J. S55001/15

 

* Retired Senior Judge 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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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

v. :

:

AKEEM PAGE-JONES, : No. 1581 WDA 2013

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, August 26, 2013,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Criminal Division at No. CP-02-CR-0004298-2011

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BENDER, P.J.E., AND STRASSBURGER,* J. 

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 16, 2015

Following a jury trial, Akeem Page-Jones was convicted of first degree 

murder, two counts of arson, one count of possession of a firearm by a 

minor, one count of theft by unlawful taking and six counts of recklessly 

endangering another person. On August 26, 2013, the Honorable Jill E. 

Rangos sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of 60 years to life in 

prison. We affirm. 

The facts as summarized by the trial court are as follows:

Theresa Williams Dawson, mother of the victim 

Teesa Williams, testified that on March 22, 2011, 

Dawson left her home at 6:15 a.m. to go to work. 

Dawson’s seventeen year old mentally retarded 

daughter, Teesa, remained at home to await the 

school bus, per their normal routine. At 6:25 a.m., 

Teesa called Dawson to say she was on the bus. 

Dawson did not believe her because she could not 

hear in the background any other children’s voices. 
J. S55001/15

- 2 -

Later that morning she received a call from Teesa’s 

school indicating that a neighbor had reported the 

Dawson’s house was on fire. Although one of the 

police officers on scene originally told Dawson that 

Teesa was fine, Teesa did not survive the fire.

Dawson further testified that her living room 

television had [a] cable box, a DVD player, and a 

month old PlayStation 3 video game system. 

Dawson was shown pictures of her home after the 

fire and she testified that the television was moved 

away from the wall and some dried flowers and twigs 

were missing from a vase near the front door. 

Dawson was later shown a picture of a purse and 

identified it as belonging to her and located in her 

home prior to the fire.

Penn Hill[s] Police Officer Andrew Kolek 

testified that he was dispatched to 11276 Azalea 

Street at 9:47 a.m. for a report of heavy smoke 

coming out of a house. Officer Kolek was the first to 

arrive at the scene and he attempted to determine if 

anyone was inside. Although the front door was 

locked, the officer gained entry via a side door that 

was left a few inches ajar. Officer Kolek entered the 

kitchen, yelled 3-4 times to determine if anyone was 

further inside, but was quickly forced to retreat due 

to the intense heat of the fire and his lack of 

protective equipment.

Greg Renko, a volunteer firefighter for fifteen 

years, most recently with the Penn Hills Fire 

Department, testified that he was dispatched at 9:48 

a.m. to Azalea Drive and he arrived at the scene 

seven minutes later, at 9:55. While searching the 

home for individuals who may have been trapped 

inside, he found the victim, Teesa Williams, face 

down on the floor of the last bedroom on the first 

floor. He testified to observing an increased heat 

intensity and very dark, thick smoke emanating from 

that room. Teesa had visible burn marks on her 

back and shoulder blade and her underwear had 

been pulled down to her thighs. Renko carried her 

out of the building, and once safely outside, laid her 
J. S55001/15

- 3 -

down on her back. He then observed trauma to 

Teesa’s face. Teesa appeared to be unconscious and 

not breathing when Renko got her outside and 

turned her over to medics for treatment.

Renko returned to the bedroom and observed 

a bloody pillow on [the] floor where Teesa had been 

and a bloody handprint on a dresser nearby. Renko 

observed charring on a rug on the floor, and embers 

smoldering on the floor to the right hand side of the 

bed closest to the closet door. As he extinguished 

the smoldering item, he observed it to be a roll of 

paper towels. Shortly thereafter, Renko secured the 

room with yellow “Caution” tape.

Sean Gongaware, a volunteer firefighter with 

the North Bessemer Community Volunteer Fire 

Department, testified that he also went inside the 

Azalea Street residence and entered the bedroom at 

the end of the hall. As part of his secondary search, 

he found a pile of debris in the bedroom. While he 

was moving around the pile, which appeared to be 

clothing and blankets, a roll of paper towels 

spontaneously reignited.

