Court Opinion

ID: 9840268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 17:10:52.436236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:11:38.559693
License: Public Domain

J-S23035-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
  SHYMEER BARNES                               :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :      No. 1768 EDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 21, 2022
            In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003382-2020

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                            FILED SEPTEMBER 15, 2023

       Appellant, Shymeer Barnes, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench

trial convictions for third-degree murder, persons not to possess firearms,

carrying a firearm without a license, carrying a firearm on public streets in

Philadelphia, possession of an instrument of crime (“PIC”), recklessly

endangering another person (“REAP”), aggravated assault, and simple

assault.1 We affirm.

       The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this

case as follows:

          On June 15, 2019, [Appellant] shot and killed April Coleman
          [(“Victim”)], an innocent bystander, while shooting at
____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(c), 6105(a), 6106(a), 6108, 907, 2705, 2702(a), and

2701(a) respectively.
J-S23035-23

       another individual.

       Police Officer Sebastian Carbone testified that on June 15,
       2019, at 1:30 p.m., at 2225 Ridge Avenue, in Philadelphia,
       Pa., he responded to a radio call of someone shot at the
       convenience store, CBM Beverage. Officer Carbone and his
       partner, Jessica Gwiazdowski, arrived on location within
       approximately three minutes. Upon arrival, P.O. Carbone
       observed a female with a gunshot wound to the left side of
       her head, slumped over on the floor at the Ridge Avenue
       entrance to the store. CBM Beverage had two entrances
       directly across from each other, one on Ridge Avenue and
       one on Cecil B. Moore Avenue.          Medics arrived and
       transported the female. Officer Carbone remained on scene
       and viewed footage from a video camera located in the store
       which captured the shooting. While on scene, Officer
       Carbone was notified that the victim’s name was April
       Coleman…, and that she had died from her injuries.

       Detective Thorsten Lucke, of the Philadelphia Police
       Homicide Unit, testified that his primary responsibility is
       recovering, archiving, and analyzing video footage. He
       analyzed the video footage recovered from CBM Beverage.
       Detective Lucke presented a video compilation of the
       surveillance footage, which consisted of one surveillance
       system with a total of three interior cameras and one
       exterior camera.

       The surveillance video which captured the murder was
       played for the court. It shows [Appellant] enter CBM
       Beverage at the Cecil B. Moore Avenue entrance. Inside the
       store, [Appellant] engages in a hand-to-hand transaction
       with an individual. [Appellant] remains near to the open
       doorway next to a female. He reaches into the female’s
       fanny pack and removes an item. A male (later identified
       as Kyle Smith) enters the store, through the same entrance,
       and approaches [Appellant]. The two males engage in an
       animated discussion for approximately three and one half
       minutes. [Appellant] continually reaches his right arm
       behind his back during this interaction. The female with the
       fanny pack remains behind [Appellant], closer to the door.
       Seconds after the female moves away, Kyle Smith reaches
       toward his back pocket. [Appellant] reaches for Smith’s
       back pocket with his left hand. After [Appellant] touches

                                  -2-
J-S23035-23

       Smith’s back pocket, [Appellant] lunges sideways out of the
       door, moving his right arm from behind his back where a
       gun is immediately visible. [Appellant] points the gun at
       Smith and Smith ducks. An outside camera angle then
       shows [Appellant] jump from the doorway onto the street,
       still pointing the gun, that appears to be a revolver, because
       it has a cylinder.       [Appellant] then steps toward the
       doorway, and fires a second round into the store, towards
       the direction of Ridge Avenue, before running off with the
       gun drawn.

       The security footage inside the store facing Ridge Avenue
       shows the patrons reacting to the gunshots by ducking and
       running. [Victim], who is seated on the floor, on the Ridge
       Avenue side of the store, slumps over and appears to be
       nonresponsive.

