Court Opinion

ID: 9399552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-05 16:12:47.96606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:30.659848
License: Public Domain

J-A05024-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :         PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 EDWARD BROWN                             :
                                          :
                   Appellant              :    No. 1403 EDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 12, 2019,
           in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008622-2017.

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                             FILED JUNE 5, 2023

     Edward Brown appeals nunc pro tunc from the 10-to-20-year judgment

of sentence imposed following his conviction for persons not to possess

firearms, under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1). We affirm.

     The trial court set out the factual background as follows:

            On August 26, 2017, at approximately 3:40 a.m., Officers
     Daniel Orth and Sean Devlin were patrolling the area near 52 nd
     and Master Streets in a marked police vehicle. The officers pulled
     up behind a Honda Accord, which was waiting at a red light at the
     intersection of 52nd and Master Streets. [Brown] was driving the
     vehicle and he was the only occupant. While the light was still
     red, [Brown] made a left turn onto Master Street. The officers
     briefly followed [Brown], who failed to stop at several stop signs
     before the officers activated the police vehicle’s lights and siren to
     initiate a traffic stop. [Brown] eventually stopped his vehicle near
     the intersection of 55th and Master Streets. Fearing [Brown]
     would drive away because his brake lights were on, Officer Orth,
     who was driving the police vehicle, leaned out the window and
     ordered [Brown] to take his foot off the brake and turn his car off.
     Immediately thereafter, [Brown] drove away, turned onto 55th
J-A05024-23

      Street, and began driving at a high rate of speed. The officers
      followed [Brown] in their vehicle. [Brown] then made a left turn
      off of 55th Street onto Media Street and crashed into parked
      vehicles on Media Street.

            When the Officers pulled up to the intersection of 55 th and
      Media Streets, they saw that [Brown’s] vehicle had crashed. They
      then observed a dark object being thrown out of the vehicle’s open
      sunroof. Immediately thereafter, [Brown] climbed out of the
      driver’s seat window and began to flee from the officers. Officer
      Devlin pursued [Brown] on foot and Officer Orth pursued him in
      his vehicle. As he pursued [Brown], Officer Devlin ordered
      [Brown] to stop. Initially, [Brown] did not comply, but eventually
      [Brown] stopped running and Officer Devlin was able to apprehend
      and handcuff [Brown]. Seeing that his partner had apprehended
      [Brown], Officer Orth went back to the area where he had
      observed the dark object that was thrown from [Brown’s] vehicle
      land and found a loaded 9mm handgun on the ground
      approximately 5 feet from where the car accident took place.
      Officer Orth then searched [Brown’s] vehicle and found 3 rounds
      of ammunition that matched the type of ammunition that was in
      the recovered firearm. [Brown] was prohibited from possessing a
      firearm because he has a felony conviction for robbery.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/24/22, at 2–3 (quoting Trial Court Opinion, 11/15/19,

at 2–3) (record citations omitted).

      A jury convicted Brown of persons not to possess firearms. On July 12,

2019, Brown was sentenced to 10 to 20 years of imprisonment. Brown filed

post-sentence motions, which were denied. On direct appeal, this Court found

that all of Brown’s claims were either waived or abandoned because his

counsel did not develop them. Commonwealth v. Brown, No. 2369 EDA

2019, 2020 WL 5797641, at *2–3 (Pa. Super. Sept. 29, 2020) (non-

precedential memorandum).

      Brown then filed a petition and an amended petition under the Post

Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541–9546, seeking to reinstate

                                      -2-
J-A05024-23

his direct appeal rights. On April 29, 2022, the PCRA court reinstated Brown’s

direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc. Brown appealed.1 Brown and the trial

court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

       Brown raises three issues for our review:

       1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion, and/or make a mistake
          of law in upholding the verdict in the situation where there was
          insufficient evidence to demonstrate that [Brown] “was in
          physical possession or control of a firearm, whether visible,
          concealed about the person or within the person’s reach?”

       2. Did the trial court err, abuse its discretion, and/or make a
          mistake of law when it denied [Brown’s] Post-Sentence Motion
          that the guilty verdict was against the weight of the evidence?

       3. Did the [sentencing] court err, abuse its discretion, and/or
          make a mistake of law when [Brown] was sentenced as a
          REVOC and the [sentencing court] considered as a factor that
          somebody with a record like [Brown’s] was driving around with
          a loaded hand gun?

Brown’s Brief at 6–7 (reordered for ease of disposition, footnote omitted).

       Brown first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his

conviction. Brown’s Brief at 16–17. He argues that the evidence at trial was

insufficient to establish that the handgun was in his possession or control.

