Court Opinion

ID: 9397566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 16:10:27.432255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:25.894871
License: Public Domain

J-S13021-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    GEORGE MACK                                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1426 EDA 2022

          Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 5, 2022
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
                 Criminal Division at CP-51-CR-0009515-2019

BEFORE:      NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                                  FILED MAY 25, 2023

        George Mack (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed after the trial court convicted him of violating the Uniform Firearms

Act (UFA) by unlawfully possessing a firearm, carrying a firearm without a

license, and carrying a firearm without a license on Philadelphia public

streets.1

        The trial court stated the facts presented at trial as follows:

               Philadelphia Police Officer, Michael Diaz (Officer Diaz),
        testified at trial that he and his partner, Officer Robert Alvarez
        (Officer Alvarez), were on bike patrol on the evening of October
        25, 2019. Around 6:15 p.m., the officers traveled down the 2700
        block of North Darien Street and saw Appellant standing on the
        west side of the street talking to two males. (N.T. 2/22/22 at pgs.
        9-11).
____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6105, 6106, and 6108.
J-S13021-23

            Appellant looked in the officers’ direction but immediately
     turned away, as though “concealing something.” As the officers
     continued riding, Appellant crossed to the east side of the street
     where a silver SUV was parked. No one else was on that side of
     the street. From around twenty (20) feet away, Officer Diaz
     observed Appellant “toss[] a black object underneath that SUV”
     and “heard a metallic sound.” Suspecting that the object was a
     gun, Officer Diaz directed Officer Alvarez to stop Appellant, who
     by then “was walking northbound and kept looking back at [the
     officers].” Meanwhile, Officer Diaz looked beneath the SUV and
     observed a “black Sig Sauer .40 caliber” handgun, which was the
     only object under the vehicle. Officer Diaz recovered the gun,
     discovered it was loaded, and placed it on a property receipt. (Id.
     at 11-13, 23).

            Appellant stipulated that the Commonwealth tested the gun
     and found it was operable, that the Commonwealth obtained a
     certificate of non-licensure stating that Appellant lacked a valid
     license to carry a firearm, and that Appellant was prohibited from
     possessing a firearm due to a prior conviction. (Id. at 24).

            Appellant took the stand. He testified that he was arrested
     after an 11-hour workday, while walking to a nearby home for a
     card game that his mother arranged to celebrate his birthday.
     Appellant testified that he obeyed Officer Alvarez’s directive to
     stop, after which the two males with whom he was speaking fled
     the area. Appellant testified that he conversed with Officer
     Alvarez for several minutes while Officer Diaz searched beneath
     multiple parked cars in the vicinity. Appellant testified that Officer
     Diaz eventually came “running down the block with a gun in his
     hand,” prompting Appellant to grab Officer Alvarez and “put him
     in front of [Appellant]” as a shield. According to Appellant, Officer
     Diaz asked whether the gun belonged to him, and Appellant
     responded no. (Id. at 26-31).

Trial Court Opinion, 6/23/22, at 1-3 (footnotes omitted).

     On February 22, 2022, the trial court convicted Appellant of the above

UFA violations. On May 5, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an

aggregate 3 — 6 years of incarceration.       Appellant filed a post-sentence

                                     -2-
J-S13021-23

motion seeking a new trial on May 7, 2022; the trial court denied the motion

on May 9, 2022. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and court-ordered

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

      Appellant presents the following issue:

      Was the testimony presented sufficient to sustain a conviction for
      6105, 6106 and 6108 of The Uniform Firearms Act?

Appellant’s Brief at 8.

      When considering a sufficiency claim, we “determine whether the

evidence, and all reasonable inferences deducible from that, viewed in the

light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, are sufficient to

establish all elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.” See, e.g.,

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 727 A.2d 1089, 1092 (Pa. 1999). It is well-

settled that the Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every

element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly

circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. v. Wise, 171 A.3d 784, 790

(Pa. Super. 2017). We have explained:

      Our law is crystal clear that the trier of fact, in passing upon the
      credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced,
      is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented. The
      Superior Court may not reweigh the evidence and substitute our
      judgment for that of the finder of fact. If the factfinder reasonably
      could have determined from the evidence adduced that all of the
      necessary elements of the crime were established, then that
      evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict.

Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910, 913-14 (Pa. Super. 2000)

(citations omitted).

                                      -3-
J-S13021-23

      With respect to Appellant’s convictions of unlawfully possessing a

firearm and carrying a firearm without a license,

      to convict a defendant for possession of a firearm by a prohibited
      person, the Commonwealth must prove the defendant was
      previously convicted of a specific offense enumerated in section
      6105. Commonwealth v. Jemison, 626 Pa. 489, 98 A.3d 1254,
      1261 (2014). In order to convict a defendant for carrying a
      firearm without a license [pursuant to section 6106], the
      Commonwealth must prove: that the weapon was a firearm; that
      the firearm was unlicensed; and that where the firearm was
      concealed on or about the person, it was outside his home or place
      of business. Commonwealth v. Parker, 847 A.2d 745, 750 (Pa.
      Super. 2004).