Deputy Fire Marshall Michael Liko of the 

Allegheny County Fire Marshall’s Office testified as 

an expert witness in the field of fire origination and 

fire investigation. He determined that the fire 

originated in the kitchen on the right hand side of 

the natural gas stove, specifically on the countertop 

towards the back part of the backsplash wall. He 

further determined that the cause of the fire was 

incendiary, meaning that it was intentionally set. In 

his expert opinion, the fire was set with some sort of 

combustible material on the countertop, such as 

paper towels, napkins or a dishtowel.

Chief Deputy Fire Marshall Donald Brucker 

testified that he was in charge of overseeing the 

processing of the back bedroom. Looking into the 

bedroom, he observed remnants of burned paper 

towels and twig material. He described the twigs as 

consistent with stems of flowers or some similar type 
J. S55001/15

- 4 -

of decoration. A burned afghan blanket and a 

bloodstained pillow were also on the floor. He 

determined that the origin of the fire in the bedroom 

was the floor, and the cause was incendiary. Chief 

Brucker’s expert opinion was that the dried flower 

arrangement Dawson noted was missing from the 

vase by the front door[,] i.e. the twig material, was 

used to facilitate movement of fire. He further 

determined that the kitchen and bedroom fires were 

remote and unconnected to each other. He testified 

that the fire damage to the bedroom was a result of 

an open flame being applied to material which was 

subsequently applied to the victim.

Detective Timothy Langan testified that he was 

called to the scene after the victim was found in the 

home. While processing the scene, Detective Langan 

observed a spent .22 caliber casing on a crumpled 

pair of women’s jeans on the bedroom floor next to 

the victim’s bed. He also found a small bullet hole in 

the lower portion of the closet door. A projectile was 

located in a shoe box inside a bag in the closet. In 

addition, Detective Langan recovered a cell phone 

from on top of the bed.

Linda Beaudry, a neighbor of the victim, 

testified that on the day of the fire, she saw a boy 

walking down an adjacent driveway carrying a purse 

that had a video game system sticking out the top. 

She identified Commonwealth Exhibit #7 as the 

same or very similar to the purse she saw that day. 

She described the boy as clean cut, somewhat large 

build and approximately in his late teens. She 

further testified that she saw no one with him.

Detective Anthony Perry with the Allegheny 

County Police Department, homicide section, testified 

that, with the consent of Carolyn Page-Jones 

(Appellant’s adoptive mother, biological maternal 

grandmother and the owner of the house, hereafter 

referred to as Grandmother) he and other officers 

searched Appellant’s residence. Specifically, 

Detective Perry searched the finished basement area 

and found a four drawer metal file cabinet Detective 
J. S55001/15

- 5 -

Perry found a tan Dolce and Gabanna purse inside 

the file cabinet and stated that Commonwealth 

Exhibit #7 was the bag retrieved from inside the file 

cabinet. Both Appellant and his Grandmother denied 

knowledge or ownership of the purse.

Nathan Hoye testified that he had been 

involved in an online relationship with Teesa for a 

few weeks and had met her in person just a couple 

of days prior to her death. When they met in 

person, another individual was present, a light 

skinned, heavy set male with a cast on his arm. The 

day Teesa died, Hoye tried to text and call her 

between 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. but Teesa did not 

answer.

Joseph King testified that in 2011 he owned a 

.22 caliber pistol which he had purchased off the 

streets. He and Appellant were friends, and took 

pictures of themselves with the gun. The day before 

Teesa died, King and Appellant were trying to repair 

the gun. Appellant volunteered to test fire the gun 

in the woods. After Appellant left King’s house with 

the gun, Appellant called King and told him that 

Appellant had fired two shots and then the gun 

jammed. Instead of returning the gun to King, 

Appellant told King via cell phone that someone had 

seen him shoot the gun so he would return it in the 

morning.

The following day, King first found out about 

the fire and Teesa’s death at approximately 2:00 

p.m. when a friend called him. King called Appellant 

to tell him about Teesa because Appellant had told 

King the day before that he was having a sexual 

relationship with Teesa. Appellant responded, “that’s 

crazy.” An hour or two later, Appellant went to 

King’s home and sold him a PlayStation 3 video 

game system for $100.00. From there, King’s uncle 

took the PlayStation to his girlfriend’s house, where 

the police eventually recovered it.[Footnote 3] When 

he brought over the PlayStation, Appellant also 

returned the gun and told King that one of the 

bullets was missing. Later that same day, King sold 
J. S55001/15

- 6 -

the gun to Maclain Cupid. Cupid confirmed in his 

testimony that he purchased a gun and ammunition 

from King that day. Cupid gave the gun to one of 

the homicide detectives after the detective informed 

him that the gun had been used to kill Teesa.

