J-S70025-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

GREGORY STENCIL

Appellant No. 1883 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 23, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0015163-2012

BEFORE: OLSON, J., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED JANUARY 18, 2017

Gregory Stencil appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on 

April 23, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, made 

final by the denial of post-sentence motions on June 15, 2015. On August 

28, 2014, a jury convicted Stencil of burglary and theft by unlawful taking.

1

 

The court sentenced Stencil to a term of three-and-a-half to seven years’ 

imprisonment. On appeal, Stencil raises a weight of the evidence claim. For 

the reasons below, we affirm.

The trial court set forth the factual history as follows:

The most direct identification evidence came from the 

testimony of two of the police officers who responded to the call 

of a burglary and actually saw the defendant perpetrating it. 

____________________________________________

1

 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3502(a) and 3903(b)(1), respectively.
J-S70025-16

- 2 -

Officer Hillary Hudson testified that on December 3, 2012, at 

5:15 a.m., he and another officer, both in uniform, responded, 

separately but simultaneously, to a radio report of a burglary in 

progress at 2216 Fitzwater Street in Philadelphia and, when they 

arrived:

... we went to the front door, knocked on the door. I 

was looking in the front window, and I seen legs on the 

second floor. So I let my partner know, which was Davies, 

that the complainant was coming downstairs. So as this 

person was coming down the stairs, it wasn’t the 

complainant. It was the burglar [whom he then identified 

as being the defendant [Stencil]].

He described the front window as a “real big” bay window 

with nothing covering it and the lights in the house being on; he 

watched [Stencil] come down the stairs, and when he got to the 

bottom, what “... struck me as odd is he looked directly ... at me 

and then he shut the vestibule door and proceeded to go out the 

back.” He was wearing a dark hoodie and black gloves, and, 

after he shut the door, the officer went around the corner and 

climbed over a wall to get into an alleyway behind the houses on 

Fitzwater, while Davies stayed at the front door; there were no 

other people around, and he saw [Stencil] in the alleyway. 

A. I seen [Stencil] jump from yard to yard, and he was 

trying to get away.

Q. Did you go in there and – did you eventually 

apprehend him?

A. Yes.

Q. How did you catch him?

A. He was behind an air conditioning unit.

Q. Where?

A. On – it was – the next street over is Saint Albans, and 

he was in their yard. I don’t know the address.

Q. So Saint Albans is south of the alleyway?
J-S70025-16

- 3 -

A. Yes.

Q. So when you say it was a Saint Albans’ address, was it 

the back yard?

A. The back yard, correct.

Q. So essentially, these backyards – the backyard of 2216 

Fitzwater Street would abut the backyards of the Saint 

Albans Street houses?

A. Yes.

Q. And then the alleyway’s in between those backyards?

A. Yes.

Q. So when you saw him behind the air conditioner, did 

you tell him to come out?

A. Yes. I – he immediately stood up. I grabbed his 

hoodie and I told him to hop the fence ... What he did was 

he backed up and his hoodie ripped in my hand. I thought 

then he’s going to run, but he didn’t. He said I ripped his 

hoodie, hopped the fence, and he wanted to fight me.

Q. And what happened after that?

A. Basically clotheslined him; he fell down. We pulled him 

out. And then we cuffed him.

* * *

Q. Now, when you found [Stencil], did he have black 

gloves on?

A. No.

Q. Did you go to look for those black gloves?

A. No, I didn’t.

Q. Do you know how many yards he hopped through?
J-S70025-16

- 4 -

A. At least two.

Testifying from a property receipt he prepared, sixty 

dollars was recovered from [Stencil] in the form of two twenties, 

one ten, one five, one two, and three ones, which were returned 

to the complainant; the address [Stencil] had given him to put 

on the property receipt was 1541 North Alden. He said he did 

not know whether any tokens were recovered from [Stencil] 

(tacitly indicating that they were not listed on the receipt), and 

then identified the other officers who were there and their 

locations.

