J-S47021-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v.

ANDRE CHANEY, 

 Appellant No. 2201 EDA 2013 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of June 28, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012656-2011 

BEFORE: MUNDY, OLSON AND WECHT, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 

Appellant, Andre Chaney, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered on June 28, 2013. We affirm. 

The trial court has ably summarized the underlying facts of this case. 

As the trial court explained: 

On September 26, 2011, at approximately 12:10 a.m.,

[K.M. (hereinafter “the victim”)] responded to a knock on 

the door of his [Philadelphia] apartment [building]. . . . 

Upon opening the door, three individuals – Appellant, 

[Appellant’s] co-defendant Mustafa Hill (hereinafter “Hill”), 

and an unidentified male wearing a ski mask – pushed 

through into the entrance of the apartment building and 

closed the door behind them. [The victim] knew [Appellant] 

and Hill because they regularly bought loose cigarettes from 

him. [Appellant] put a handgun to [the victim’s] head and 

pushed him back toward the doorway of his apartment 

saying “give me the money, give me the money.” 

[Appellant and the victim] struggled in the apartment

vestibule and after Hill had blocked [the victim] from 

getting to his door, Hill stood at the front door of the 
J-S47021-14

- 2 - 

apartment building as a lookout. The unidentified male, 

who also possessed a handgun, entered [the victim’s] 

apartment, as [Appellant] continued to restrain [the victim] 

in the hallway by squeezing his neck. After a few minutes, 

the unidentified male exited [the victim’s] apartment, 

whereupon [Appellant] said “[a]re you okay? Everything 

[okay]? You get it?” [The] three [robbers then] fled [] the 

building. [The victim] went inside [his apartment] and 

found his apartment disheveled with $800[.00] missing 

from the drawer of his nightstand. 

[Philadelphia Police] Officer [Michael] Gwynn was the first to 

respond to the radio call for a robbery in progress and, after 

speaking with [the victim], the officer gave out a flash 

description of the males to the officers in the area. 

[Philadelphia Police] Detective [Frank] Mullen and 

[Philadelphia Police] Officer [Anthony] Coward arrived at the 

apartment building and[,] shortly thereafter[, the victim] 

indicated that he saw the males and pointed to [] two men 

[walking] northbound up 60th Street. The officers began to 

cross the street toward the males and, upon seeing the 

officers, the males ran into a set of houses, located at 1211 

and 1213 North 60th Street. The officers knocked on the 

door of 1211 North 60th Street and were permitted inside, 

but the search provided negative results. The officers then 

knocked on the door of 1213 North 60th Street, where the 

second floor resident informed them that the first floor 

resident was unknown, but that a girl lived on the third 

floor. The officers proceeded to the third floor and 

[Appellant] opened the door and informed the officers that 

he was in his apartment with his girlfriend and another 

friend. [Appellant] was brought outside and [the victim] 

identified him as one of the males who had [robbed him]. 

The officers returned upstairs and found Hill lying [on] the 

[floor] of a closet[. The officers brought Hill] outside, and 

[the victim] identified [Hill] as [the second of the three 

males who had robbed him]. 

Trial Court Opinion, 12/5/13, at 3-4.

Following Appellant’s trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of robbery, 

conspiracy, burglary, criminal trespass, carrying a firearm without a license, 
J-S47021-14

- 3 - 

carrying a firearm in public in Philadelphia, and possessing instruments of 

crime.1

 The trial court then found Appellant guilty of possession of a firearm 

by a prohibited person.2 On November 20, 2012, the trial court sentenced 

Appellant to serve an aggregate term of six-and-a-half to 20 years in prison 

for the above convictions. 

Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion and claimed that his 

convictions were against the weight of the evidence and that his sentence 

was manifestly excessive. The trial court held a hearing on Appellant’s postsentence motion, after which the trial court denied Appellant’s motion in part 

and granted Appellant’s motion in part. Specifically, the trial court denied 

Appellant’s motion for a new trial, but granted Appellant’s motion to 

reconsider the sentence. On June 28, 2013, the trial court resentenced 

Appellant to serve an aggregate term of five-and-a-half to 20 years in 

prison. 

