Court Opinion

ID: 9895289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-06 17:09:12.287771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:56.512005
License: Public Domain

J-S32026-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :         PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    DAIQUAN MAURICE DICKERSON                  :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :    No. 37 MDA 2023

          Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 27, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
                            CP-67-CR-0001016-2020

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                       FILED: NOVEMBER 6, 2023

       DaiQuan Maurice Dickerson appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered following his convictions for murder of the first degree, conspiracy,

and related offenses.1 We affirm.

       On December 18, 2019, Officer (now Detective) Daniel Craven of the

York City Police Department filed a criminal complaint against Dickerson

charging him with criminal homicide and related offenses. The case proceeded

to jury trial beginning on March 14, 2022.

       The evidence at trial established that Dickerson lived in an apartment

with Sterling Frantz. On December 12, 2019, Dickerson fronted marijuana to

Frantz. Frantz arranged to sell it to Emily Shoemaker; he would then repay

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a) (murder of the first degree), 903 (conspiracy),
901(a) (attempt to commit criminal homicide), 2702(a)(1) (aggravated
assault), and 6106(a)(1) (carrying a firearm without a license).
J-S32026-23

Dickerson and keep the rest of the sale price. Frantz got into Shoemaker’s

green Kia Soul to complete the transaction. Shoemaker and two of her friends

then grabbed Frantz, took the marijuana, and pushed him out of the car.

      Frantz returned to the apartment and told Dickerson that he had been

robbed. Dickerson asked Frantz if he wanted to go for a ride, and the two left

in Dickerson’s girlfriend’s car. Dickerson talked about being tired of losing

money and said that something had to change. He drove around until they

found Shoemaker’s car. Dickerson pursued the car, flashed his headlights,

and pulled forward into the opposite lane beside it.     Frantz testified that

Dickerson lowered the passenger side window, pulled a gun from his pocket,

and shot repeatedly. Dickerson testified that it was Frantz who told him to

follow the Kia and who shot at the victims while Dickerson had bent over.

      Shoemaker screamed.      Her car crashed, and she died from multiple

gunshot wounds. Her two passengers were injured. Dickerson drove off and

arranged for an acquaintance to remove the shell casings from the car. He

and Frantz returned to the apartment to shower and get rid of their clothes.

      The jury found Dickerson guilty of the above crimes. On May 27, 2022,

Dickerson was sentenced to an aggregate term of life plus 20 to 40 years of

imprisonment.    On June 6, 2022, Dickerson filed post-sentence motions,

including a motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence. The

Clerk of Courts entered an order denying Dickerson’s post-sentence motions

by operation of law on December 30, 2022.

                                    -2-
J-S32026-23

       Dickerson filed a notice of appeal on January 6, 2023.2 He complied

with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b).             The trial court

entered a Rule 1925(a) opinion on May 10, 2023.

       Dickerson presents three issues for this Court’s review:

       1. Was the evidence presented at trial sufficient to convict
          [Dickerson] of criminal conspiracy to commit first-degree
          murder when the evidence does not establish beyond a
          reasonable doubt that there was actually a conspiracy between
          [Dickerson] and the alleged co-conspirator to commit the
          murder at issue in this case?

       2. Did the trial court err when it rejected [Dickerson’s] claim that
          the verdict in this case went against the weight of the evidence,
          when the sole witness directly implicating [Dickerson] was
          seeking a deal from the Commonwealth on similar charges
          based on the same incident, and is so unreliable and
          contradictory that it is incapable of supporting a guilty verdict
          against [Dickerson] in this matter?

       3. Did the trial court err when it failed to declare a mistrial in this
          matter, when . . . the trial court’s statements regarding
          [Dickerson’s] counsel during trial created a bias against
          [Dickerson] in the eyes of the jury?

Dickerson’s Brief at 8 (excess capitalization omitted).