On cross-examination, [Officer Hudson] testified that 

Davies had knocked on the door while he looked through the 

window, that he had a clear view of [Stencil] and was able to 

recognize him from his face as opposed to his clothing. Counsel 

noted that in his description of [Stencil], the officer did not 

mention [Stencil] having facial hair or his height; in posing his 

question on this point, counsel did not make clear whether he 

was referring to the description of [Stencil] in the officer’s 

testimony, property receipt or his report of the incident. He did 

not, nor know who did, flash [Stencil]’s description over the 

radio. He lost sight of [Stencil] when he went from the front to 

the back of the house and once again after seeing him jump into 

and out of two properties; it was noted that Catherine Street is 

one block south of Fitzpatrick (an aerial photograph showing that 

Saint Albans is a small street in between and, in common 

Philadelphia parlance, the distance between it and either of the 

other larger streets are not considered full blocks), and, when 

asked if he lost sight of him for a few minutes, said, “Not 

minutes.” He did not search, or recover the money from, 

[Stencil]; it was given to him by whomever did and he could not 

recall who that was. On recross, it was noted that, when he “ran 

[Stencil’s] address ... it came back to 2229 Catherine Street”. In 

his opening statement, defense counsel stated that [Stencil] 

lived at 23rd and Catherine and characterized his activity at the 

time of his arrest as just “walking a block from his house with 

some money and some SEPTA tokens[”], but no evidence of his 

actual address at the time, except what Officer Hudson said he 

told him, was submitted, or that would support such a 

characterization of his actions that morning.

* * *
J-S70025-16

- 5 -

The Commonwealth then called the complainant, Anne 

Crawford, who testified that she and her husband had just 

moved into 2216 Fitzwater exactly one month before December 

3

rd and on that date she was home alone. She described the 

house as having three floors plus a basement, the front as 

having a front door and an inside vestibule door, French doors in 

the back that enter onto a cement patio, approximately thirteen 

by ten feet, surrounded by a six-foot cement block wall. Behind 

the backyard is a “really thin” alleyway that goes between her 

row of houses and the backs of the houses on the next street, 

Saint Albans, and the front of the house consisted of a threepanel bay window in which there were no window treatments 

that day because they were taken down and going to be 

replaced because they were having the house painted. On that 

morning, she was asleep in her bedroom on the third floor in the 

back of the house when she was awoken by the house alarm 

going off and the sound of someone “like really like pushing on 

or shoving something around” coming from the kitchen area two 

floors below her; at first she was “caught off guard for a couple 

seconds” then called 911 (at which time an audio recording of 

the call was played). She got out of bed, stayed in the bedroom, 

put on her robe and called 911 again because, while “the 

banging ... at the door ... had gone away [she] had heard 

someone running through the house [and] knew somebody was 

in the house ... didn’t know if it was one person or three people” 

and “eventually heard them go to the second floor” (whereupon 

an audio recording of that call was played; in later testimony it 

was noted that during that call, she was advised that the police 

were at her front door). She went to the third floor front window 

and saw the police, one of whom, who turned out to be Officer 

Davies, told her she could come down to the first floor which she 

did and let them in. They all walked through the house and she 

noticed:

A. The first floor, the – my handbag was dumped on the 

dining room table. So everything was falling out of it, and 

it had been gone through. There was about $40 cash 

missing and some subway – or bus tokens and a special $2 

bill that was like tucked in the back of my wallet from my 

grandmother.

And then there was a Nordstrom shopping bag that had 

some baby clothes in it that the black laptop that was in 

the kitchen in the back of the house had been put into, 
J-S70025-16

- 6 -

and that was put by the front door right inside the 

vestibule door.

And then on the second floor in the bedroom in the 

back, just drawers were open and boxes gone through. 

The best was – the mattress was kind of pushed off of the 

box spring like somebody was feeling under the mattress 

for something. 

Q. And now, were the baby clothes in the Nordstrom bag 

when you went to sleep?

A. Yes.

Q. But the laptop was not?

A. No.

One of the officers pointed out to her that her back door 

wasn’t closing; they tried to fix it but couldn’t, and she had to 

have it repaired later. She did not know the defendant and 

never gave him permission to be in her house or take anything 

from it.

Officer Kimyatta Davies testified that she arrived at the 

house the same time as Hudson:

A. When I first got on location, I checked the doors to see 

if any of the doors were open, rung the doorbell, looked 

inside of the house. There was no window – no blinds or 

anything. So you could clearly see right through the 

house.

* * *

Q. And while you were at the front door, did you see 

anyone that you see in court today?