[Footnote 3] Detective Miller 

subsequently testified that he recovered 

the PlayStation from King’s uncle’s house 

after King told him that Appellant sold 

King the PlayStation between 12:30 and 

2:30 p.m. on the day Teesa died.

At approximately 9:00 p.m. on the night of the 

fire and Teesa’s death, Detective Gregory Matthews 

conducted an interview with Appellant who was 

accompanied by his grandparents. Appellant initially 

stated that he became aware of the fire and Teesa’s 

death at around 2:00 p.m., when he was calling 

people to try to get a ride. After Appellant’s arrest 

two days later, Detective Matthews conducted a 

second interview of Appellant. This time 

Appellant[’]s grandparents and his biological mother 

were present. At this interview, Appellant admitted 

that he had bragged to King about having a sexual 

relationship with Teesa. He further admitted to 

having King’s gun and firing it twice the night before 

Teesa’s death.

During Detective Matthews’ interview, 

Appellant agreed to let the detective download the 

contents of his phone. One of the pictures on 

Appellant’s cell phone showed him holding a .22 

caliber gun. In the same photo, which Appellant 

testified was him, Appellant has a cast or 

bandage[Footnote 4] on his hand. Detective 

Matthews stated that Appellant adamantly denied 

any phone calls or text messages between himself 

and Teesa. Appellant later testified at trial that he 

had called and/or texted Teesa both the day before 

and the day of Teesa’s death. Appellant also 

admitted at trial that he deleted everything on his 

phone relative to Teesa.
J. S55001/15

- 7 -

[Footnote 4] Nathan Hoye, whom Teesa 

had introduced as her new boyfriend the

day before her death, testified that when 

he saw Teesa the day before she died, 

she was talking with a light-skinned 

heavy-set male with a cast or something 

on his arm.

Detective Matthews testified that Appellant told 

him during this interview that on the morning of 

Teesa’s death, shortly before 7:00 a.m., Appellant 

knocked on King’s door with the intent to return the 

gun. When King did not answer, Appellant went to 

Teesa’s home. Appellant said that Teesa let him in, 

and a black male in his 20’s who Appellant did not 

know was already in Teesa’s living room. Appellant 

claimed this unknown individual somehow obtained 

the gun, shot Teesa in the hallway outside of 

Appellant’s line of sight, dropped the gun and ran out 

of the house. Appellant said he then pick[ed] up the 

gun, placed it in a purse and left the residence as 

well.

When Detective Matthews informed Appellant 

that the evidence did not correspond to Appellant’s 

explanation, Appellant offered another version of 

events. Appellant said that when he arrived at 

Teesa’s house, an unknown male was already in the 

home. Appellant took off his coat, sat down in the 

living room and started watching TV. Next, the 

unknown male followed Teesa down the hallway, and 

Appellant followed the unknown male. Appellant 

said that the unknown male shot and killed Teesa in 

the hallway outside the bedroom door.

Detective Matthews then told Appellant that 

the ballistic evidence did not support the location of 

the shooting as described by Appellant. Appellant, in 

his third explanation to police, indicated he had 

acted alone and no unknown black male had been in 

the residence. Appellant told the detective that 

Teesa was obsessed with wanting to hold the gun, 

that a struggle ensued, and the gun went off one 

time. Appellant decided to set her on fire, so he 
J. S55001/15

- 8 -

took an afghan and laid it across the right side of her 

body. He said that he took some dried weeds or 

flowers and used the stove in the kitchen to ignite 

them. He specifically indicated that he used the 

back right burner to ignite the dried flowers and also 

piled some flammable items on the stove to try to 

burn the house down. He said that it took several 

attempts to light the afghan on fire, and that he 

observed Teesa flinch as she felt the pain of the 

flames from the torch-like dried flowers against her 

skin. He said that he found a purse in the mother’s 

bedroom and used it to carry the PlayStation and a 

few video games out of the residence when he left.

