J-A14012-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JOHN GORDON,

Appellant No. 1088 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 4, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0006008-2011

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SHOGAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 14, 2017

Appellant, John Gordon, appeals from the judgment of sentence of life 

imprisonment, without the possibility of parole, imposed after he was 

convicted, following a non-jury trial, of first-degree murder and persons not 

to possess a firearm. On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency and 

weight of the evidence to support the court’s verdict. After careful review, 

we affirm.

Appellant’s convictions stem from the July 18, 2011 murder of Randy 

Campbell, who was gunned down around 2:00 a.m. outside an after-hours 

nightclub in Upper Darby, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. After Appellant 

was charged in this case, he waived his right to a jury trial in exchange for 

the Commonwealth’s agreement not to seek the death penalty. Appellant 

proceeded to a non-jury trial that spanned several days in September and 
J-A14012-17

- 2 -

October of 2015. At the close thereof, the court convicted Appellant of the 

above-stated offenses. He was then sentenced on December 4, 2015, to an 

aggregate term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. 

Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, challenging the 

sufficiency and weight of the evidence to sustain his convictions. After a 

hearing, the court denied Appellant’s motion. He filed a timely notice of 

appeal, and he also timely complied with the trial court’s order to file a 

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

Herein, Appellant presents two issues for our review:

A. Was the guilty verdict finding Appellant guilty of first[-]degree 

murder contrary to law insofar as the evidence presented by the 

Commonwealth was inherently contradictory such that the guilty 

verdict constitutes a due process violation?

B. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion by denying 

Appellant’s motion seeking a new trial on weight of the evidence 

grounds?

Appellant’s Brief at 3.

On December 30, 2016, The Honorable Kevin F. Kelly of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Delaware County filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. In 

Judge Kelly’s extensive, 53-page decision, he thoroughly summarizes the 

evidence presented at Appellant’s trial, and he provides a well-reasoned 

analysis of the two claims Appellant raises herein. Having reviewed the 

certified record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that Judge Kelly’s 

analysis correctly disposes of Appellant’s issues. Therefore, we adopt Judge 
J-A14012-17

- 3 -

Kelly’s decision as our own and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence on 

that basis.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/14/2017
Circulated 07/19/2017 02:52 PM















Circulated 07/19/2017 02:52 PM















Circulated 07/19/2017 02:52 PM