Court Opinion

ID: 9892611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 16:15:18.59777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:23.476728
License: Public Domain

J-S33032-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  TEVIN PATTERSON                              :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 913 WDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 7, 2021
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-02-CR-0015124-2017

BEFORE:      BENDER, P.J.E., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                     FILED: October 24, 2023

       Tevin Patterson appeals the October 7, 2021 aggregate judgment of

sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole plus 7 to 14

years’ imprisonment imposed after a jury found him guilty of first-degree

murder, burglary, and carrying a firearm without a license.1 Appellant was

also ordered to pay $6,286.00 in restitution to the victim’s surviving family

members. Contemporaneously with this appeal, Rachael Santoriella, Esq.

(hereinafter, “Counsel”), has filed a brief and petition to withdraw in

accordance      with    Anders       v.   California,   386   U.S.   738   (1967),

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009), and its progeny.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 3502(a)(1)(i), and 6106(a)(1), respectively.
J-S33032-23

After careful review, we grant Counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm the

judgement of sentence.

     The trial court summarized the relevant facts of this case as follows:

           On August 8, 2017, at approximately 3 p.m., UPMC
           security guard, David Thoma, was in the area of the
           Oak Hills Apartments in the City of Pittsburgh getting
           lunch and heard several gunshots. After hearing the
           gunshots, he proceeded to search the area in his
           vehicle and observed an African American male, later
           identified as Appellant, wearing a yellow hoodie and
           jeans missing a shoe running between the apartments
           down a thruway. Thoma made visual contact with
           Appellant who then put the hood up on his hoodie.
           Thoma initiated a conversation with Appellant who
           made statements that he was looking for his sister.
           Thoma observed Appellant to be out of breath and
           bleeding from the lip. Thoma exited his vehicle, but
           Appellant took off running toward the back of the
           apartment complex. Thoma pulled his taser and
           commanded Appellant to stop; however, Appellant
           continued to flee the area and he was unable to
           apprehend him at that time. He then contacted 9-1-
           1 to report the encounter.

           Curt Colotto, a maintenance worker for Oak Hills
           Apartments, was in the area at the time of the
           shooting and was standing next to his vehicle when
           he witnessed Appellant come from behind 475 Oak Hill
           Drive and proceed into the woods. Appellant was
           wearing a yellow hoodie but Colotto did not recall what
           type of shoes he was wearing.

           Officer John Baker of the City of Pittsburgh police
           responded to a shots fired call in the Oak Hill
           neighborhood at approximately 3:02 p.m. He
           proceeded to the area and subsequently received
           information that a male had been shot in the head and
           that the suspect had run into a nearby wooded area.
           He proceeded toward the wooded area and observed
           Appellant emerge from the woods without a shirt or
           shoes. He exited his vehicle and commanded

                                    -2-
J-S33032-23

          Appellant to stop. Appellant stopped briefly putting
          his hands in the air and stated, “I didn’t do it,” but
          then absconded down the sidewalk running into the
          woods.     A chase ensued and Appellant was
          apprehended and taken into custody at approximately
          3:12 p.m.

          Officer Tanya Szuch with the City of Pittsburgh police
          and her partner, Officer David McManus, responded to
          the victim’s residence after receiving a report that
          Jamal Blair and Arneta Dyer had returned to their
          home located at 525 Oak Hill Drive and had found
          their son, Calvin Turner, deceased laying at the
          bottom of the staircase blocking the front door. Upon
          arrival, they located the victim deceased at the
          bottom of the steps laying on his stomach in a pool of
          blood. They secured the residence finding no one else
          in the home and contacted the homicide division.

          Thereafter, homicide Detective Robert Shaw of the
          Pittsburgh Police responded to the victim’s residence
          and he, along with detectives Kraeer and Crawford,
          processed the scene. The rear door of the residence
          did not appear to have any damage which would have
          indicated a forced entry. However, the windows in the
          kitchen were open, but Detective Shaw had received
          information that the windows had been shut prior to
          the incident. The victim’s body was positioned at the
          bottom the steps and by the front door, thus blocking
          entry or exit through that door. A child’s toy gun and
          an empty backpack were located in close proximity to
          the body with a pair a gray sneakers and a single
          orange multi-colored sneaker located at the victim’s
          thigh. Several bullet strikes and holes were located in
          the ceiling at the top of the steps. A firearm was
          located in the victim’s dresser drawer wrapped in a
          sock and two broken cell phones were also recovered
          from the scene.

