J-S13021-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

GEORGE MACK 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1426 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 5, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at CP-51-CR-0009515-2019

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED MAY 25, 2023

George Mack (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed after the trial court convicted him of violating the Uniform Firearms 

Act (UFA) by unlawfully possessing a firearm, carrying a firearm without a 

license, and carrying a firearm without a license on Philadelphia public 

streets.1

The trial court stated the facts presented at trial as follows:

Philadelphia Police Officer, Michael Diaz (Officer Diaz), 

testified at trial that he and his partner, Officer Robert Alvarez 

(Officer Alvarez), were on bike patrol on the evening of October 

25, 2019. Around 6:15 p.m., the officers traveled down the 2700 

block of North Darien Street and saw Appellant standing on the 

west side of the street talking to two males. (N.T. 2/22/22 at pgs.

9-11).

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6105, 6106, and 6108.
J-S13021-23

- 2 -

Appellant looked in the officers’ direction but immediately 

turned away, as though “concealing something.” As the officers 

continued riding, Appellant crossed to the east side of the street 

where a silver SUV was parked. No one else was on that side of 

the street. From around twenty (20) feet away, Officer Diaz 

observed Appellant “toss[] a black object underneath that SUV”

and “heard a metallic sound.” Suspecting that the object was a 

gun, Officer Diaz directed Officer Alvarez to stop Appellant, who 

by then “was walking northbound and kept looking back at [the 

officers].” Meanwhile, Officer Diaz looked beneath the SUV and 

observed a “black Sig Sauer .40 caliber” handgun, which was the 

only object under the vehicle. Officer Diaz recovered the gun, 

discovered it was loaded, and placed it on a property receipt. (Id.

at 11-13, 23).

Appellant stipulated that the Commonwealth tested the gun 

and found it was operable, that the Commonwealth obtained a 

certificate of non-licensure stating that Appellant lacked a valid 

license to carry a firearm, and that Appellant was prohibited from 

possessing a firearm due to a prior conviction. (Id. at 24).

Appellant took the stand. He testified that he was arrested 

after an 11-hour workday, while walking to a nearby home for a 

card game that his mother arranged to celebrate his birthday. 

Appellant testified that he obeyed Officer Alvarez’s directive to 

stop, after which the two males with whom he was speaking fled 

the area. Appellant testified that he conversed with Officer 

Alvarez for several minutes while Officer Diaz searched beneath 

multiple parked cars in the vicinity. Appellant testified that Officer 

Diaz eventually came “running down the block with a gun in his 

hand,” prompting Appellant to grab Officer Alvarez and “put him 

in front of [Appellant]” as a shield. According to Appellant, Officer 

Diaz asked whether the gun belonged to him, and Appellant 

responded no. (Id. at 26-31).

Trial Court Opinion, 6/23/22, at 1-3 (footnotes omitted).

On February 22, 2022, the trial court convicted Appellant of the above 

UFA violations. On May 5, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an 

aggregate 3 — 6 years of incarceration. Appellant filed a post-sentence 
J-S13021-23

- 3 -

motion seeking a new trial on May 7, 2022; the trial court denied the motion 

on May 9, 2022. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and court-ordered 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of matters complained of on appeal.

Appellant presents the following issue:

Was the testimony presented sufficient to sustain a conviction for 

6105, 6106 and 6108 of The Uniform Firearms Act?

Appellant’s Brief at 8.

When considering a sufficiency claim, we “determine whether the 

evidence, and all reasonable inferences deducible from that, viewed in the 

light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, are sufficient to 

establish all elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.” See, e.g.,

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 727 A.2d 1089, 1092 (Pa. 1999). It is wellsettled that the Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every 

element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly 

circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. v. Wise, 171 A.3d 784, 790 

(Pa. Super. 2017). We have explained:

Our law is crystal clear that the trier of fact, in passing upon the 

credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, 

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

Superior Court may not reweigh the evidence and substitute our 

judgment for that of the finder of fact. If the factfinder reasonably 

could have determined from the evidence adduced that all of the 

necessary elements of the crime were established, then that 

evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict.

Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910, 913-14 (Pa. Super. 2000)

(citations omitted).
J-S13021-23

- 4 -

With respect to Appellant’s convictions of unlawfully possessing a 

firearm and carrying a firearm without a license,

to convict a defendant for possession of a firearm by a prohibited 

person, the Commonwealth must prove the defendant was 

previously convicted of a specific offense enumerated in section 

6105. Commonwealth v. Jemison, 626 Pa. 489, 98 A.3d 1254, 

1261 (2014). In order to convict a defendant for carrying a 

firearm without a license [pursuant to section 6106], the 

Commonwealth must prove: that the weapon was a firearm; that 

the firearm was unlicensed; and that where the firearm was 

concealed on or about the person, it was outside his home or place 

of business. Commonwealth v. Parker, 847 A.2d 745, 750 (Pa. 