              Our standard of review in assessing whether sufficient
       evidence was presented to sustain an appellant’s conviction is
       well-settled. 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 this test, we
____________________________________________

1 Brown’s notice of appeal mentioned only the order reinstating his appellate
rights. In response to this Court’s rule to show cause, Brown explained that
he meant to appeal from the judgment of sentence, not the PCRA court order.
We have amended the case caption accordingly.

                                           -3-
J-A05024-23

      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.

Commonwealth v. Boyer, 282 A.3d 1161, 1171 (Pa. Super. 2022) (brackets

omitted) (quoting Commonwealth v. Walsh, 36 A.3d 613, 618–19 (Pa.

Super. 2012)).

      For the Section 6105(a)(1) offense, the Commonwealth was required to

prove that Brown possessed a firearm. Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84

A.3d 736, 757 (Pa. Super. 2014).         We conclude that the evidence was

sufficient to establish this element. Specifically, police testified that they saw

a dark object thrown out of the car that Brown had just crashed, and they

recovered the handgun from where the object had landed, as well as

compatible ammunition in the car. This occurred at 3:40 in the morning, and

there was no one else in the car. Viewed in a light most favorable to the

Commonwealth as verdict winner, this is sufficient to establish that Brown

possessed the handgun. No relief is due on Brown’s first claim.

      Brown next challenges the weight of the evidence. Brown’s Brief at 12–

15. He emphasizes that he was never in actual possession of a handgun, that

                                      -4-
J-A05024-23

the officers had previously denied seeing Brown’s hand touch the gun, and

that the facts do not establish that he constructively possessed the gun.

             The weight given to trial evidence is a choice for the
      factfinder. If the factfinder returns a guilty verdict, and if a
      criminal defendant then files a motion for a new trial on the basis
      that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, a trial
      court is not to grant relief unless the verdict is so contrary to the
      evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.

            When a trial court denies a weight-of-the-evidence motion,
      and when an appellant then appeals that ruling to this Court, our
      review is limited. It is important to understand we do not reach
      the underlying question of whether the verdict was, in fact,
      against the weight of the evidence. We do not decide how we
      would have ruled on the motion and then simply replace our own
      judgment for that of the trial court. Instead, this Court determines
      whether the trial court abused its discretion in reaching whatever
      decision it made on the motion, whether or not that decision is the
      one we might have made in the first instance.

            Moreover, when evaluating a trial court’s ruling, we keep in
      mind that an abuse of discretion is not merely an error in
      judgment. Rather, it involves bias, partiality, prejudice, ill-will,
      manifest unreasonableness or a misapplication of the law. By
      contrast, a proper exercise of discretion conforms to the law and
      is based on the facts of record.

Commonwealth v. Arnold, 284 A.3d 1262, 1277 (Pa. Super. 2022) (quoting

Commonwealth v. West, 937 A.2d 516, 521 (Pa. Super. 2007)).

      Here, the trial court reasoned that the evidence “plainly established”

Brown’s guilt. Trial Court Opinion, 11/15/19, at 7. We discern no abuse of

discretion. Despite the officer’s prior testimony that they did not see Brown’s

hand touch the gun, there was ample evidence to establish possession.

Therefore, the trial court acted within its discretion when it denied Brown’s

motion. No relief is due on Brown’s second claim.

                                      -5-
J-A05024-23

       Finally, Brown challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence.

Brown’s Brief at 17–18.        Specifically, Brown contends that the sentencing

court relied on an improper factor by “double counting” his prior record, which

was already necessary to establish that he was a person not to possess

firearms.

       The Commonwealth responds that Brown waived this specific claim by

failing to include it in his post-sentence motion, depriving the trial court of the

chance to address it in the first instance. Commonwealth’s Brief at 8–9.2 On

the merits, the Commonwealth argues that Brown’s standard-range sentence

was not an abuse of discretion.

       We conclude that Brown waived his challenge. His post-sentence motion

requested a “mitigated” sentence but did not claim that the sentencing court

improperly “double counted” his prior record. Motion for Re-consideration of

Sentence, 7/12/19, at 3. We note that Brown’s amended PCRA petition sought

only to reinstate his direct appeal rights and did not include a request to file

amended post-sentence motions nunc pro tunc.            Amended PCRA Petition,

1/18/22, at 6. Therefore, no relief is due on Brown’s final claim.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

2 The Commonwealth does not argue that Brown waived his claim by failing
to include a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement in his brief.

                                           -6-
J-A05024-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/5/2023

                          -7-