J. S27011/15

 

* Former Justice specially 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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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. :

:

DARRYL DEWS, : No. 918 EDA 2014

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, November 8, 2013,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at Nos. CP-51-CR-0001366-2012,

CP-51-CR-0001772-2012, CP-51-CR-0014064-2011

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE AND FITZGERALD,* JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JULY 28, 2015

Appellant, Darryl Dews, robbed three barbershops at gunpoint. 

Following a jury trial, he was convicted of 12 counts of robbery, three counts 

of conspiracy, and three counts of possessing an instrument of crime. On 

November 8, 2013, the Honorable Glenn Bronson sentenced appellant to an 

aggregate term of 50 to 100 years’ imprisonment. We affirm. 

The facts and procedural history, as summarized by the trial court, are 

as follows. 

On November 18, 2011, Stevie Bright was at 

the N the Kuts barbershop, located at 2514 South 

71st Street in West Philadelphia, repairing the 

bathroom floor. N.T. 9/21/13 at 49. Also present in 

the shop were Bright’s friend, Stephen Green, the 

barber Jaladeen Fleming, a Mr. McGlone, and an 

unidentified juvenile. N.T. 9/20/13 at 154-155; 

9/21/13 at 50. Defendant and Michael Lewis entered 
J. S27011/15

- 2 -

the barbershop wearing ski masks that left their 

faces exposed and with firearms extended. N.T. 

9/21/13 at 50-52. Defendant stated, “[t]his is a 

robbery, everybody get on the ground.” N.T. 

9/21/13 at 29. Defendant and Lewis took cell 

phones, cash, and other items from the occupants of 

the barbershop before leaving. N.T. 9/21/13 at 51. 

Officers were not able to locate defendant or Lewis 

that night. N.T. 9/20/13 at 156.

On November 23, 2011, Kali Avans, 

Dwight Lee, and Tonya Lee-Phillips were getting their 

hair cut at the Stay Focused barbershop, located at 

6031 Vine Street in West Philadelphia, by barbers 

Quimon Broady and Khalil Avans. N.T. 9/21/13 at 

119. Also present was Ms. Lee-Phillips’s three-yearold child. N.T. 9/21/13 at 119. At approximately 

8:30 p.m., Corey Petty entered the barbershop in 

order to “scope it out” for defendant and Lewis, who 

were waiting outside the barbershop. N.T. 9/21/13 

at 185. Petty asked for the price of a haircut for 

himself and his younger brother and then left the 

barbershop. N.T. 9/21/13 at 184. Defendant and 

Lewis then entered. N.T. 9/21/13 at 187. Upon 

entering the barbershop, defendant, wearing, a black 

skull hat, black jacket, and blue jeans, and Lewis 

announced a robbery and ordered everyone to the 

floor. N.T. 9/21/13 at 128. Defendant approached 

Dwight Lee and, holding a gun to Lee’s head, said 

‘‘[y]’all know what it is.” N.T. 9/21/13 at 150. 

Turning to Ms. Lee-Phillips, defendant demanded 

“[b]itch, where is your pocketbook?” N.T. 9/21/13 

at 153. Defendant subsequently took multiple items 

from the occupants of the barbershop, including cell 

phones and Ms. Lee-Phillips’ purse, before leaving. 

N.T. 9/21/13 at 129-131. After defendant left, 

Avans dialed 911 and alerted the police of the 

robbery. Philadelphia Police Officer Anthony Jones 

responded to the scene but was unable to locate 

defendant. N.T. 9/20/13 at 145.

On November 25, 2011, William Lovett and 

Officer Anthony Jackson, then off-duty, were getting 

their hair cut at Brothers Barbershop, located at the 
J. S27011/15

- 3 -

corner of 53rd and Sansom streets in 

West Philadelphia. N.T. 9/19/13 at 56, 172. Also 

present in the barbershop were Candace Rahemtulla, 

an employee of the barbershop, as well as barbers 

Jamal Edwards and Corey Ellis. N.T. 9/19/13 at 105, 

173. While Officer Jackson was getting his hair cut, 

defendant and two other individuals, 

McDaniel Walker and Danny Matthews, entered the 

barbershop with firearms extended and defendant 

announced “[y]ou know what this is,” ordering 

everyone to the floor. N.T. 9/19/13 at 60, 106, 174. 