Homicide Detective Patrick Miller obtained the 

subscriber information and call detail logs from 

Teesa’s phone, which had been recovered from her 

bed. According to those records, on the night before 

her death, several calls or texts were sent from 

Appellant’s cell phone to Teesa’s cell phone. The cell 

phone exchanges continued the next morning. The 

last contact from Appellant to Teesa was a call at 

6:30 a.m. on the morning of her death. Detective 

Miller testified that the records indicate that at 9:30 

a.m., Hoye also texted Teesa.

Pamela Woods, an employee of the Allegheny 

County Medical Examiner’s Office, and an expert in 

forensic science with regard to trace evidence, 

testified that fibers taken from Teesa’s esophagus 

and stomach were consistent with the burnt flowers 

recovered from the scene. Daniel Wolfe, from the 

same department, testified as an expert in forensic 

science, specifically gunshot residue, that based on 

his analysis of the gunshot residue kit, no particles 

associated with gunshot residue were detected on 

Teesa’s hands. Wolfe testified that the results were 

inconclusive, meaning that because residue was not 

found on Teesa’s hands, he could not conclude that 

her hands were in close proximity to the firearm 

when it went off thus refuting Appellant’s story about 

a struggle over the gun.
J. S55001/15

- 9 -

Dr. Karl Williams, Chief Medical Examiner of 

Allegheny County, testified that he performed an 

autopsy of Teesa. He stated that Teesa had a 

gunshot wound going from under her chin upward, 

fracturing the mandible before exiting the head 

lateral to the right eye. After examining skin tissue 

around the entry wound under a microscope, he 

determined from the presence of gunshot residue 

that the barrel of the gun when it was discharged 

was against the skin surface. Additionally, micro 

tears surrounding the entrance wound support the 

conclusion that Teesa was shot at close range. He 

also opined that the gunshot wound alone would not 

have been fatal, as the bullet never entered Teesa’s 

brain. Dr. Williams testified that Teesa was alive 

when the fire started, because he found soot lining 

her upper airways, trachea and the upper parts of 

her lungs. Teesa’s carbon monoxide saturation level 

was recorded at 40 percent, which was high enough 

to indicate both that she was alive when she was 

exposed to a flaming object, and that the fire and 

resulting smoke were significant contributory causes 

to her death, along with blood loss and the resulting 

filling of her lungs with blood.

Raymond Everett, from the Allegheny County 

Office of the Medical Examiner testified as an expert 

in firearms and tool marks, specifically bullet 

trajectories. He testified that, based on the 

trajectory the bullet must have travelled, it was not 

plausible in this case for two people to have 

struggled over a gun and the gun to have discharged 

accidentally. Conversely, a plausible explanation 

would be that the shooter was standing behind the 

victim with the victim bent over. He was also able to 

determine that the .22 caliber pistol recovered and 

examined was operable but in poor condition. He 

determined the cause of death to be a combination 

of the gunshot wound causing blood loss and the 

pooling of blood in Teesa’s lungs along with smoke 

inhalation. The manner of death was homicide.

Appellant testified in his own defense. He 

admitted that he lied to police and gave them 
J. S55001/15

- 10 -

numerous accounts of the events which transpired. 

He stated that he did so because he was afraid of 

King, whom Appellant said was the real assailant. 

Appellant said he was present during the shooting 

and that King had threatened to kill Appellant and 

his family if he didn’t cooperate by giving King a 

burning afghan to throw on Teesa and by taking the 

PlayStation afterwards. He admitted that he called 

King ten times after Teesa’s death, and later that 

afternoon went to King’s house, despite Appellant’s 

assertion that King had threatened to kill him.

Trial court opinion, 12/19/14 at 3-12 (citations to record omitted).

The jury convicted appellant of all counts. Appellant was sentenced on 

the first-degree murder count to 55 years to life imprisonment with a 

consecutive period of 5 to 10 years on the arson counts, concurrent to each 

other. He received no further penalty at the remaining counts. 

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

I. DID THE LOWER COURT ABUSE ITS 

DISCRETION WHEN IT ADMITTED 

INFLAMMATORY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE 

VICTIM’S AUTOPSY, CAUSING UNFAIR 

PREJUDICE AGAINST MR. PAGE-JONES?

II. IS MR. PAGE-JONES’ SENTENCE 

UNCONSTITUTIONALLY CRUEL AND UNUSUAL 

PUNISHMENT, AS JUVENILE DEFENDANTS 

MUST HAVE SOME REASONABLE ABIILITY 

[SIC] TO GAIN PAROLE?