____________________________________________

2 We treat Dickerson’s notice of appeal as timely.  See Commonwealth v.
Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003) (finding a breakdown in court
operations where the Clerk of Courts did not enter an order denying post-
sentence motions at the time specified in Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(d)). We
remind counsel that in a criminal case, an appeal lies from the judgment of
sentence, not the order denying post-sentence motions. Commonwealth v.
Stevenson, 287 A.3d 903, 904 n.1 (citing Commonwealth v. Dreves, 839
A.2d 1122, 1125 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc)).

                                           -3-
J-S32026-23

                        1. Sufficiency of the Evidence

      First, Dickerson contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain

his conviction for conspiracy to commit murder. He emphasizes that Frantz

minimized his own involvement by testifying that he was just going to go for

a drive and smoke, that the pair did not discuss the robbery during the drive,

and that Frantz refused to identify the car because he did not want anything

to do with what was going to happen. Therefore, Dickerson argues that there

was no evidence that he and Frantz shared a criminal intent to commit murder.

      This Court applies a well-established standard to a claim implicating the

sufficiency of the evidence:

      The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
      is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light
      most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence
      to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond
      a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh
      the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In
      addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by
      the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of
      innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be
      resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and
      inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be
      drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth
      may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime
      beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial
      evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record
      must be evaluated, and all evidence actually received must be
      considered. Finally, the trier of fact while passing upon the
      credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced,
      is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.

                                     -4-
J-S32026-23

Commonwealth v. Holt, 270 A.3d 1230, 1233 (Pa. Super. 2022) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Jackson, 215 A.3d 972, 980 (Pa. Super. 2019))

(brackets omitted).

      The elements of the underlying crime of murder of the first degree are

“(1) a human being was unlawfully killed; (2) the defendant is responsible for

the killing; and (3) the defendant acted with a specific intent to kill.”

Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 956 A.2d 926, 932 (Pa. 2008) (citing 18

Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a) and Commonwealth v. Spotz, 759 A.2d 1280, 1283

(Pa. 2000)).   The elements of criminal conspiracy are “(1) the defendant

intended to commit or aid in the commission of the criminal act; (2) the

defendant entered into an agreement with another . . . to engage in the crime;

and (3) the defendant or one or more of the other co-conspirators committed

an overt act in furtherance of the agreed upon crime.”              Id. (quoting

Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228, 1238 (Pa. 2004)); see 18

Pa.C.S.A. § 903(a)(1).

      “In most cases of conspiracy, it is difficult to prove an explicit or formal

agreement; hence, the agreement is generally established via circumstantial

evidence, such as by ‘the relations, conduct, or circumstances of the parties

or overt acts on the part of co-conspirators.’” Commonwealth v. Johnson,

985 A.2d 915, 920 (Pa. 2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Spotz, 716 A.2d

580, 592 (Pa. 1998)). If the object of conspiracy is homicide, any conspirator

“can be convicted of first-degree murder regardless of who inflicted the fatal

wound.” Id. (quoting Montalvo, 956 A.2d at 932).

                                      -5-
J-S32026-23

      Here, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Dickerson and

Frantz agreed that they would kill Shoemaker. As the trial court summarized:

      Mr. Frantz told [Dickerson] about the robbery, who had robbed
      him, and what kind of vehicle they were driving. Both Mr. Frantz
      and [Dickerson] lost money as a result of that robbery, and were
      both angered by it. [Dickerson] and Mr. Frantz subsequently got
      into a vehicle and drove around together until they located
      [Shoemaker] in her vehicle, and [they] shot and killed her.

            From the foregoing, the jury could reasonably infer that
      [Dickerson] and Mr. Frantz tacitly agreed to hunt down
      [Shoemaker] and kill her in retaliation for the robbery that
      occurred earlier. Because the object of the conspiracy was
      successfully carried out, the murder itself was the overt act for
      purposes of the conspiracy statute.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/10/23, at 6–7.