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from his judgment of 

sentence. Appellant now raises the following claim to this Court: 

Did not the trial court err and abuse its discretion in denying 

Appellant’s motion to set aside the verdict on all charges as 

against the weight of the evidence, where the [victim’s] 

testimony and prior statements to [the] police were 

inconsistent, contradictory, and totally unreliable, 

____________________________________________ 

1

 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701(a)(1)(ii), 903, 3502(a), 3503(a)(1)(i), 6106(a)(1), 

6108, and 907(a), respectively. 

 

2

 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1). 
J-S47021-14

- 4 - 

particularly concerning the critical issue of his identification 

of Appellant? 

Appellant’s Brief at 3.

Our Supreme Court has held: 

a verdict is against the weight of the evidence only when 

the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock 

one’s sense of justice. It is well established that a weight of 

the evidence claim is addressed to the discretion of the trial 

court. A new trial should not be granted because of a mere 

conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same 

facts would have arrived at a different conclusion. Rather, 

the role of the trial court is to determine that 

notwithstanding all the evidence, certain facts are so clearly 

of greater weight that to ignore them, or to give them equal 

weight with all the facts, is to deny justice. A motion for a 

new trial on the grounds that the verdict is contrary to the 

weight of the evidence concedes that there is sufficient 

evidence to sustain the verdict; thus the trial court is under 

no obligation to view the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the verdict winner. 

Significantly, in a challenge to the weight of the evidence, 

the function of an appellate court on appeal is to review the 

trial court’s exercise of discretion based upon a review of 

the record, rather than to consider de novo the underlying 

question of the weight of the evidence. In determining 

whether this standard has been met, appellate review is 

limited to whether the trial judge’s discretion was properly 

exercised, and relief will only be granted where the facts 

and inferences of record disclose a palpable abuse of 

discretion. It is for this reason that the trial court’s denial of 

a motion for a new trial based on a weight of the evidence 

claim is the least assailable of its rulings. 

Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211, 1225 (Pa. 2009) (internal 

quotations and citations omitted). “An abuse of discretion is not merely an 

error of judgment, but is rather the overriding or misapplication of the law, 

or the exercise of judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of 
J-S47021-14

- 5 - 

bias, prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as shown by the evidence of record.” 

Commonwealth v. Serrano, 61 A.3d 279, 290 (Pa. Super. 2013) (internal 

quotations and citations omitted). 

Within Appellant’s post-sentence motion, Appellant claimed that the 

jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence because: 1) during 

trial, the victim testified that, at the time of the robbery, he was familiar 

with the names and voices of Appellant and Hill – however, the victim did 

not testify to this fact at the preliminary hearing and the police report 

contains no such statement; 2) during trial, the victim testified that he could 

see the faces of the robbers – however, the victim originally informed the 

police that the robbers were all wearing masks; and, 3) during trial, the 

victim testified that the robbers all carried firearms – however, another 

witness told the police that she did not see the robbers carrying firearms. 

Appellant’s Post-Sentence Motion, 12/4/12, at 1-2. Appellant claimed that 

the above discrepancies showed that the victim’s identification testimony 

was inconsistent and, therefore, that the jury’s verdict was against the 

weight of the evidence. Id. The trial court denied Appellant’s weight of the 

evidence claim. 

Now on appeal, Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his 

weight claim by reiterating the above contentions. However, it is clear that 

the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Appellant’s weight 

of the evidence challenge. Certainly, the jury was well aware of the alleged 

“inconsistencies” in the victim’s testimony. Nevertheless, after hearing and 
J-S47021-14

- 6 - 

observing the victim testify at trial, the jury concluded that the victim’s trial 

testimony was truthful and accurate with respect to the fact that, on 

September 26, 2011, Appellant robbed the victim and that, during the 

robbery, Appellant employed a firearm. 

The jury’s credibility determinations were well within its province as 

fact-finder. Moreover, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion when it concluded that the jury’s verdict was not “so contrary to 

the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.” Rivera, 983 A.2d at 1225. 

Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when 

it denied Appellant’s weight of the evidence claim.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 9/22/2014