J-S70009-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

BRIAN P. MCKEOWN,

Appellant No. 1186 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of April 10, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006301-2014

and CP-51-CR-0006302-2014

BEFORE: OLSON, OTT and MUSMANNO, JJ.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 02, 2016

Appellant, Brian P. McKeown, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered on April 10, 2015. We affirm.

The factual background and procedural history of this case is as 

follows.1 On March 23, 2014, at approximately 1:45 p.m., Appellant and his 

son attempted to burglarize a residence on Nautilus Road in Philadelphia. 

Appellant broke the lock on the back door of the residence with a hammer 

and then fled the scene. On June 9, 2014, Appellant was charged via 

 

1 Appellant’s notice of appeal included both docket numbers CP-51-CR0006301-2014 and CP-51-CR-0006302-2014. In his brief, however, 

Appellant indicates that he is only challenging his convictions from docket 

number CP-51-CR-0006302-2014. See Appellant’s Brief at 16. Accordingly, 

we only discuss the factual background and procedural history of the 

convictions from that docket number. 
J-S70009-16

- 2 -

criminal information with attempted burglary,2attempted trespass,3

conspiracy to commit burglary,4criminal mischief,5and possessing an 

instrument of crime.6 On January 15, 2015, Appellant proceeded to a bench 

trial and was found guilty of all five charges. On April 10, 2015, Appellant 

was sentenced to an aggregate term of three to six years’ imprisonment. 

This timely appeal followed. Appellant presents one issue for our review, 

“Was the evidence insufficient to convict Appellant?” Appellant’s Brief at 3. 

Appellant’s lone issue challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. 

“Whether sufficient evidence exists to support the verdict is a question of 

law; our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” 

Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d 788, 792 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal 

denied, 119 A.3d 351 (Pa. 2015) (citation omitted). “When reviewing the 

sufficiency of the evidence, this Court is tasked with determining whether 

the evidence at trial, and all reasonable inferences derived therefrom, are 

sufficient to establish all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt 

when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth[.]” 

Commonwealth v. Haney, 131 A.3d 24, 33 (Pa. 2015) (citation omitted). 

 

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901, 3502. 

3 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a), 3503.

4 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903, 3502.

5 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3304(a)(2). 

6 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a)
J-S70009-16

- 3 -

“The evidence need not preclude every possibility of innocence and the factfinder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented.” 

Commonwealth v. Coleman, 130 A.3d 38, 41 (Pa. Super. 2015) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to link him to the 

attempted burglary on Nautilus Road. He contends that he and his son were 

knocking on doors in the neighborhood seeking work. Appellant cites 

Commonwealth v. Stanley, 309 A.2d 408 (Pa. 1973), for the proposition 

that evidence of a broken door lock is insufficient to find a defendant guilty 

of attempted burglary. The Commonwealth, however, presented sufficient 

evidence tying Appellant to the attempted burglary. At trial, James Norton, 

a neighbor, testified that he witnessed Appellant and his son attempting to

burglarize the residence. N.T., 1/15/15, at 15. This Court has held that 

eyewitness identification of a defendant is sufficient to prove a defendant 

was the perpetrator of an offense. See Commonwealth v. Kendricks, 30 

A.3d 499, 509 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 46 A.3d 716 (Pa. 2012). 

Appellant’s argument goes to the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency. 

See Commonwealth v. Brewington, 740 A.2d 247, 251 (Pa. Super. 

1999), appeal denied, 758 A.2d 660 (Pa. 2000). Accordingly, there was 

sufficient evidence to convict Appellant.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 
J-S70009-16

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/2/2016