A. Yes; [Stencil].

* * *

Q. Where did you see him?
J-S70025-16

- 7 -

A. I saw him coming down the stairs. We were looking 

into the house. We were right – knocking on the door, 

rung the doorbell, hopefully trying to locate the 

complainant. No one was responding. Then someone 

started walking down the stairs.

We was like, Oh – I said, “Okay, maybe that’s the 

complainant coming down the steps.”

And that’s when I observed the male in plain view 

walking down steps, and he looked directly at us.

Q. And after he looked right at you, what did he do?

A. He came straight towards the door, ... the vestibule 

door. And after he saw – when he looked at us. And 

that’s when he started running towards the rear of the 

property. And that’s when I came over with the flash 

saying that the male was running out towards the rear of 

the property.

She waited at the front door when Hudson went to the 

back; when the complainant came to the third floor window she 

told her to wait there until she was told that the other officers 

had apprehended a suspect. In her report she listed the items 

taken as fifty-eight dollars, a two dollar bill and five packets of 

tokens. She then was shown [Stencil]’s arrest photograph:

Q. And does that accurately depict how he looked on that 

evening?

A. That’s correct. 

Q. In that photo, what is his clothing?

A. Dark clothing with a white T-shirt.

Q. And it’s – the shirt, the sweat shirt or the dark 

clothing, it’s ripped, is it not?

A. Yes, it is.

On cross-examination [the officer] testified that the house 

was dark but she saw [Stencil] clearly through the front door 
J-S70025-16

- 8 -

window using her flashlight, and in her flash description of 

[Stencil], she said he was clean shaven. On redirect, it was 

pointed out that, in the photograph [Stencil] had “some facial 

hair.” The photograph does show [Stencil] with a very light 

beard and mustache.

Q. And when you put out flash information, what –

typically what do you – what do you state for facial hair?

A. If – in the facial hair, sometimes it can get a little tricky 

with – if someone’s running and you see flashes just quick. 

So it appeared to me that night that he had – he was clean 

shaven. Like I said, when he went – ran down the – when 

he went down the steps and looked at me, he had his head 

down. He wasn’t like looking up. So when he turned his 

head really fast when I looked at him, that’s what I 

appeared – that was the flash I put out.

On recross, counsel attempted to belabor the point:

Q. Officer, so you’re saying that you had [a] very quick 

look at this gentleman’s face?

A. With his facial hair, I did; but for when he looked in my 

eyes, he looked right at me. He looked down and he ran 

and he turned over and pivoted. 

Q. Okay. And it sounded like when you were answering 

Mr. Gehrke’s question, that you were speaking from 

experience, that sometimes it’s hard to –

A. Just the experience of when it’s very dark with the 

shaven and flash information that you give out – when he 

went down – actually, when he went down – so that was –

I didn’t see like a beard. I saw shaven. I saw this part of 

his face. So when he went down and if somebody look at 

you and do like that, you’re not going to see all of that. 

You’re going to see his eyes. You’re going to see his nose. 

You’re going to see his head. You’re not going to see that 

part.

And I’m a little short. I’m five-one. Officer Hudson 

being six-five, six-seven, he would see more than me.
J-S70025-16

- 9 -

Q. Because you were looking in the window –

A. Right. Exactly.

Q. – of the door?

A. Of the door.

Q. So just to be clear for the jury, you were unable to tell 

– to see his face long enough to determine his facial hair, 

correct?

A. That’s correct. With the facial hair, yes.

Q. However, you specifically put out over police radio 

clean shaven?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Yet, you’re able to today in court identify him by 

his face as being the same man who was in the house?

A. Yes.

Officer Robert Slobodian testified that he and his partner, Officer 

Francis McGrenra, received the radio call, went to the area of 

22nd and Fitzwater Street, and:

A. As we were approaching, officers that were already on 

location stated that they observed a black male fleeing 

from the rear of the location into the alley. I observed 

Officer Hudson coming around the corner, and I assisted 

him to block the alley over there.

Q. Where did – where did McGrenra go?

A. He went to the front with Officer Davies.

Q. And was that just because you needed another officer 

at the front?

A. Since she was there by herself and in case the male 

went back to the front – to go to the front, he went to 

back her up.
J-S70025-16

- 10 -

Q. And this alleyway – this was approximately 5:20 in the 

morning.