III. DID THE COMMONWEALTH PRESENT 

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE BEYOND A 

REASONABLE DOUBT THAT MR. PAGE-JONES 

CAUSED THE DEATH OF MS. WILLIAMS AND 

DID NOT ACT UNDER DURESS?

Appellant’s brief at 6.
J. S55001/15

- 11 -

First, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when 

it allowed, during the testimony of Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Karl Williams, 

the admission of “gruesome,” color, explicit and highly prejudicial 

photographs taken of the victim’s body during her autopsy. (Appellant’s 

brief at 21.) He argues that the photographs did not make a fact of 

consequence more or less probable than without submission of the 

photographs. Appellant contends that Dr. Williams described the victim’s 

injuries in detail and the photographs held little or no evidentiary value. He 

contends the probative value of the photographs was far outweighed by the 

unfair prejudice he incurred.

The admissibility of photographs of a murder victim falls within the 

discretion of the trial court, and only an abuse of that discretion will 

constitute reversible error. Commonwealth v. Tharp, 830 A.2d 519, 531 

(Pa. 2003). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court, in reaching its 

conclusions, overrides or misapplies the law or exercises judgment which is 

manifestly unreasonable or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. 

Commonwealth v. Brown, 839 A.2d 433, 435 (Pa.Super. 2013). The test 

for determining the admissibility of post-mortem photographs involves a 

two-step analysis. First, the court must decide whether a photograph is 

inflammatory by its very nature. If the photograph is deemed inflammatory, 

the court must determine whether the essential evidentiary value of the 

photograph outweighs the likelihood that the photograph will improperly 
J. S55001/15

- 12 -

influence the minds and passions of the jury. Commonwealth v. Pruitt, 

951 A.2d 307, 319 (Pa. 2008). The mere fact that the medical examiner 

testifies to the nature of the victim’s injuries and the cause of death does not 

render photographs of the victim duplicative. Id.; Commonwealth v. 

Rush, 646 A.2d 557, 560 (Pa. 1994) (“[T]he condition of the victim’s body 

provides evidence of the assailant’s intent, and, even where the body’s 

condition can be described through testimony from a medical examiner, such 

testimony does not obviate the admissibility of photographs.”). While 

recognizing that photographs of a homicide victim can be unpleasant, 

disturbing, and brutal, our courts have held that “[t]here is no need to so 

overextend an attempt to sanitize the evidence of the condition of the body 

as to deprive the Commonwealth of opportunities of proof in support of the 

onerous burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Tharp, 830 A.2d at 

531, quoting Commonwealth v. McCutchen, 454 A.2d 547 (Pa. 1982).

In this case, the three color photographs in question were of the victim 

lying on a steel table in the medical examiner’s office (Exhibit 85), the 

victim’s legs1(Exhibit 86), and a close-up of the victim’s face (Exhibit 88). 

 

1 Exhibit 86, the photo of the victim’s legs, is not inflammatory. The 

photograph, which shows only the legs of the victim, reveals some fairly 

small areas of burns and what appears to be black soot. The photo 

illustrates the distribution of relatively small wounds in conjunction with 

Dr. Williams’ testimony describing the configuration of burns and other 

injuries to the victim’s body; specifically, that “the rest of the body was 

relatively spared other than a few areas on the legs.” (Trial testimony, 

5/28/13 at 367.) See Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119, 139 (Pa. 
J. S55001/15

- 13 -

Although the photos did not depict, as appellant avers, the victim in 

“mid-autopsy” (appellant’s brief at 21), they are, nevertheless, disturbing 

images which depict the victim’s burned, bloody face and body. So, as a 

preliminary matter we agree that the photos, with the exception of 

Exhibit 86, while not unduly graphic, are of an inflammatory nature.

We must next determine whether the essential evidentiary value of the 

photos outweighed the likelihood that the photos would improperly influence 

the minds and passions of the jury. The photos were admitted in 

conjunction with Dr. Williams’ testimony regarding the nature of the victim’s 

wounds. From the time he was initially questioned by detectives up to and 

including trial, appellant gave numerous different versions of events. In one 

of those versions (i.e., the version given on March 24, 2011, while appellant 

was in custody), appellant stated to Detective Matthews that he shot the 

victim in the chin or neck and then after noticing that she was still breathing, 

decided to set the victim on fire. (Trial testimony, 5/24/13 at 267.) 

