J-A17007-17

_____________________________

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

WILLIAM CLIFTON COTTRELL

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 3210 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 22, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0006498-2015

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., RANSOM, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JULY 31, 2017

Appellant, William Clifton Cottrell, appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, following his 

jury trial convictions for burglary, aggravated assault, simple assault, and 

four counts of robbery.1 We affirm. 

The trial court opinion accurately set forth the relevant facts of this 

case as follows:

Appellant was convicted of robbing Fox McClure (“Mr. 

McClure”) and Willie Mae McClure (“Mrs. McClure”) 

[(collectively, “Victims”)], an elderly couple, at gunpoint. 

On June 16, 2012, at approximately 2:00 in the morning, 

[Mr.] McClure arrived at his residence at 2200 Airacobra 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3502(a)(1)(i); 2702(a)(4); 2701(a)(3); 3701(a)(1)(ii), 

(iv), respectively. 
J-A17007-17

- 2 -

Street in Bristol Township, Bucks County, and exited his 

car. At that time, an individual came up behind him and 

told him that it was a “holdup.” The individual demanded 

money from Mr. McClure, and he gave the individual $200 

from his wallet. After receiving the money, the individual 

directed Mr. McClure to take him inside the house. On the 

way to the house, Mr. McClure dropped his keys. The 

individual told Mr. McClure to pick up the keys, struck Mr. 

McClure in the head with an object, and pressed that same 

object into Mr. McClure’s back. The object was later 

identified as a gun.

Upon entering the house, Mr. McClure and the individual 

were met by Mrs. McClure. Mr. McClure told his wife that 

the individual was robbing them. At that point, [Victims] 

were able to get a look at the individual who was robbing 

them. [Victims] concluded that the individual was a male

based on his voice and appearance. The man’s face was 

covered with a bandana or ski mask.[2] His head was 

covered with a hooded jacket and baseball cap. Mrs. 

McClure saw that he was wearing boots and camouflage 

cargo pants. [Victims] could see that he was a “brownskinned black man.” Mrs. McClure estimated that the man 

was in his late twenties or early thirties and between fivefoot-ten and six-foot-one with a medium build. [Victims] 

could clearly see that the man was holding a gun.

Thereafter, the man and [Victims] were in the bedroom of 

the house. The man directed [Victims] to “open their 

safe.” Initially, Mr. McClure told the man that they did not 

have a safe. As a result, the man struck Mr. McClure in 

the head with the back of the gun causing him to fall to 

the floor. The man then pointed the gun at Mrs. McClure 

and threatened to kill her if they did not open their safe. 

Mrs. McClure noted that the gun emitted a laser beam, 

which was pointed directly at her.

Following the man’s repeated threats, Mrs. McClure went 

____________________________________________

2 The investigating officers said both Victims described the facial covering as 

a bandana and did not describe the covering as a ski mask during interviews 

following the events at issue. 
J-A17007-17

- 3 -

to the safe, used the dial, and opened it. The safe housed 

antique silver dollars; the coins totaled $300 in face value 

but were likely far more valuable in the collectors’ market. 

Mrs. McClure handed the coins over to the man.

After receiving the coins, the man directed Mrs. McClure to 

accompany him to the living room. Mr. McClure remained 

on the floor of the bedroom, dazed by the blow to his 

head. Once in the living room, the man pointed the gun at 

Mrs. McClure and told her to turn around. Mrs. McClure 

refused to turn around, and the man took a set of keys 

from [Victims’] piano and fled on foot from the house 

through the front door.

After the man escaped through the front door, Mrs. 

McClure called “911” while watching the man run across 

Airacobra Street into her neighbor’s yard and then onto 

Fleetwing Drive. She lost sight of him as he was heading 

in the direction of Green Lane. Mrs. McClure 

contemporaneously provided these observations to the 

“911” operator.