Was there anyone out there?

A. No.

Q. This alleyway, did you end up going in that alleyway?

A. Yes. After we seen the male hopping through the 

yards, myself and Officer Hudson and Sergeant Crawford 

gained access to the alley.

Q. How did you gain access to the alleyway?

A. On Saint Albans Street, the alley opened up going 

northbound, and I believe I hopped a fence to get into it. 

Q. And when you were back there that evening, did you 

encounter anyone that you see in the courtroom today?

A. Yes; [Stencil] sitting next to counsel.

* * *

Q. Where did ... you find him or did someone else?

A. We were all walking together searching the yards. So 

it was pretty much simultaneously everyone found him.

Q. Where was he?

A. He was actually in a yard on Saint Albans Street hiding 

right by an air conditioner.

Q. And who went in to – did [Stencil] come out?

A. When we spotted him, he walked out. We were 

actually in the alley. He was inside the fenced-in yard. 

We ordered him to come over. At first, he didn’t comply. 

So Officer Hudson grabbed him by the shirt, which caused 

the shirt to rip. And then the male hopped over the fence.
J-S70025-16

- 11 -

Q. And how did you get him out of the alleyway? Did you 

to – did you have to open up another fence, or what?

A. Once we had him secured, he placed him in custody, 

and I went to walk him out the same way I came in. I 

believe a neighbor had a key to the gate to open up the 

alley. So we just walked him out.

Q. Then did you take him – was he taken in your patrol

car?

A. Yes. My partner – after we got him in custody, my 

partner met me around there with my patrol car.

Q. And when you say your partner, you’re referring to 

McGrenra?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you guys end up transporting [Stencil] to Methodist 

Hospital?

A. Yes.

Q. And was that because of a particular concern or was it 

a routine check?

A. There was an altercation in the alleyway to get him 

secure and detain him and just precautionary.

On cross-examination, he described seeing [Stencil] jumping 

from yard to yard on the Fitzwater side of the alleyway and then 

into one on the Saint Albans side and losing sight of him; he and 

the other officers began looking into yards with flashlights and 

found [Stencil] in one of them, at which point Officer Hudson 

grabbed and ripped [Stencil]’s hoodie, [Stencil] jumped at him, 

and the officers all subdued him.

Officer Francis Mc[G]renra testified to searching [Stencil] 

and recovering from him the money and the SEPTA tokens, 

reading what he had recorded in a property receipt, describing 

the former in the same denominations previously identified and 

the latter as “there’s a bag of tokens, one token in a bag, two 

tokens in a bag, and five tokens in Bag 5, it looks like.” Officer 
J-S70025-16

- 12 -

Patrick Dio testified to “holding the alley” while the others 

searched, a homeowner giving him a key to open the gate for 

them when the other officers were bringing [Stencil] out, 

transporting [him] from the hospital to the district and [he was] 

kicking another officer there when she was trying to unshackle 

his legs. On cross, the officer testified that he recovered the 

money and the tokens from one of [Stencil]’s pockets; defense 

counsel had him point out that he would only have taken from 

[Stencil] what the complainant said was stolen and that he did 

not recall whether [Stencil] also had an additional $70, a cell 

phone, a wallet and a set of keys on him. On redirect, the 

prosecutor had him point out that, tacitly implying it was 

standard procedure, anything not reported as stolen, such as 

money in a wallet in particular, would be considered [Stencil]’s 

personal property and be left on him, presumably to be taken 

from him, documented and stored while he was being 

incarcerated, as is the well-known common procedure.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/5/2018, at 2-11 (footnote and record citations 

omitted).

Stencil was charged with multiple offenses related to the incident. As 

stated above, on August 28, 2014, a jury convicted him of burglary and theft 

by unlawful taking. On April 23, 2015, the court sentenced him to a term of 

three-and-a-half to seven years’ imprisonment for the burglary offense, with 

credit for time served.2 On April 24, 2015, Stencil filed a motion for 

reconsideration of his sentence and a motion for a new trial. On June 15, 

____________________________________________

2

 The theft crime merged for sentencing purposes.
J-S70025-16

- 13 -

2015, the court denied both post-sentence motions. Two days later, Stencil 

filed this appeal.3

In his sole issue on appeal, Stencil argues the verdict was against the 

weight of the evidence.4 Specifically, he states, 

Officer Davies’s testimony at trial, and present-sense description 

of the burglar on police radio proved the burglar was “clean 

shaven.” However, the Commonwealth admitted a photograph 

that fairly and accurately depicted Mr. Stencil at the time of his 

arrest, and which established he was not “clean shaven.” Had 

Mr. Stencil been the burglar, Officer Davies would not have 

described the burglar as “clean shaven.” He also wasn’t wearing 

the dark hoodie, and gloves worn by the burglar.