Appellant described how he laid an afghan across her right side and tried a 

few times to set the afghan on fire by using a dried flower 

 

2008) (“photos neither gruesome nor necessarily explicit in their portrayal of 

the body” are admissible).
J. S55001/15

- 14 -

arrangement he ignited on the stove. (Id. at 310.)2 The Commonwealth’s 

position at trial was that appellant’s version about how the victim sustained 

the fire damage was the truth. Given appellant’s various versions of events, 

the jury was asked to decide whether this was, in fact, what happened. 

Using the full-body photo (Exhibit 85), Dr. Williams described the burn 

patterns, and pointed to a line of generalized redness along the right side of 

the trunk onto the front of the trunk, lower chest, and upper abdomen. 

(Trial transcript, 5/28/13 at 372.)3 As described by Dr. Williams, the photo 

shows a “distinctive band of thermal injuries around the right side of the 

trunk going on to the abdomen” which was consistent with appellant’s 

statement to the detectives. We find that the full-body photo which depicted 

the burn pattern was probative in helping the jury to decide which of 

appellant’s versions to believe.

One of appellant’s defenses was that the shooting was accidental and 

that the gun went off when appellant and the victim were standing 

face-to-face struggling for the gun. Using Exhibit 88, the close-up of the 

victim’s face, Dr. Williams identified a lateral crescent-shaped tear on the 

outer side of the victim’s right eye as the exit wound. Dr. Williams pointed 

 

2 Detective Matthews testified that appellant “attempted to set [the victim] 

on fire in her own bedroom, and he wasn’t having very much luck. The fire 

wasn’t really catching. It was smoldering, but it wasn’t flaming.” (Trial 

transcript, 5/24/13 at 269.)

3 According to the Commonwealth’s attorney, the “the burns did not appear 

as visible” on the black-and-white photos. (Id. at 369.)
J. S55001/15

- 15 -

out small “areas of black” coloration on either side of the entry wound below 

the right side of the victim’s chin which he identified as a “contact wound” 

and explained how these “powder burns” may be an indication that the gun 

was very close to and/or in contact with the skin when it fired.4 (Id. at 

379.) Using the entrance and exit wounds, Dr. Williams described for the 

jury, with the use of a trajectory rod, the path of the bullet in the victim’s 

body. We find that the close-up photo of the victim’s face which showed the 

entrance and exit wounds was probative in discounting appellant’s 

explanations that he and the victim were standing face-to-face and 

struggling for the gun when it accidentally went off. We also find the photo 

was probative in helping the jury to understand the proximity of the gun to 

the victim and the position of the victim when she was shot.5

Accordingly, while appellant claims that the photos did not assist the 

jury in any factual determination, we cannot agree. Rather, the photos were 

to help establish that appellant’s confession (the version in which he stated 

he acted alone and attempted to set the victim on fire) was consistent with 

 

4 Dr. Williams confirmed with formaldehyde testing that the black material 

depicted on this photo was gunshot residue and that the entry wound was a 

contact wound, meaning the barrel of the gun was against or very close to 

the skin when it discharged. (Id. at 381.)

5 The Commonwealth sought to prove, through Dr. Williams’ opinion as to 

the trajectory of the bullet through the victim’s body, together with the 

testimony of forensic examiner, Raymond Everett, regarding the trajectory 

of the bullet through the bedroom closet door, that the shooter was not 

facing the victim, but was standing behind the victim with her bent over 

forward, facing the ground. (Trial transcript, 5/28/13 at 412.)
J. S55001/15

- 16 -

the physical evidence and to disprove his defense that the shooting occurred 

during a struggle for the gun.

Furthermore, we note that the trial court emphasized to the jury that 

its decision should not be influenced by emotion. Prior to the testimony of 

Dr. Williams regarding the exhibits, the trial court issued the following 

cautionary instruction:

I do need to caution you, however, you may 

find these pictures to be disturbing and unpleasant 

to view, but you must not let them stir your 

emotions to the prejudice of the Defendant. Your 

verdict must be based on a rational and fair 

consideration of all the evidence and not on passion 

or prejudice against the Defendant. As judges of the 

facts, you must view the evidence relevant to the 

case impassionately and impersonally. The evidence 

is relative to the case and to meeting the 

Commonwealth’s burden of proof.