Defendant was wearing a gray sweatshirt and gray 

sweatpants. N.T. 9/19/13 at 177. Defendant 

directed Walker and Matthews as they collected 

wallets, cell phones, and other items from the 

occupants of the barbershop. N.T. 9/21/13 at 191; 

9/19/13 at 182. Officer Jackson, in an attempt to 

prevent the assailants from finding his firearm, 

moved his gun from his right hip to his stomach 

before lying down on the ground. N.T. 9/19/13 at 

175-176. After Officer Jackson laid down on the 

ground, defendant stated “[y]o, check that mother 

fucker, he doing a lot of moving,” whereupon the 

other two men patted down Officer Jackson and 

found his firearm. N.T. 9/19/13 at 178-179. After 

all occupants were searched and items seized, 

defendant Walker, and Matthews left the barbershop, 

having left victim Candace Rahemtulla in possession 

of her cell phone, from which she dialed 911. N.T. 

9/19/13 at 108. After the assailants left the 

barbershop, Officer Jackson followed them until they 

entered into a white Chevy vehicle, parked on the 

north side of Sansom Street. N.T. 9/19/13 at 184. 

Officer Jackson then used the cell phone of a 

concerned citizen in the area and called 911, 

identifying himself as an off-duty police officer, and 

gave a description of the three individuals, as well as 

the vehicle in which they had left the area. N.T. 

9/19/13 at 189.

Philadelphia Police Officer Eric Girill was the 

first Philadelphia Police Officer to arrive at the 

Brothers Barbershop, having been flagged down by 

Officer Jackson. N.T. 9/19/13 at 117. 
J. S27011/15

- 4 -

William Lovett informed Officer Girill that his iPhone 

had been taken, and that he had installed the “Find 

My iPhone” app on the phone, which permits the 

remote activation of an iPhone’s built in GPS locator 

in order to determine the phone’s location. N.T. 

9/19/13 at 70. Officer Girill inputted Lovett’s 

identifying information into his own iPhone, which 

located Lovett’s phone in the area of 57th and Walnut 

Streets. N.T. 9/19/13 at 121. Officer Girill relayed 

this information over police radio, refreshing the 

location information every 15 seconds. N.T. 9/19/13 

at 122.

Officer Christina Mellett and her partner, 

Officer Jessie, responded to the relayed iPhone 

information and arrived at 57th and Walnut Street. 

N.T. 9/19/13 at 141. There they noticed 

Corey Petty, rapidly knocking on a door yelling “[l]et 

me in, let me in.” N.T. 9/19/13 at 144. 

Officer Mellett stopped Petty and did a search for 

officer safety, locating Lovett’s iPhone on Petty’s 

person, which Petty later claimed he had bought 

from a “smoker.” N.T. 9/19/13 at 145, 154. A white 

Chevy vehicle was parked directly across the street. 

N.T. 9/20/13 at 84. Lovett later identified his iPhone 

at the scene. N.T. 9/19/13 at 73.

Soon after Officer Mellett detained Petty, 

Officer Joseph Keys arrived at the scene and went to 

the property that Petty had been attempting to 

enter. Petty’s mother, Nichole Petty, answered the 

door while defendant was standing behind her. N.T. 

9/20/13 at 42. Defendant was wearing the same 

gray sweat suit he had worn during the robbery. 

N.T. 9/20/13 at 44. Defendant was detained for 

further investigation, as were the co-defendants who 

were found at the home. N.T. 9/20/13 at 44. 

Approximately fifteen minutes after the robbery 

occurred, Officer Jackson and Lovett were 

transported to 57th and Sansom Streets, where they 

positively identified all individuals who had entered 

the barbershop. N.T. 9/19/13 at 73-76, 193. 

Defendant was subsequently taken into custody.
J. S27011/15

- 5 -

After transporting Petty to the police station for 

processing, Officer Mellett found keys to a Chevy 

Impala on the back floor of her police vehicle where 

she had placed Petty. N.T. 9/19/13 at 150. These 

keys matched the white Chevy vehicle parked 

outside the 57th Street residence. N.T. 9/19/13 at 

151. Petty subsequently gave a statement to police 

implicating himself in the Brothers Barbershop 

robbery, as well as the robbery at the Stay Focused 

barbershop. N.T. 9/21/13 at 204. N.T. 9/21/13 at 

131. Using the statements given by Petty, police 

obtained a search warrant for Petty’s girlfriend’s 

home on North 63rd Street, where they recovered the 

cell phone belonging to Quimon Broady, a victim of 

the Stay Focused robbery.

Later that evening, Detective Craig Fife 

obtained a search warrant for the 57th Street 

residence, as well as the white Chevy vehicle parked 

outside. N.T. 9/20/13 at 84. Recovered from the 

residence were a black iPhone, later identified as 

belonging to Officer Jackson, and a snub nose 

.38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver. N.T. 9/20/13 

at 96-97. Recovered from the vehicle was a 

.40 caliber Glock semi-automatic handgun, later 

identified as belonging to Officer Jackson, and two 

AAA cards with the name Tonya Lee-Phillips. N.T. 