      We agree with the trial court’s reasoning. Although Frantz disclaimed

any desire to be involved in shooting at Shoemaker’s car, the jury could infer

from his actions—telling Dickerson about the robbery and riding with him as

they looked for the car—that the two agreed to kill Shoemaker. Furthermore,

Dickerson’s own testimony that Frantz told him to follow the car and that

Frantz shot at it repeatedly would also support the conclusion that Frantz had

agreed to the object of the conspiracy. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient

to sustain Dickerson’s conviction for criminal conspiracy to commit murder,

and Dickerson’s first issue fails.

                           2. Weight of the Evidence

      Second, Dickerson argues that the trial court abused its discretion by

finding that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. He notes

                                     -6-
J-S32026-23

that the Commonwealth’s only evidence identifying him as the shooter was

the testimony of Frantz. Dickerson urges that because Frantz was also facing

criminal charges for murder and conspiracy, Frantz was a corrupt source who

had an incentive to testify to receive favorable treatment. He thus concludes

that the jury’s verdict should shock one’s sense of justice, and his case should

be remanded for a new trial.

      This Court reviews a weight-of-the-evidence claim under the following

principles:

      First, . . . the weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder
      of fact, who is free to believe all, none or some of the evidence
      and to determine the credibility of witnesses. Second, a verdict
      will only be reversed on this basis where the evidence is so
      tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the
      conscience of the court. Third, the fact-finder is charged with the
      responsibility to resolve contradictory testimony and questions of
      credibility, and we may not substitute our judgment in place of
      the fact-finder.

            A motion for a new trial based on a weight-of-the-evidence
      claim . . . is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and
      therefore, we review only the [trial] court’s exercise of discretion
      and not the underlying question of whether the verdict is against
      the weight of the evidence. When reviewing a trial court’s
      determination on a weight claim, we give the gravest
      consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial
      judge because it is the trial judge, not the appellate court, who
      had the opportunity to see and hear the evidence presented.

Commonwealth v. Fuentes, 272 A.3d 511, 516 (Pa. Super. 2022)

(brackets, quotations, and citations omitted).

      Here, after Dickerson’s post-sentence motion for a new trial was denied

by operation of law, the trial court explained its treatment of Dickerson’s

                                      -7-
J-S32026-23

weight-of-the-evidence claim in its Rule 1925(a) opinion.       The trial court

observed that “the jury was well aware of the charges that Sterling Frantz was

facing, as well as what he was hoping to get for testifying.”       Trial Court

Opinion, 5/10/23, at 8. Further, the court observed that many of Frantz’s

statements were corroborated with other evidence at trial.         Id. at 8–9.

Therefore, the trial court concluded that the verdict was consistent with the

evidence and did not shock its conscience. Id. at 9–10.

      We discern no abuse of discretion. The trial court was in a position to

observe all the witnesses testifying, including Frantz. A review of the record

confirms that the jury was apprised of Frantz’s charges and expectations, as

well as the other evidence from which it could infer that Frantz was testifying

accurately.   Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and

Dickerson’s second issue fails.

                              3. Denial of Mistrial

      Third, Dickerson argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion

for a mistrial. He contends that the trial court repeatedly displayed discord

with defense counsel, showed disrespect in front of the jury and deprived

Dickerson of a fair trial. This culminated during cross-examination of Frantz’s

girlfriend Trinity Rebman, when the trial court spoke towards counsel:

      Q. And at this point in time you indicate -- I believe you actually
      told this to the police, you actually got out of bed and then looked
      out the window; is that right?

      A. Our bed was right near our window so --

                                     -8-
J-S32026-23

      Q. It’s a yes or no, did you look out the window?

      A. Yes.

      THE COURT: Give her a chance to answer [your] question, sir.
      Next question.

      [Defense counsel]: But I didn’t ask her --

      THE COURT: Give her a chance to answer your question.

N.T., 3/16/22, at 457–458.