Stencil’s Brief at 12-13. Moreover, Stencil contends: (1) the court should 

not have relied on the officers’ identification testimony “because it is 

generally accepted in the scientific community that there is a lack of 

correlation between witness statements of confidence in an identification and 

the accuracy of the identification;”5(2) the identification testimony should 

____________________________________________

3

 On September 30, 2015, the trial court ordered Stencil to file a concise 

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

Stencil filed a concise statement on October 21, 2015, raising his weight 

claim. The trial court issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on 

May 5, 2016.

Stencil filed several extensions of time and supplemental concise 

statements. Nonetheless, Stencil preserved the weight claim in the October 

21st concise statement.

4

 Stencil properly preserved his challenge to the weight of the evidence by 

raising it in a post-sentence motion. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A).

5

 Stencil’s Brief at 15.
J-S70025-16

- 14 -

have been accepted with caution because there were no statements made at 

trial regarding “the burglar’s eyes, nose, lips, mouth, ears, jawbone, 

cheekbones, forehead, eyebrows, eyelashes, skin tone, scars, or other 

distinguishing marks;”6(3) the SEPTA tokens and two dollar bill found on 

Stencil are common and not unique in identifying characteristic and 

therefore, carry little evidentiary weight;7and (4) evidence of Stencil’s flight 

alone was insufficient to establish guilt.8

When a defendant challenges the weight of the evidence, he “concedes 

that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, but seeks a new trial on 

the ground that the evidence was so one-sided or so weighted in favor of 

acquittal that a guilty verdict shocks one’s sense of justice.” 

Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053, 1067 (Pa. 2013), cert. denied, 

134 S.Ct. 1792 (U.S. 2014). Our review of a weight claim is wellestablished:

The weight of the evidence is a matter exclusively for the finder 

of fact, who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence 

and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. A new trial is 

not warranted because of “a mere conflict in the testimony” and 

must have a stronger foundation than a reassessment of the 

credibility of witnesses. Rather, the role of the trial judge is to 

determine that notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so 

____________________________________________

6

 Id. at 16.

7

 Id. at 16-17.

8

 Id. at 18.
J-S70025-16

- 15 -

clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them

equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice. On appeal, our 

purview is extremely limited and is confined to whether the trial 

court abused its discretion in finding that the jury verdict did not 

shock one’s conscience. Thus, appellate review of a weight claim 

consists of a review of the trial court’s exercise of discretion, not 

a review of the underlying question of whether the verdict is 

against the weight of the evidence. An appellate court may not 

reverse a verdict unless it is so contrary to the evidence as to 

shock one’s sense of justice.

Commonwealth v. Rosser, 135 A.3d 1077, 1090 (Pa. Super. 2016) (en 

banc), quoting Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711, 723 (Pa. 

Super. 2015), appeal denied, 125 A.3d 1196 (Pa. 2015) (citations omitted). 

Here, the trial court found the following:

[Stencil] simply asked the court to grant him a new trial based 

upon his slanted self-serving characterization of the police 

officers’ testimony as having “cast doubt upon whether the 

person seen by the police inside the burglarized house was Mr. 

Stencil, who was later stopped in the neighborhood.” The 

officers’ testimony was anything but doubtful. They both had a 

clear unfettered view inside the house and plenty of time to get 

a good look at [Stencil]’s face. Counsel’s attempt to belittle the 

quality of their observations by harping on the fact that one of 

them did not mention that he had facial hair in his later 

recountings, and the other did not notice his facial hair when she 

first briefly glimpsed him, are red herrings. Given [Stencil]’s 

very light beard and mustache, even trained and experienced 

police officers would be excused from not noticing “some” facial 

hair on an African American male fleeing from a house at 5:00 

o’clock in the morning. That same training and experience 

would be just as likely to cause them to readily grasp the more 

prominent facial features and their color, sizes and shapes. 