However, this evidence is only one piece of the 

Commonwealth’s case. It is not, by itself, 

conclusive. You must find each of the other 

elements, which I will give to you, in order to find 

the Defendant guilty of any or all of the crimes 

charged.

So once again, do not allow the crime scene, 

the autopsy photos here to prejudice you in any way 

or to interfere with your ability to fairly consider all 

of the evidence and reach a verdict, an impartial 

verdict in this case.

Id. at 370-371.

It is well-settled that “the jury is presumed to have followed the 

court’s instructions.” Commonwealth v. Flor, 998 A.2d 606, 632 (Pa. 

2010). For the forgoing reasons, no relief is due on this claim.
J. S55001/15

- 17 -

Next, appellant argues that his sentence of 60 years to life is 

unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment because: (1) his sentence 

is the “functional equivalent” of life without parole (“LWOP”) as he will not be 

eligible for parole until after the expiration of his life expectancy;6and 

(2) Miller v. Alabama, U.S. , 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 

(2012), and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), require sentencing 

courts to “provide [juveniles] some meaningful opportunity to obtain release 

based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” Miller, 132 S.Ct. at 

2469, quoting Graham, 560 U.S. at 73. Appellant asks this court to 

invalidate his de facto LWOP sentence and remand for a new sentence 

which affords him a “reasonable expectation” of parole.

As an initial matter, we will address the Commonwealth’s argument 

that appellant waived this issue for failure to include a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) 

statement in his brief. 

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) provides:

(f) Discretionary aspects of sentence. An 

appellant who challenges the discretionary 

aspects of a sentence in a criminal matter shall 

set forth in a separate section of the brief a 

concise statement of the reasons relied upon 

 

6 Appellant will be 78 years old at his first opportunity for parole. Citing 

“Michigan Life Expectancy Data for Youth Serving Natural Life Sentences,” 

The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, Michigan ACLU, 

http://fairsentencingofyouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/MichiganLife-Expectancy-Data-Youth-Serving-Life.pdf, (April 2013), appellant, noting 

the similarities between Pennsylvania and Michigan’s demographics, asserts 

that the average life expectancy of an African-American youth given a life 

sentence is 50.6 years.
J. S55001/15

- 18 -

for allowance of appeal with respect to the 

discretionary aspects of a sentence. The 

statement shall immediately precede the 

argument on the merits with respect to the 

discretionary aspects of the sentence.

We do not agree with the Commonwealth that Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) 

applies, as appellant did not challenge a discretionary aspect of his sentence. 

It would appear from caselaw that a claim that a sentence violates an 

individual’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment is a 

nonwaivable challenge to the legality of the sentence. Commonwealth v. 

Seskey, 86 A.3d 237 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal denied, 101 A.3d 103 (Pa. 

2014); Commonwealth v. Brown, 71 A.3d 1009 (Pa.Super. 2013) (a 

challenge to the constitutionality of a mandatory sentence of life in prison 

without the possibility of parole for a juvenile challenges the legality of the 

sentence and thus cannot be waived); Commonwealth v. Yasipour, 957 

A.2d 734, 740 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 980 A.2d 111 (Pa. 

2009). Cf. Commonwealth v. Seagraves, 103 A.3d 839 (Pa.Super. 2014) 

(reviewing a juvenile appellant’s challenge to the discretionary aspects of his 

LWOP sentence on the grounds that sentencing court failed to take into 

consideration the mitigating factors listed in Miller). See also

Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732 (Pa.Super. 2012), in which this 

court, pursuant to Miller, vacated a mandatory sentence of LWOP for 

second-degree murder committed when the defendant was a juvenile, and 
J. S55001/15

- 19 -

we expressly stated that the claim before us was a challenge to the legality 

of the sentence. Id. at 741. Thus, we will review the merits of this issue.

