J-S73002-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

FREDERICK DEMON DEAN

Appellant No. 1402 WDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 17, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0003379-2014

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J. AND JENKINS, J.

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY JENKINS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 17, 2016

I agree with the learned majority’s disposition of this appeal and its 

determination that Appellant’s brief was inadequate. I write separately only 

to clarify that, even if this Court deemed the scant reference to law on pages 

seven and eight of his brief to be sufficient, Appellant’s issue is devoid of 

merit.

Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions, 

particularly as it relates to his identity. When examining a challenge to the 

sufficiency of evidence, our standard of review is as follows:

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 
J-S73002-16

- 2 -

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. 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 [trier] 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. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super.2011), appeal 

denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa.2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 

A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super.2005)).

Appellant does not contest that the Commonwealth presented 

evidence to support each of his convictions, he only contests that the 

Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence of his identity because the 

authorities did not conduct fingerprint or residue analysis on the gun or on 

Appellant and the surveillance footage did not positively show him shooting 

the gun.

As the majority notes, the surveillance footage corroborated police 

officers’ testimony that Appellant was the perpetrator of the crimes he 

committed. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, there is sufficient evidence to enable the jury to find, 

beyond a reasonable doubt, that Appellant committed the crimes for which 

he was convicted.
J-S73002-16

- 3 -

Even if we chose to resolve Appellant’s issue on the merits, it would 

provide him no relief. Thus, I respectfully concur.

Judge Lazarus joins this Concurring Statement.