Claiming that the identifications were flawed by the fact that the 

officers lost sight of him, which, by all the officer’s descriptions, 

amounted to mere moments, ignores the facts that [Stencil] was 

obviously trying to flee and was caught with the goods, 

particularly the positively identified two dollar bill and the 

unusual number of bags of tokens. He was not “later stopped” 

while he just happened to be walking in his neighborhood; he 
J-S70025-16

- 16 -

was seen fleeing from the rear of a house where a burglary in 

progress had just been reported, immediately pursued, seen 

jumping into and out of back yards and an alleyway, which was 

walled off at one end with a locked gate at the other, and was 

found very quickly trying to hide in a backyard not his own.

...

[Stencil] was not “merely” present at the scene, he was seen 

committing the crime itself: being in someone else’s house 

without their permission. In that situation, flight is definitely 

more evidence of guilt and may be properly considered as such 

by the fact finder, together, of course, with the officers’ 

confidence in the accuracy of their observations and 

recollections.

...

So much for the relevance of counsel’s allusion to the fact that 

[Stencil] was not wearing gloves when he was finally 

apprehended. And the conclusion that it would be much more 

likely that a woman would keep five bags of tokens in her 

handbag is a much more logical one to draw than that a man 

would have all of them, some of which had apparently been 

opened and some of the tokens taken out, in his pocket while 

strolling through his neighborhood. “Similarly, evidence that 

appellant was in possession of property stolen in not just one but 

several burglaries and comprising several different kinds of 

goods was relevant not simply to prove a general criminal 

propensity, but considerably to increase the likelihood of guilt –

or absence of mistake – with regard to each separate 

possession, and therefore admissible in a separate trial of each 

offense.” Commonwealth v. Lasch, 464 Pa. 573, 347 A.2d 

690, 698 (1975) (affirmance by equally divided court, the 

dissenters disagreeing with the lower Courts’ decisions and the 

other Justices’ view on the main issue in the case, that the 

separate burglary cases were properly tried jointly). In sum, a 

clear reading of the officers’ direct identification testimony, 

together with all of the corroborating evidence, leaves no 

question that the Commonwealth proved its case beyond a 

reasonable doubt.

...
J-S70025-16

- 17 -

Needless to say, the court does not see any flaws or 

contradictions in the officers’ testimony. The facial hair and the 

momentary loss of observation do not cast any doubt on the 

integrity and reliability of their observations and to claim that 

they do, in the face of all the other corroborating evidence, is a 

grossly unfounded exaggeration. The fact that the jury found 

the officers credible does not shock the court’s conscience; it 

doesn’t even cause the slightest twinge. 

Trial Court Opinion, 5/5/2018, at 13-17.

We agree with the court’s well-reasoned analysis. Stencil’s argument 

consists largely of claims that the greater weight of evidence fell in his favor. 

We remind Stencil that credibility determinations are within the sole province 

of the fact finder. See Rosser, supra. Moreover, we note that while 

Stencil was not “clean shaven” at the time of his arrest, one can easily see 

that his beard and mustache were subtle and therefore, would not stand out 

at 5:30 a.m. on a December morning. See Stencil’s Brief, Exhibit C. 

Furthermore, Officer Hudson apprehended Stencil shortly after observing 

him inside the victim’s home. The officer only lost sight of Stencil for several 

seconds while he chased him down a back alley but ultimately found him 

behind an air conditioning unit in a backyard that was not his own. Stencil 

was also found with items substantially similar to what was stolen from the 

victim’s house. Of importance, the victim identified the two-dollar bill found 

on Stencil as the exact one she was missing. See N.T., 8/27/2014, at 60. 

As such, we conclude Stencil has failed to establish the trial court abused its 

discretion in determining the verdict was not against the weight of the 
J-S70025-16

- 18 -

evidence.9 See Rossner, supra. Accordingly, his sole argument on appeal 

fails.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/18/2017

____________________________________________

9

 To the extent Stencil touches upon a sufficiency argument with his claim 

that flight alone does not establish guilt, we have no hesitation in concluding 

the totality of the circumstances demonstrated Stencil committed the 

crimes. See Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 39-40 (Pa. Super. 

2014) (providing standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence 

argument).