      In chambers, counsel expressed that the trial court had been displaying

a bad attitude towards him, which could turn the jury against Dickerson. He

claimed two other incidents also reflected the issue:

      First, during jury selection, defense counsel spoke about the burden of

proof. He prompted the prospective jurors: “If you don’t agree with that,

please stand. For the record there is no response.” The trial court said, and

defense counsel repeated, “No one has arisen.” The court then stated:

      THE COURT: You can make all the faces that you want, sir, but
      I’m going to have to make sure that the record is clear. Go ahead,
      ask your next question.

      [Defense counsel]: I will, Your Honor.

N.T., 3/14/22, at 88–90.

      Second, in the cross-examination of one of the victims, the prosecutor

raised an objection and requested a sidebar.       The sidebar was conducted

without headphones, and defense counsel later asserted that the trial court

raised its voice when it told defense counsel not to read from the witness’

transcript.

                                     -9-
J-S32026-23

      Dickerson moved for a mistrial based on these incidents. The trial court

denied the motion and instructed the jury not to draw any inferences from the

interactions between the court and counsel. Id. at 489.

      This Court reviews a trial court’s denial of a motion for mistrial for an

abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Leap, 222 A.3d 386, 392 (Pa. Super.

2019) (citing Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013)). A

trial court abuses its discretion “when the course pursued represents not

merely an error of judgment, but where the judgment is manifestly

unreasonable or where the law is not applied or where the record shows that

the action is a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will.” Commonwealth

v. Caulk, 220 A.3d 1102, 1108 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quoting Commonwealth

v. Goldman, 70 A.3d 874, 878–79 (Pa. Super. 2013)).

      A mistrial is an extreme remedy that is appropriate “only where
      the incident upon which the motion is based is of such a nature
      that its unavoidable effect is to deprive the defendant of a fair trial
      by preventing the jury from weighing and rendering a true
      verdict.” Bryant, 67 A.3d at 728. “It is within the trial court’s
      discretion to determine whether a defendant was prejudiced by
      the incident that is the basis of a motion for a mistrial.”
      Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 774 (Pa. Super.
      2015) (en banc). When a trial court gives adequate cautionary
      instructions to the jury, it is not necessary for the court to declare
      a mistrial. Bryant, 67 A.3d at 728. “The law presumes that the
      jury will follow the instructions of the court.” Commonwealth v.
      Brown, 786 A.2d 961, 971 (Pa. 2001).

Leap, 222 A.3d at 392 (citations altered).

      Our Supreme Court has held that a “highly provocative event” between

the trial court and defense counsel may deprive a defendant of a fair trial

                                      - 10 -
J-S32026-23

based on “a reasonable probability the incident may have distracted the jury

from an objective appraisal of those legitimate issues presented on the

question of guilt or innocence.” Commonwealth v. Davis, 440 A.2d 1185,

1188 (Pa. 1981). For example, in Davis, the trial judge instructed the sheriffs

to take the defense attorney into custody because he had interrupted the

court. Id. at 1186–87. Considering the possible effect on the jury, the high

court held that the defendant was entitled to a new trial. Id. at 1188. By

contrast, however, our Supreme Court has also held that three “isolated

comments” by a trial judge, “which were directed solely to counsel and not his

client, did not reach the level where it could be reasonably concluded that [the

defendant] was deprived of a fair and impartial trial.” Commonwealth v.

England, 375 A.2d 1292, 1299 (Pa. 1977).

      Here, the record does not reflect that the trial court’s interactions with

defense counsel showed disrespect or antagonism that deprived Dickerson of

a fair trial before the jury. Rather, the trial court acted to ensure an organized

process of selecting a jury and receiving evidence.         Its comments were

directed solely to counsel and not the defendant. Further, the trial court

instructed the jury not to consider its interactions with the attorneys. Because

the trial court’s words and behavior did not distract the jury from assessing

Dickerson’s guilt or innocence as to the crimes charged, the trial court did not

abuse its discretion by denying Dickerson’s motion for a mistrial. Dickerson’s

third issue fails.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                     - 11 -
J-S32026-23

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 11/06/2023

                           - 12 -