At approximately 2:18 in the morning on June 16, 2012, 

Officer Keith Bertram, a K9 Officer with the Bristol 

Township Police Department, was in his patrol vehicle at a 

parking lot on Green Lane near Fleetwing Drive. Officer 

Bertram received a 2:23 a.m. emergency call over his 

police radio about a home invasion in the area of Airacobra 

Street. Police dispatchers alerted Officer Bertram that an 

individual in dark clothing was seen running across the 

turnpike near the ramp and access road.[3] 

Officer Bertram arrived at the area of the ramp with his K9 

partner, Apollo, within two minutes. He deployed Apollo 

____________________________________________

3 About five minutes before receiving the dispatch, Officer Bertram had 

observed someone in dark clothing walking south on Green Lane in the 

direction of the turnpike. Officer Bertram testified that the part of the fence 

designed to block people from crossing the turnpike is cut or knocked down, 

and he has seen people cross the turnpike on foot through this opening. 
J-A17007-17

- 4 -

and began tracking the area.[4] Apollo pushed Officer 

Bertram near houses along [the 5700 block of] Beaver 

Dam Road [on the odd-numbered side of the road]. 

Thereafter, Apollo “alerted” near a house on Beaver Dam 

Road with a fence and a pool. However, Officer Bertram 

did not see or speak with anyone at that location. Soon 

after, the tracking job was “called” and ended. 

Next, Officer Bertram went to 2200 Airacobra Street to 

speak with [Victims]. [Victims] explained what happened 

to Officer Bertram and described the suspect as a black 

male who was approximately five-foot-eleven with a thin 

build. According to [Victims], he wore a dark hooded 

jacket, a dark hat, dark pants, and a bandana over his 

face, and he used a small, black semiautomatic pistol. 

The same morning, between 2:30 a.m. and 3:00 a.m., the 

Hill family, who resided at 5725 Beaver Dam Road, heard a 

banging noise in their backyard. Michael Hill, upon hearing 

the banging noise and police sirens, walked out into his 

backyard to investigate the disturbance. While he was in 

the backyard, he saw a black man approach him from a 

deck area near the Hills’ pool. Michael Hill described the 

man as six feet tall and in his mid-to-late thirties. The 

man was not wearing a mask and told Michael Hill that he 

would give him money if he did not say anything about 

their encounter. Michael Hill told the man to get out of his 

yard and then began shouting that the man police were 

searching for was in his backyard. Robert Hill, Michael 

Hill’s father, observed the entire exchange while standing 

in the doorframe leading out to the backyard.

Later that same day, Michael Hill returned to the backyard 

and examined the pool deck, the area from which the man 

walked toward him. Under the deck, he discovered a dark 

hooded sweatshirt and a dark baseball cap. He then 

notified the Bristol Township Police about his discovery.

The Hills provided descriptions of the man to police. 

Michael Hill described him as a black man with cornrow-

____________________________________________

4 Apollo is trained in tracking to detect the freshest scent.
J-A17007-17

- 5 -

styled hair in the back and scruffy facial hair. Robert Hill 

described him as a black man with longer hair in the back 

and facial scruff.

Officer John Terman arrived at the Hill residence to followup and recover the items discovered under the pool deck. 

He located a dark hooded sweatshirt and a dark baseball 

cap under the pool deck and took them as evidence. 

Subsequently, a black and white bandana was recovered 

from inside the hooded sweatshirt. Officer Terman placed 

the items into evidence at the police station. 

A navy blue “Yankees” baseball cap and a black and white 

bandana—both recovered by Officer Terman from the Hill 

residence—were sent to Christopher Johns, a forensic 

scientist for the Pennsylvania State Police. Mr. Johns 

tested the bandana and determined that a central part of it 

was indicative of saliva. He cut out this portion of the 

bandana and sent it to the DNA laboratory for analysis. In 

addition, Mr. Johns took a buccal swab from Appellant 

pursuant to a warrant and sent it to the DNA laboratory for 

analysis.

Amber Gegg, a forensic DNA analyst, received the bandana 

and baseball cap from Mr. Johns, as well as the DNA 

sample from Appellant, and conducted DNA testing. When 

examining the bandana, Ms. Gegg identified a partial DNA 

profile from an unidentified individual. By partial, Ms. 

Gegg explained that the profile contained 15 of the 16 

“areas” identified when conducting DNA analysis. When 

she examined the baseball cap, Ms. Gegg identified at 

least three DNA profiles. However, one of the profiles 

contributed much more than the others and constituted a 

full DNA profile. By full, Ms. Gegg explained that the 

predominant profile contained 16 of the 16 “areas” 

identified by conducting DNA analysis.

In comparing Appellant’s DNA sample with the partial DNA 

profile recovered from the bandana, Ms. Gegg determined, 

within a reasonable degree of certainty, that Appellant was 

a match. In comparing Appellant’s DNA sample with the 

primary individual’s DNA profile from the baseball cap, Ms. 