Commonwealth v. Hewlett, 189 A.3d 1004, 1009 (Pa. Super. 2018)

      As to Appellant’s third conviction for carrying a firearm on public streets

in Philadelphia:

      No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon
      the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first
      class unless:

      (1)   Such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or

      (2)   Such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b)
            of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a
            license).

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108. An individual commits an offense under section 6108 if

he carries a firearm at any time on the public streets of Philadelphia without

a license. Id.

      Instantly, Appellant claims the evidence was insufficient, as to all three

convictions, to support the trial court’s finding that he possessed a firearm.

                                      -4-
J-S13021-23

Appellant states, “because the firearm was not found on [A]ppellant’s person,

the   Commonwealth was required to          prove   [A]ppellant constructively

possessed the firearm.” Appellant’s Brief at 12. Appellant argues:

      [A police officer s]eeing [Appellant] throw a black object and
      hearing a metallic sound is not sufficient evidence to establish that
      [Appellant] possessed the firearm. No DNA, no fingerprints or
      other objective evidence linked [Appellant] to the firearm. The
      testimony regarding any observations is inadequate when
      considering that it conflicts itself [sic]. The evidence is weakened
      by the fact the other officer did not see a black object or hear a
      metallic sound. The officer was close enough to hear “a metallic
      sound” yet not able to clearly observe a firearm.

Id. at 10.

      Appellant claims “the Commonwealth[’s] case is a single bald

observation in no way corroborated by [another] officer or video.” Id. at 13.

Appellant seeks reversal of his convictions because “the paucity of evidence …

is remarkable for its weakness and inconclusiveness.” Id. at 12.

      Conversely, the Commonwealth states:

      [Appellant] argues that there was insufficient evidence to
      establish his unlawful possession of a firearm because, in his
      opinion, the court should not have credited the testimony of the
      Commonwealth’s witnesses (Appellant’s Brief, 10).               This
      undeveloped argument ignores the standard of review and instead
      improperly asks this [C]ourt to evaluate his evidence with all
      inferences in favor of himself, rather than the verdict winner. The
      verdicts were supported by ample evidence and the judgments
      should be affirmed.

Commonwealth Brief at 5.

      Upon review, we agree with the Commonwealth.            Evidence “will be

deemed sufficient” if “the factfinder reasonably could have determined from

                                      -5-
J-S13021-23

the evidence adduced that all of the necessary elements of the crime were

established.”   Hopkins, supra.       Notably, Appellant stipulated that he was

prohibited from possessing a firearm due to a prior conviction; he also

stipulated to the Commonwealth’s certificate of nonlicensure stating Appellant

lacked a license to carry a firearm, and stipulated to the Commonwealth

testing the gun and finding it to be operable. See N.T., 2/22/22, at 24.

      The trial court explained:

      Officer Diaz testified that he and Officer Alvarez were on bike
      patrol on the 2700 block of Darien Street, where he observed
      Appellant standing with two other males. Appellant looked in
      Officer Diaz’s direction but then turned away, as though
      “concealing something.” Appellant thereafter crossed the street
      to where a silver SUV was parked. Nobody else was on that side
      of the street. From around twenty (20) feet away, Officer Diaz
      observed Appellant throw a black object beneath the SUV. He
      simultaneously heard a metallic sound and believed Appellant had
      just discarded a gun. Officer Diaz therefore directed Officer
      Alvarez to stop Appellant, who then “was walking northbound and
      kept looking back at [the officers].” Officer Diaz meanwhile looked
      beneath the SUV and observed a “black Sig Sauer .40 caliber”
      handgun, which was the only object under the vehicle. Officer
      Diaz recovered the gun, discovered it was loaded, and placed it
      on a property receipt. (N.T. 2/22/22 at 11-13, 23).

Trial Court Opinion, 6/23/22, at 4.

      The trial court “deemed [Officer Diaz] credible,” and concluded the

officer’s testimony “amply established that Appellant possessed a firearm in

violation of 18 Pa. C.S. § 6105(a), and he carried a firearm in violation of 18

Pa. C.S. §§ 6106 and 6108.” Id. at 5. As the record supports the trial court’s

findings, Appellant’s sufficiency issue does not merit relief.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                       -6-
J-S13021-23

     P.J.E. Stevens joins the memorandum.

     Judge Nichols concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/25/2023

                                   -7-