the jury viewed the videotape and was able to assess whether 

her identification of Appellant was believable. Finally, Appellant failed to 

challenge at trial the admission of the recording of his confession. When the 

compact disc depicting the interview was introduced into evidence, Appellant 

said that he had, “No objection.” N.T. Trial, 6/15/14, at 94. He did not 

argue that there were flaws in the recording nor did he question its 

authenticity or accuracy.2 The recording of the confession, having been 

____________________________________________

2 Appellant suggests in his brief that the entire recording system in the 

police station was replaced as defective. However, the record indicates that 

the camera and audio system was the same, but the recording device was 

substituted for a different one “because we had those one-second blurps 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S53010-16

- 7 -

admitted into evidence without objection, must therefore be credited by this 

Court under the applicable standard of review. The confession also 

constituted sufficient evidence to identify Appellant as being involved in the 

attack on Mr. Mohler. We therefore reject Appellant’s sufficiency challenge.

Appellant’s second allegation is that there was no credible evidence as 

to Appellant’s identity, rendering his convictions against the weight of the 

evidence. When we review a challenge to the weight of the evidence, we 

examine the trial court's exercise of discretion in resolving the claim rather 

than the underlying question itself. Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 

A.3d 73, 82 (Pa.Super. 2015) (citation omitted). This form of review is 

necessitated by the fact that the trial judge heard and saw the evidence 

presented. Id. Indeed, "One 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." Id. 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," 

will a new trial be warranted. Commonwealth v. Morales, 91 A.3d 80, 91 

(Pa. 2014). 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

that happened a couple times.” N.T. Trial, 6/15/14, at 103. There was no 

indication that the recording was inaccurate due to the few one-second 

delays in the flow of the recording. 
J-S53010-16

- 8 -

In connection with Appellant’s claim, we apply the following pertinent 

principle: “The finder of fact—here, the jury—exclusively weighs the 

evidence, assesses the credibility of witnesses, and may choose to believe 

all, part, or none of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 

24, 39 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Page, 

59 A.3d 1118, 1130 (Pa.Super. 2013) ("A determination of credibility lies 

solely within the province of the factfinder."); Commonwealth v. 

Blackham, 909 A.2d 315, 320 (Pa.Super. 2006) ("It is not for this Court to 

overturn the credibility determinations of the fact-finder."). Thus, we are 

not permitted to conclude that Colon was not believable when she testified 

that Appellant took part in the assault. 

In the instant case, the trial court addressed Appellant’s weight claim. 

It concluded that the Commonwealth put forth ample evidence at trial to 

prove that Appellant took part in the beating of Mr. Mohler. Trial Court 

Opinion, 9/30/15, at 7. This evidence included the recording of Appellant’s 

confession, Colon’s identification of Appellant as one of the assailants, and 

the surveillance videotape capturing the assault. We can discern no abuse 

of discretion on the part of the trial court in concluding the verdict was not 

against the weight of the evidence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Justice Fitzgerald Joins the Memorandum.
J-S53010-16

- 9 -

Judge Shogan concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/23/2016