Gegg determined, again within a reasonable degree of 

certainty, that Appellant was a match. According to Ms. 
J-A17007-17

- 6 -

Gegg, the odds of mistaking Appellant’s DNA profile with 

another individual’s DNA profile was one in 7.2 sextillion in 

the Caucasian population, one in 540 quintillion in the 

African American population, and one in 6.2 sextillion in 

the Hispanic population.

At trial, Detective Timothy Fuhrmann of the Bristol 

Township Police Department provided Appellant’s age, 

height, and weight and explained that Appellant was 25 or 

26 at the time of the offense and that he was six-foot-one 

and weighed 180 pounds at the time of his arrest. 

Detective Fuhrmann also testified that he saw Appellant in 

the community [in 2013] with a hairstyle that matched the 

Hills’ description of the man found in their backyard.[5] 

Appellant testified at trial on his own behalf. He denied 

robbing [Victims]; however, he was unable to offer an 

alibi. In addition, Appellant admitted to frequently wearing 

navy blue “Yankees” hats. He admitted to living at 913 

Windner Drive at the time of the robbery, which is on the 

other side of the turnpike from the area of Green Lane, 

Fleetwing Drive, and Airacobra Street. He also denied ever 

having a long hairstyle in the back [since he was a child] 

and claimed to have never owned a bandana.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed January 27, 2017, at 1-6) (internal citations 

omitted). 

Procedurally, police arrested Appellant in Bristol Township on July 28, 

2015. Appellant proceeded to a jury trial on May 23, 2016. On May 25, 

2016, the jury convicted Appellant of burglary, aggravated assault, simple 

assault, and four counts of robbery. The court sentenced Appellant on 

August 22, 2016, to an aggregate term of seven to twenty years’ 

____________________________________________

5 Detective Fuhrmann also testified that the distance between Victims’ 

residence and the Hills’ residence is approximately one-half of a mile. 
J-A17007-17

- 7 -

imprisonment. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on September 21, 

2016. On September 26, 2016, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); 

Appellant timely complied.

Appellant raises one issue for our review:

WAS THE EVIDENCE THAT A MAN DESCRIBED 

DIFFERENTLY BY FIVE PEOPLE, NONE OF [WHOM] 

DESCRIBED THE CLOTHES THE COMMONWEALTH CLAIMS 

HE WORE THAT BORE DNA OF HIM AND OTHERS FOUND A 

HALF MILE AWAY FROM THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, 

SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT [APPELLANT] WAS THE 

PERSON WHO COMMITTED THE CRIMES FOR WHICH HE 

WAS CONVICTED?

(Appellant’s Brief at 4). 

When examining a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence:

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 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 
J-A17007-17

- 8 -

or none of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal 

denied, 613 Pa. 642, 32 A.3d 1275 (2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. 

Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super. 2005)). 

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Rea B. 

Boylan, we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The trial court 

opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question 

presented. (See Trial Court Opinion at 10-12) (sufficient evidence existed to 

identify Appellant as man who burglarized, robbed, and assaulted Victims; 

on June 16, 2012, between hours of 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m., Victims, 

Michael Hill, and Robert Hill all encountered person, in same part of Bristol 

Township, whom they identified as black male in his twenties or thirties, 

around 5’ 10” to 6’ 2”, thin to medium build, wearing dark clothing; Victims 

specifically described robber as wearing dark hood, dark baseball cap, and 

dark bandana over his mouth; police dispatcher notified Officer Bertram of 

robber fleeing Victims’ residence at approximately 2:23 a.m.; shortly 

thereafter, Michael Hill and his father, Robert Hill, encountered man in their 

backyard, who had hairstyle that was long in back, and offered Michael Hill 

money not to report interaction to police; after man left backyard, Michael 

Hill and Robert Hill found dark hooded sweatshirt and dark Yankees baseball 

cap under their pool deck; when police further examined sweatshirt, police 
J-A17007-17

- 9 -

discovered black and white bandana inside sweatshirt; evidence from Hills’ 

backyard was sent for DNA testing; forensic analyst determined within 

reasonable degree of certainty that Appellant’s DNA was present on bandana 

and baseball cap; Detective Fuhrmann testified he saw Appellant within 

approximately one year of this incident and noted Appellant wore long 

hairstyle in back at that time; Appellant testified in his own defense and did 

not provide alibi; Appellant admitted he regularly wore navy blue Yankees’ 

baseball cap; Appellant denied owning bandana; jury had opportunity to 

assess Appellant’s testimony and to reject his testimony as incredible; 

Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to prove Appellant was man 

who robbed Victims, fled to Hills’ backyard, and stashed clothing under their 

pool deck; evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s convictions). 