       Police Officer Theresa Weaver, from the Crime Scene Unit,
       testified that on June 15, 2019, she processed the crime
       scene. She viewed the video, took photos of the scene, and
       created a diagram. The building was located on a triangle
       where Cecil B. Moore and Ridge Avenues intersected. One
       door was located on Cecil B. Moore Ave., and the other on
       Ridge Ave. Officer Weaver estimated that the distance
       between entrances was approximately 31 feet. Officer
       Weaver observed blood on the door and the floor located at
       the Ridge Ave. entrance. There was a bullet strike mark on
       the sheet rock beside the door jam on Cecil B. Moore Ave.
       There was also a bullet strike mark on the door on Ridge
       Ave., near where [Victim] was located. No ballistic evidence
       was located at the scene.

                                *    *    *

       Counsel stipulated to the fact that Officer Daniel Cha, from
       the Philadelphia Firearms Identification Unit, would testify
       that a bullet recovered from the [Victim]’s body was a thirty-
       eight caliber copper alloy jacketed hollow point, which would
       be consistent with being fired from a revolver.

       Dr. Victoria Sorokin, Assistant Medical Examiner, testified
       that she performed an autopsy on [Victim]. [Victim] was
       shot once in the head. The bullet entered her left temple
       and was recovered during the internal examination. Dr.

                                    -3-
J-S23035-23

           Sorokin opined that [Victim]’s cause of death was a gunshot
           wound to the head, and the manner of death was homicide.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 8/24/22, at 2-6) (internal citations omitted).

        Following   a   bench   trial,   the   court   convicted   Appellant   of   the

aforementioned offenses on February 23, 2022. On April 21, 2022, the court

sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 18 to 36 years’ incarceration

followed by five years of probation. On Monday, May 2, 2022, Appellant timely

filed a post-sentence motion, which the court denied on June 9, 2022.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on July 8, 2022. On July 18, 2022,

the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of

errors complained of on appeal, and Appellant timely complied on August 8,

2022.

        Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

           Did the trial judge err as a matter of law by allowing a
           verdict of third-degree murder to stand which was against
           the weight and sufficiency of evidence?

(Appellant’s Brief at 8).

        Appellant argues that the video evidence shows that Appellant was

lunging out of the store as he fired the first shot into the store and was outside

the store when he fired the second shot.                Appellant asserts that this

demonstrates that he was blindly firing into the store. Appellant further notes

that Victim was sitting at the opposite end of the store, which is approximately

30 feet from where Appellant fired his gun. Appellant claims that the “vast

distance and skewed, interrupted line of fire by the entrance door is

                                          -4-
J-S23035-23

representative of the lack of intent [Appellant] had to cause harm.” (Id. at

15). Appellant contends that “[b]lindly shooting simply does not meet the

standard of malice, but rather [Appellant]’s actions constitute gross

negligence.” (Id. at 16-17). Appellant concludes the Commonwealth failed

to present sufficient evidence to sustain his third-degree murder conviction

and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. We disagree.

      When examining a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our

standard of review is as follows:

         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.

Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal

denied, 613 Pa. 642, 32 A.3d 1275 (2011) (quoting Commonwealth v.

Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super. 2005)). Additionally:

                                      -5-
J-S23035-23

            The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder
            of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of the
            evidence and to determine the credibility of the
            witnesses. An appellate court cannot substitute its
            judgment for that of the finder of fact. Thus, we may
            only reverse the…verdict if it is so contrary to the
            evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.

         Commonwealth v. Small, 559 Pa. 423, [435,] 741 A.2d
         666, 672-73 (1999). Moreover, where the trial court has
         ruled on the weight claim below, an appellate court’s role is
         not to consider the underlying question of whether the
         verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Rather,
         appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably
         abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.

Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444, 832 A.2d 403, 408

(2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939, 124 S.Ct. 2906, 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004)

(most internal citations omitted).

      The Crimes Code defines murder as follows:

         § 2502. Murder

         (a) Murder of the first degree.—A criminal homicide
         constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed
         by an intentional killing.

