J-S55005-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v.

BENDERICK STERNS, 

 Appellant No. 1688 EDA 2013 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 22, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006419-2012 

BEFORE: BOWES, SHOGAN, and OTT, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 

 Benderick Sterns appeals from the judgment of sentence of life 

imprisonment that the trial court imposed after he was convicted of firstdegree murder, conspiracy, possession of an unlicensed firearm, possession 

of a firearm on public property in Philadelphia, and possession of an 

instrument of crime. We reject his position that the convictions were against 

the weight of the evidence and affirm. 

 Appellant and his co-defendant, Kahhim Odom, were convicted based 

upon the testimony of three eyewitnesses to the November 27, 2011 

shooting death of Rymeek Horton. Additionally, Appellant admitted to killing 

the victim to another Commonwealth witness. The trial court aptly 

delineated the evidence adduced at trial: 
J-S55005-14

- 2 - 

On November 27, 2011, the night Rymeek Horton (“the 

decedent") was killed, he, Amir Jones ("Amir"), Amir's brother 

Omar Jones ("Omar"), and Ramil Andrews were hanging out, 

smoking marijuana in front of Amir's and Omar's grandmother's 

house on Malcom Street, a few houses down from Frazier Street 

in Philadelphia. Amir testified that they shared one bag of 

marijuana, and then Omar and the decedent decided to go down 

Frazier Street, in the direction away from Whitby Avenue, to get 

some more. The decedent turned back and began to walk back 

toward his aunt and uncle's house on Malcom Street to tell his 

uncle to leave the door unlocked. 

Two men then started running down Frazier Street, from 

the direction of Whitby Avenue, firing guns at the decedent. One 

of them was wearing a gray hoodie, the other had on a dark 

hoodie. Amir and Omar both identified the man in the gray 

hoodie as [Appellant] and the man in the dark hoodie as the 

defendant's co-defendant, Kahhim “Killa” Odom (“Odom"). 

[Appellant’s] gun jammed, but he cleared the jam and continued 

shooting. Omar ran, heard the decedent scream “Ouch,” turned 

around, and saw the decedent lying on the ground. 

When the first shots rang out, Vance Bradley ("Bradley") 

was in his house at 5628 Malcom Street. Bradley heard four 

shots and then a pause, and then he went to look out his door. 

The decedent was lying just in front of his house, about three 

feet from the sidewalk, in the street. Bradley testified that he 

saw [Appellant] and Odom walk toward the decedent—

[Appellant] was wearing a gray hoodie, and Odom was wearing a 

dark-colored hoodie, but Bradley could see both their faces. 

[Appellant] stood over the decedent, Odom just a few feet 

behind him, and fired four more shots at the decedent's head. 

Bradley then saw both the defendant and Odom run back up 

Frazier Street toward Whitby Avenue. 

. . . . 

Two days later, Stephon “Buddha” Brandon (“Brandon”) 

was at Paula Sharp’s house with her and Odom. When Brandon 

first arrived, Odom handed him a cell phone. [Appellant] was on 

the phone, and he asked Brandon what happened to the

decedent. Brandon told the defendant he did not know, and 

[Appellant] responded by saying: “That’s my work.” N.T. 

4/10/2013 at 153. Brandon said, “Dag, I liked Rymeek. He was 
J-S55005-14

- 3 - 

a cool person. Why you do that? Now his family is gonna think 

that . . . I did it because we went through something in the 

past.” [Id.]. [Appellant] responded that “it was over some 

money.” [Id.] Brandon told [Appellant] that, “Everything is 

gonna come to the light.” [Id.] Odom then jumped up, grabbed 

a pistol, called Brandon a [profane racial slur] and left the house. 

Trial Court Opinion, 11/21/13, at 2-4 (footnotes and extraneous citations to 

record omitted). The Commonwealth established that the victim died from 

multiple gunshot wounds, including three to the head. Appellant countered 

this proof by presenting two alibi witnesses with whom he purportedly was 

playing cards. 

 This appeal followed imposition of judgment of sentence and denial of 

Appellant’s post-sentence motion, which contained a claim that the verdict 

was against the weight of the evidence. Appellant raises a single claim on 

appeal: “Whether the Guilty Verdict Against The Appellant Was Against The 

Weight Of The Evidence.” Appellant’s brief at 4. Our standard of review in 

this context is extremely limited and well-ensconced: 

A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict 

is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the 

discretion of the trial court. [Commonwealth v.] Widmer,

744 A.2d [745,] 751–52 [Pa. 2000]; Commonwealth v. 

Brown, 538 Pa. 410, 648 A.2d 1177, 1189 (1994). 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. Widmer, 744 A.2d at 752. 

Rather, “the role of the trial judge is to determine that 

‘notwithstanding all the facts, 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.’” Id. at 320, 744 A.2d at 

752. It has often been stated that “a new trial should be 

awarded when the jury's verdict is so contrary to the evidence as 

to shock one's sense of justice and the award of a new trial is 
J-S55005-14

- 4 - 

imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to 

prevail.” Brown, 648 A.2d at 1189. 

An appellate court's standard of review when presented 

with a weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard 

of review applied by the trial court: 

Appellate review of a weight claim is a review 

of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying 

question of whether the verdict is against the weight 

of the evidence. Brown, 648 A.2d at 1189. 

Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to 

hear and see the evidence presented, an appellate 

court will give the gravest consideration to the 

findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge 

when reviewing a trial court's determination that the

verdict is against the weight of the evidence. 

Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 467 Pa. 50, 354 

A.2d 545 (1976). One of the least assailable reasons 

for granting or denying a new trial is the lower 

court's conviction that the verdict was or was not 

against the weight of the evidence. 

Widmer, 744 A.2d at 753. 

Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 758 (Pa.Super. 2014) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1054–55 (Pa. 2013)). 

 Herein, we have reviewed Appellant’s allegations and conclude that the 

trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s weight claim 

and we affirm on the basis of its November 21, 2013 opinion. We also 

observe that the jury was free to credit testimony linking Appellant to the 

crime and to reject his alibi witnesses’ testimony. Commonwealth v. 

Page, 59 A.3d 1118, 1130 (Pa.Super. 2013) (“A determination of credibility 

lies solely within the province of the factfinder.”); Commonwealth v. 

Blackham, 909 A.2d 315, 320 (Pa.Super. 2006) (“The weight of the 
J-S55005-14

- 5 - 

evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact, which is free to believe all, part, 

or none of the evidence, and to assess the credibility of the witnesses. . . . 

It is not for this Court to overturn the credibility determinations of the factfinder.”). 

 Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 9/15/2014 
Circulated 08/28/2014 11:33 AM
Circulated 08/28/2014 11:33 AM
Circulated 08/28/2014 11:33 AM
Circulated 08/28/2014 11:33 AM
Circulated 08/28/2014 11:33 AM
Circulated 08/28/2014 11:33 AM
Circulated 08/28/2014 11:33 AM
Circulated 08/28/2014 11:33 AM