To summarize, the Commonwealth presented evidence that on June 

16, 2012, at approximately 2:00 a.m., a black male in his twenties or 

thirties, approximately 5’10” to 6’2”, wearing a black hooded sweatshirt, 

black bandana, and dark colored baseball cap, robbed Victims at gunpoint. 

The robber fled Victims’ home on Airacobra Street to Fleetwing Drive, 

headed in the direction of Green Lane. Victims testified the robbery lasted 

about ten to fifteen minutes. At approximately 2:18 a.m., Officer Bertram 

was on patrol near Fleetwing Drive and Green Lane when he observed a 

person in dark clothing walking south on Green Lane in the direction of the 

turnpike. About five minutes later, at 2:23 a.m., Officer Bertram received a 
J-A17007-17

- 10 -

radio dispatch regarding a home invasion at Airacobra Street. Officer 

Bertram also heard over the radio dispatch reports of a person running 

across the turnpike.

Officer Bertram, along with his tracking-trained dog Apollo, drove to 

the turnpike ramp. Officer Bertram noted there is a gap in the fence by the 

turnpike where people have cut-through in the past and walked across the 

turnpike. Apollo began tracking a scent and “alerted” Officer Bertram to the 

odd-numbered side of the street on the 5700 block of Beaver Dam Road. 

Officer Bertram and Apollo stopped in a backyard of a house containing a 

fence and a pool, but the track was “called” or ended when the officer did 

not see anyone there. Officer Bertram subsequently went to Victims’ 

residence, where Victims described the robber and the events.

Meanwhile, Michael Hill and his father, Robert Hill, were at their 

residence at 5725 Beaver Dam Road when they heard a noise in their 

backyard around 2:30 or 3:00 a.m. Michael Hill went outside to investigate 

the disturbance and saw a black man, about six feet tall in his mid-to-late 

thirties, with a cornrow-styled hair in the back and scruffy facial hair. The 

man offered Michael Hill money if Michael Hill did not report their encounter. 

Michael Hill told the man to get out of his yard. Robert Hill observed the 

exchange and described the intruder as a black man with longer hair in the 

back and facial scruff. Later that day, the Hills discovered a hooded 

sweatshirt and baseball cap that did not belong to them under their pool 
J-A17007-17

- 11 -

deck.

Officer Terman recovered the evidence from the Hill residence and 

found a black and white bandana inside the hooded sweatshirt. Forensic 

scientist Christopher Johns examined the evidence and sent portions of it to 

the DNA laboratory for analysis. Amber Gegg, a forensic DNA analyst, 

conducted DNA testing. Ms. Gegg identified at least three DNA profiles on 

the baseball cap, but she explained one of the profiles contributed much 

more than the others. In comparing Appellant’s DNA sample with the 

primary individual’s DNA profile from the baseball cap, Ms. Gegg 

determined, within a reasonable degree of certainty, that Appellant was a 

match. As well, in comparing Appellant’s DNA sample with the partial DNA 

profile recovered from the bandana, Ms. Gegg determined, within a 

reasonable degree of certainty, Appellant was a match. 

Detective Fuhrmann testified that Appellant was 25 or 26 at the time 

of the offenses and that he was 6’1” and weighed 180 pounds at the time of 

his arrest. Detective Fuhrmann also testified that he saw Appellant in the 

community in 2013 with a hairstyle that matched the Hills’ description of the 

man found in their backyard.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdictwinner, the evidence was sufficient to prove that Appellant was the man who 

had robbed Victims, fled across the turnpike to Beaver Dam Road, and 

stashed his clothing under the Hills’ pool deck. See Hansley, supra. The 
J-A17007-17

- 12 -

jury evaluated all of the Commonwealth’s evidence as well as Appellant’s 

testimony and was free to reject Appellant’s testimony in favor of the 

Commonwealth’s evidence. See id. Our role as an appellate court is not to 

substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. Id. The evidence in this case 

logically and legally connected Appellant to the offenses and was not so 

weak or inconclusive as to preclude a guilty verdict. Id. Accordingly, we 

affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judge Ransom joins this memorandum.

Judge Platt concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/31/2017