         (b) Murder of the second degree.—A criminal homicide
         constitutes murder of the second degree when it is
         committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or
         an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.

         (c) Murder of the third degree.—All other kinds of
         murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the
         third degree is a felony of the first degree.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a)-(c).

      “Murder in the third degree is an unlawful killing with malice but without

the specific intent to kill.” Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215, 1219

                                      -6-
J-S23035-23

(Pa.Super. 2011). Malice is defined as:

         [A] wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty,
         recklessness of consequences, and a mind regardless of
         social duty, although a particular person may not be
         intended to be injured…. [M]alice may be found where the
         defendant consciously disregarded an unjustified and
         extremely high risk that his actions might cause serious
         bodily injury.

Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574, 582 (Pa.Super. 2001), appeal

denied, 569 Pa. 716, 806 A.2d 858 (2002).

      Additionally, our Supreme Court has stated:

         The quintessential example of the level of recklessness
         required to constitute malice is a defendant who shoots a
         gun into a crowd. “If a man fires a gun into a crowd and
         kills another it is murder, because the fact of the reckless
         shooting of a gun into a crowd is malice in law. That wicked
         and depraved disposition and that recklessness and
         disregard of human life is malice.” Commonwealth v.
         Malone, 354 Pa. 180, 47 A.2d 445, 447 (1946) (citing
         Commonwealth v. Hillman, 189 Pa. 548, 42 A. 196
         (1899)). See also Commonwealth v. Daniels, 467 Pa.
         35, 354 A.2d 538 (1976) (affirming a conviction of
         aggravated assault where the defendant fired several
         gunshots in a bar full of people, seriously injuring one of the
         patrons, finding the conduct sufficiently reckless to exhibit
         an extreme indifference to the value of human life).

Commonwealth v. Packer, 641 Pa. 391, 405, 168 A.3d 161, 169 (2017).

“Malice may be inferred by considering the totality of the circumstances.”

Dunphy, supra.

      Instantly, the trial court found that the Commonwealth presented

sufficient evidence to prove Appellant acted with malice. The record supports

the court’s conclusion. In his brief, Appellant concedes that he “blindly” shot

                                      -7-
J-S23035-23

into a convenience store that was occupied by multiple people. Additionally,

the Commonwealth presented surveillance video footage which depicts

Appellant firing two bullets into a crowded convenience store.       The video

shows that multiple people ran for cover when Appellant began shooting and

Victim was struck in the head by one of the bullets, resulting in her death.

The evidence clearly demonstrates that Appellant consciously disregarded an

unjustified and extremely high risk that his actions might cause death or

serious bodily injury to the people in the convenience store. See Packer,

supra; DiStefano, supra. Therefore, we agree with the trial court that the

Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s third-

degree murder conviction.

      Regarding Appellant’s weight claim, we note that Appellant fails to

proffer any argument in support of his claim other than baldly asserting that

“[t]he court failed to consider the cumulative distance and position in which

[Appellant] shot the gun and the resulting lack of intent to cause actual harm.”

(Appellant’s Brief at 16).   As such, Appellant has waived his claim.      See

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); Commonwealth v. Hakala, 900 A.2d 404 (Pa.Super.

2006), appeal denied, 589 Pa. 737, 909 A.2d 1288 (2006) (stating failure to

develop argument on appeal results in waiver).

      Moreover, Appellant’s weight claim would not merit relief in any event.

The court viewed surveillance video footage showing exactly where and how

Appellant fired his gun into the convenience store. The court further saw video

                                     -8-
J-S23035-23

of the people located inside the store and their reactions to Appellant’s

shooting. Based on the evidence presented, the trial court did not abuse its

discretion in concluding that the verdict did not shock its conscience. See

Champney, supra. Accordingly, Appellant’s sole issue on appeal fails and

we affirm his judgment of sentence.

     Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/15/2023

                                      -9-