9/20/13 at 88-89. Detective Fife ran Ms. Lee-Phillips 

name through the police database and determined 

that she was a victim of the robbery at the Stay 

Focused barbershop. N.T. 9/20/13 at 91. Detective 

Fife then did a search to determine if any other 

similar robberies had occurred in the area, 

identifying the robbery of the N the Kuts barbershop. 

N.T. 9/20/13 at 107.

On November 27, 2011, Kali Avans, from the 

Stay Focused robbery, was asked to view a photo 

array containing defendant’s photo. Avans picked 

defendant out of the photo array, circling defendant’s 

photo and stating he was 85% certain that 

defendant was the individual who had robbed him. 

N.T. 9/21/13 at 136. On January 11, 2012, 

Detective Bill Urban conducted a court-ordered 
J. S27011/15

- 6 -

lineup for Avans and Ms. Lee-Phillips. N.T. 9/21/13 

at 107. Avans did not hesitate in picking defendant 

out of the lineup. N.T. 9/21/13 at 110. Ms. LeePhillips did not correctly identify defendant at the 

lineup, instead identifying another participant in the 

lineup. N.T. 9/21/13 at 110.

On November 29, 2011, Detective Fife 

contacted Stevie Bright, a victim of the N the Kuts 

barbershop robbery, in order to show him a photo 

array containing defendant’s photograph. N.T. 

9/20/13 at 110. Bright identified defendant as a 

person involved in the robbery. N.T. 9/20/13 at 110, 

N.T. 9/21/13 at 64.

Trial court opinion, 6/10 14 at 2-6 (footnote omitted).

Prior to the beginning of the jury trial, appellant raised a motion to 

suppress. The purpose of the motion to suppress was that the identification 

made of appellant was highly suggestive and improper such that it deprived 

him of a fair trial. Hearings were held on September 17 and 18, 2013. The 

Commonwealth presented the testimony of Detectives Fife and Maurizio, 

Officers Butler and Jackson, and a victim, Lovett. Their testimony regarding 

the identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the robberies was 

consistent with the evidence presented at trial. The court denied the 

motion. 

Appellant presents two issues for our review.

A. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT DENIED 

THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE IN-COURT 

IDENTIFICATION OF THE APPELLANT WHERE 

THE ON-SCENE IDENTIFICATION OF THE 

APPELLANT WAS HIGHLY SUGGESTIVE?
J. S27011/15

- 7 -

B. WAS THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED 

INSUFFICIENT AND/OR AGAINST THE WEIGHT 

OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT 

WHERE IT FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE 

APPELLANT COMMITTED THE ROBBERIES FOR 

WHICH HE WAS ACCUSED?

Appellant’s brief at 6.

Appellant first argues that the on-scene identifications of 

Officer Jackson and Mr. Levitt should have been suppressed as the 

circumstances were highly suggestive. No relief is due.

Our standard and scope of review in evaluating a suppression issue are 

settled.

We are limited to determining whether the lower 

court’s factual findings are supported by the record 

and whether the legal conclusions drawn therefrom 

are correct. We may consider the evidence of the 

witnesses offered by the Commonwealth, as verdict 

winner, and only so much of the evidence presented 

by [the] defense that is not contradicted when 

examined in the context of the record as a whole. 

We are bound by facts supported by the record and 

may reverse only if the legal conclusions reached by 

the court were erroneous.

Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10 A.3d 1285, 1287 (Pa.Super. 2010) 

(en banc). 

In reviewing the propriety of identification evidence, 

the central inquiry is whether, under the totality of 

the circumstances, the identification was reliable. 

The purpose of a “one on one” identification is to 

enhance reliability by reducing the time elapsed after 

the commission of the crime. Suggestiveness in the 

identification process is but one factor to be 

considered in determining the admissibility of such 

evidence and will not warrant exclusion absent other 
J. S27011/15

- 8 -

factors. As this Court has explained, the following 

factors are to be considered in determining the 

propriety of admitting identification evidence: the 

opportunity of the witness to view the perpetrator at 

the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of 

attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the 

perpetrator, the level of certainty demonstrated at 

the confrontation, and the time between the crime 

and confrontation. The corrupting effect of the 

suggestive identification, if any, must be weighed 

against these factors. Absent some special element 

of unfairness, a prompt “one on one” identification is 

not so suggestive as to give rise to an irreparable 

likelihood of misidentification.

Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Moye, 836 A.2d 973, 976 (Pa.Super. 

2003), appeal denied, 851 A.2d 142 (Pa. 2004).

Appellant’s argument focuses on the fact that, when identified, he was 

in police custody and in handcuffs. (Appellant’s brief at 14-15.) As the 

Commonwealth states, appellant’s argument has been repeatedly rejected. 