Appellant contends that his lengthy term-of-years sentence poses the 

same constitutional questions for juveniles as the mandatory LWOP 

sentences struck down by the Supreme Court in Miller. He argues that a 

60-year minimum sentence is unconstitutional because it is the “functional 

equivalent” to LWOP. We disagree. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1102.1(d), enacted in 

direct response to Miller, requires the trial court to consider the age-related 

factors espoused in Miller. Here, the trial court did exactly what it was 

required to do. It conducted an individualized sentencing hearing on August 

26, 2013, during which it considered the factors set forth in Miller and 

Section 1102.1(d).

Further, Miller does not categorically prohibit sentences of life without 

parole for juvenile offenders convicted of homicide offenses. 

Commonwealth v. Batts, 66 A.3d 286 (Pa. 2013). By the same token, 

Miller does not categorically prohibit the “functional equivalent” of an LWOP 

sentence either. Rather, Miller held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits 

sentencing schemes that mandate a minimum sentence of LWOP for juvenile 

offenders regardless of their age and age-related characteristics and the 

nature of their crimes. Miller requires the sentencing court to consider 

various age-related factors before it may impose a sentence on a juvenile for 
J. S55001/15

- 20 -

a homicide offense. This is precisely what the trial court did. Therefore, we 

find that this argument is without merit.

In his final issue, appellant argues that the Commonwealth did not 

present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he, 

rather than Joseph King, caused the victim’s death. He also contends that 

the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut his 

testimony that he acted under duress7on the day in question.

The test for reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claims is wellsettled:

[W]hether, viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner 

and drawing all proper inferences favorable to the 

Commonwealth, the jury could reasonably have 

determined all elements of the crime to have been 

established beyond a reasonable doubt. . . This 

standard is equally applicable to cases where the 

evidence is circumstantial rather than direct so long 

as the combination of the evidence links the accused 

to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Commonwealth v. Hardcastle, 546 A.2d 1101, 1105 (Pa. 1988) (citations 

omitted).

 

7 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 309(a) provides the definition of duress:

§ 309. Duress.

(a) General rule.--It is a defense that the actor 

engaged in the conduct charged to constitute 

an offense because he was coerced to do so by 

the use of, a threat to use, unlawful force 

against his person or the person of another, 
J. S55001/15

- 21 -

We have carefully reviewed the entire record and find that the 

evidence more than supported the conclusion that appellant acted alone and 

that he was both the shooter and the arsonist responsible for the victim’s 

death.

At trial, appellant testified that he invited Joseph King to accompany 

him to the victim’s house and once there, King shot the victim and forced 

appellant to set the victim and her house on fire under threats to appellant 

and his family. However, before trial appellant gave multiple versions to 

detectives including that he acted alone; he shot the victim, and then ignited 

a dried flower arrangement on the stove, carried it to the victim’s bedroom 

and used it to ignite the afghan which he had placed across her while she 

was still alive. Appellant’s statement was consistent with the physical and 

medical evidence. Also consistent with the physical evidence was appellant’s 

statement to the detectives that revealed his knowledge of exactly where 

the bullet entered the victim’s body. At the same time, such knowledge was 

completely inconsistent with his self-serving testimony at trial that he was 

sitting in the living room when King shot the victim. Appellant had also told 

the detective that he saw the victim’s body flinching each time he attempted 

to set her on fire. He described how he had trouble getting the afghan to 

actually catch on fire, so he decided to burn the entire house down and pile 

 

which a person of reasonable firmness in his 

situation would have been unable to resist.
J. S55001/15

- 22 -

items on the stove which he knew would catch on fire. Further, the evidence 

revealed that appellant had an established relationship with the victim and 

had called and texted her several times that morning. He deleted his cell 

phone records before he gave his phone to the police. During one of his 

statements, appellant stated that he took the PlayStation and placed it in a 

yellow purse he found at the victim’s house. A yellow purse, belonging to 

the victim’s mother, was found in appellant’s home, and a witness testified 

that she saw appellant carrying a yellow purse in the vicinity of the victim’s 

home. Finally, appellant admitted that despite his supposed fear of King, he 

willingly contacted King after the murder and went to King’s home.

We find that the evidence was more than sufficient to allow the jury to 

determine that appellant’s trial testimony was a fabrication and that he did 

not act under any threat of duress or serious bodily injury and that he had 

every opportunity to avoid committing his criminal acts. The evidence 

overwhelmingly established that appellant caused the death of the victim. 

His convictions, including first degree murder, are affirmed.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 
J. S55001/15

- 23 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/16/2015