Super. 2004).

Commonwealth v. Hewlett, 189 A.3d 1004, 1009 (Pa. Super. 2018)

As to Appellant’s third conviction for carrying a firearm on public streets 

in Philadelphia:

No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon 

the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first 

class unless:

(1) Such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or

(2) Such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) 

of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a 

license).

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108. An individual commits an offense under section 6108 if 

he carries a firearm at any time on the public streets of Philadelphia without 

a license. Id.

Instantly, Appellant claims the evidence was insufficient, as to all three 

convictions, to support the trial court’s finding that he possessed a firearm. 
J-S13021-23

- 5 -

Appellant states, “because the firearm was not found on [A]ppellant’s person, 

the Commonwealth was required to prove [A]ppellant constructively 

possessed the firearm.” Appellant’s Brief at 12. Appellant argues:

[A police officer s]eeing [Appellant] throw a black object and 

hearing a metallic sound is not sufficient evidence to establish that 

[Appellant] possessed the firearm. No DNA, no fingerprints or 

other objective evidence linked [Appellant] to the firearm. The 

testimony regarding any observations is inadequate when 

considering that it conflicts itself [sic]. The evidence is weakened 

by the fact the other officer did not see a black object or hear a 

metallic sound. The officer was close enough to hear “a metallic 

sound” yet not able to clearly observe a firearm.

Id. at 10.

Appellant claims “the Commonwealth[’s] case is a single bald 

observation in no way corroborated by [another] officer or video.” Id. at 13. 

Appellant seeks reversal of his convictions because “the paucity of evidence ... 

is remarkable for its weakness and inconclusiveness.” Id. at 12.

Conversely, the Commonwealth states:

[Appellant] argues that there was insufficient evidence to 

establish his unlawful possession of a firearm because, in his 

opinion, the court should not have credited the testimony of the 

Commonwealth’s witnesses (Appellant’s Brief, 10). This 

undeveloped argument ignores the standard of review and instead 

improperly asks this [C]ourt to evaluate his evidence with all 

inferences in favor of himself, rather than the verdict winner. The 

verdicts were supported by ample evidence and the judgments 

should be affirmed.

Commonwealth Brief at 5.

Upon review, we agree with the Commonwealth. Evidence “will be 

deemed sufficient” if “the factfinder reasonably could have determined from 
J-S13021-23

- 6 -

the evidence adduced that all of the necessary elements of the crime were 

established.” Hopkins, supra. Notably, Appellant stipulated that he was 

prohibited from possessing a firearm due to a prior conviction; he also 

stipulated to the Commonwealth’s certificate of nonlicensure stating Appellant 

lacked a license to carry a firearm, and stipulated to the Commonwealth 

testing the gun and finding it to be operable. See N.T., 2/22/22, at 24.

The trial court explained:

Officer Diaz testified that he and Officer Alvarez were on bike 

patrol on the 2700 block of Darien Street, where he observed 

Appellant standing with two other males. Appellant looked in 

Officer Diaz’s direction but then turned away, as though 

“concealing something.” Appellant thereafter crossed the street 

to where a silver SUV was parked. Nobody else was on that side

of the street. From around twenty (20) feet away, Officer Diaz 

observed Appellant throw a black object beneath the SUV. He 

simultaneously heard a metallic sound and believed Appellant had 

just discarded a gun. Officer Diaz therefore directed Officer 

Alvarez to stop Appellant, who then “was walking northbound and 

kept looking back at [the officers].” Officer Diaz meanwhile looked 

beneath the SUV and observed a “black Sig Sauer .40 caliber”

handgun, which was the only object under the vehicle. Officer 

Diaz recovered the gun, discovered it was loaded, and placed it 

on a property receipt. (N.T. 2/22/22 at 11-13, 23). 

Trial Court Opinion, 6/23/22, at 4.

The trial court “deemed [Officer Diaz] credible,” and concluded the 

officer’s testimony “amply established that Appellant possessed a firearm in 

violation of 18 Pa. C.S. § 6105(a), and he carried a firearm in violation of 18 

Pa. C.S. §§ 6106 and 6108.” Id. at 5. As the record supports the trial court’s 

findings, Appellant’s sufficiency issue does not merit relief.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
J-S13021-23

- 7 -

P.J.E. Stevens joins the memorandum.

Judge Nichols concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/25/2023