While both Officer Jackson and Mr. Lovett identified appellant while in 

handcuffs, this fact alone does not constitute grounds for reversing the 

suppression court. Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 74 A.3d 228, 238 

(Pa.Super. 2013), appeal granted on other grounds, 83 A.3d 411 (Pa. 

2014) (finding that “on-scene, one-on-one identifications, even where an 

appellant is handcuffed and officers ask a victim to identify him as the 

perpetrator, are ‘not so suggestive as to give rise to an irreparable likelihood 

of misidentification’”); Commonwealth v. Donley, 455 A.2d 159, 161-162 

(Pa.Super. 1983) (holding that witness identification two hours after robbery 
J. S27011/15

- 9 -

while defendant was handcuffed and seated in the back of a police car did 

not violate due process). 

A review of the testimony presented at the suppression hearing 

reveals that Jackson, an off-duty police officer, testified that the barbershop 

was well-lit. Jackson positively identified appellant 15 minutes after the

crime occurred. The officer stated he was 100% certain appellant was the 

perpetrator because “it happened just approximately 15 minutes before,” 

and “appellant was wearing the same identical clothes.” (Notes of 

testimony, 9/17/13 at 31.) Officer Jackson testified that nothing covered 

appellant’s face during the robbery, and he observed appellant for 

approximately three to five minutes.

Separately, Mr. Lovett positively identified appellant after the police 

brought him to the scene of appellant’s arrest soon after the robbery. Lovett 

testified that during the robbery, appellant stood no more than ten feet 

away with nothing covering his face. Appellant was wearing a gray hooded 

sweatshirt and gray pants. Lovett stated the lighting in the barbershop was

“extremely bright.” (Id. at 15.) No relief is due.

Appellant’s second issue combines two legally distinct arguments --

the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence. (Appellant’s brief at 16.) 

Appellant’s claim is waived pursuant to Commonwealth v. Lemon, 804 

A.2d 34 (Pa.Super. 2002). In Lemon, we held that although the appellant 

raised some specific challenges in his appellate brief, the vagueness of his 
J. S27011/15

- 10 -

Rule 1925(b) statement,1 which prevented the trial court from analyzing his 

claims of trial court error, precluded effective appellate review. We held that 

under Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998), and its progeny, 

the appellant waived his claims on appeal. Id. at 37-38; see also

Commonwealth v. Seibert, 799 a.2d 64, 62 (Pa.Super. 2002) (appellant’s 

weight of the evidence issue waived for having filed a vague Rule 1925(b) 

statement, to wit, “[t]he verdict of the jury was against the weight of the 

credible evidence as to all charges.”) 

In this case, appellant’s court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement 

provided:

the verdict is against the weight of the evidence 

and/or the evidence is insufficient to support the 

verdict because: a. the evidence presented at trial by 

the Commonwealth failed to support a conviction for 

the crime of robbery and conspiracy. Specifically, 

that the evidence introduced at trial was not 

sufficient enough to cause a reasonable juror to 

convict the appellant of said crimes.

Docket #11. Appellant was convicted of twelve counts of robbery and three 

counts of conspiracy in relation to three separate robberies with numerous 

victims. Appellant left the trial court to speculate as to the specific elements 

not met with regard to each robbery and conspiracy or how the verdict was 

against the weight of the evidence. In point of fact, the argument presented 

 

1 The appellant in Lemon stated in his Rule 1925(b) statement that “[t]he 

verdict of the jury was against the evidence,” “[t]he verdict of the jury was 

against the weight of the evidence,” and “[t]he verdict was against the law.” 

Lemon, 804 A.2d at 37.
J. S27011/15

- 11 -

in appellant’s brief challenges the credibility of the testimony and 

identifications of a number of eyewitnesses, neither of which the trial court 

addressed in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, which summarily disposed of 

appellant’s second issue. Thus, we find this issue has not been preserved 

for appellate review.2

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Stabile, J. joins the Memorandum.

Fitzgerald, J. concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/28/2015

 

2 We are cognizant of the supreme court’s decision in Commonwealth v. 

Laboy, 936 A.2d 1058 (Pa. 2007), cited by the trial court. In Laboy, the 

court determined we erred in deciding appellant had failed to adequately 

develop his claim of insufficient evidence to support his conviction in his 

Rule 1925(b) statement, noting that the case was a “relatively 

straightforward drug case” though “in more complex criminal matters the 

common pleas court may require a more detailed statement to address the 

basis of the sufficiency challenge.” Id. at 1060. We find the instant matter 

is distinguishable as it is more complex and requires at least some specificity 

concerning whether appellant is taking issue with one or all of the robberies 

and conspiracies.