          Evidence was recovered from the wooded area where
          Appellant was apprehended, which included a single
          orange sneaker matching the orange sneaker found
          next to the victim’s body, and a yellow Charlie Brown
          hoodie with debris and blood stains on the right sleeve

                                   -3-
J-S33032-23

            and high velocity impact blood spatter on the front of
            hoodie. The detective photographed Appellant on the
            day of the murder after he was taken into custody,
            which showed an injury to his right elbow area
            consistent with the blood stain found on the hoodie
            recovered from the wooded area. Appellant did not
            have any further noticeable injuries.

            Upon autopsy, the victim was found to have sustained
            four penetrating gunshot wounds, which included a
            gunshot wound to the left perioral area of the face
            with the bullet recovered from the right cheek and
            three gunshot wounds to the victim’s chest, which
            perforated the right lower and upper lobes of the left
            lung, a rib, the pericardium, the right and left
            ventricles of the heart, as well as the right lung with
            the manner of death ruled a homicide. The four
            bullets recovered from the victim were found to have
            been discharged from the same firearm but not from
            the firearm recovered at the victim’s residence. GSR
            tests performed on Appellant's hands showed seven
            single component particles. The blood stains on the
            sleeve of the recovered yellow hoodie matched that of
            Appellant, and the blood stains recovered from the
            front of the hoodie matched that of the victim.
            Appellant did not possess a license to carry a firearm.
            Appellant was arrested and charged as noted
            hereinabove.

Trial court opinion, 1/9/23 at 4-8 (citations to notes of testimony and

footnotes omitted).

      On June 8, 2021, Appellant proceeded to a jury trial in connection with

this incident. Following a three-day trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of

first-degree murder, burglary, and carrying a firearm without a license on June

10, 2021. As noted, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment

without the possibility of parole plus 7 to 14 years’ imprisonment on October

7, 2021. Appellant did not file a timely notice of appeal.

                                     -4-
J-S33032-23

       On April 5, 2022, Appellant filed an untimely pro se notice of appeal

and Counsel was appointed. On June 16, 2022, a panel of this Court quashed

Appellant’s appeal as untimely and remanded this case back to the trial court.

On June 27, 2022, Counsel filed a petition on Appellant’s behalf pursuant to

the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”),2 requesting the reinstatement of his

appellate rights. On July 14, 2022, the PCRA court entered an order granting

Appellant’s PCRA petition and reinstating Appellant’s post-sentence motion

and appellate rights nunc pro tunc. Appellant did not file any post-sentence

motions and the instant appeal followed on August 10, 2022.

       On August 25, 2022, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal, in accordance with Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b). Following an extension, Counsel filed a Rule 1925(b) statement on

Appellant’s behalf on November 14, 2022. On January 9, 2023, the trial court

filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion. Thereafter, on May 17, 2023, Counsel filed an

Anders brief and a petition to withdraw.         Appellant has not responded to

Counsel’s petition to withdraw.

       As a preliminary matter, to withdraw under Anders, counsel must

satisfy certain technical requirements. First, counsel must “petition the court

for leave to withdraw and state that after making a conscientious examination

of the record, [s]he has determined that the appeal is frivolous.”

____________________________________________

2 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.

                                           -5-
J-S33032-23

Commonwealth v. Martuscelli, 54 A.3d 940, 947 (Pa.Super. 2012), quoting

Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361. Second, counsel must file an Anders brief, in

which counsel:

           (1) provide[s] a summary of the procedural history
           and facts, with citations to the record; (2) refer[s] to
           anything in the record that counsel believes arguably
           supports the appeal; (3) set[s] forth counsel’s
           conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and(4) state[s]
           counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is
           frivolous. Counsel should articulate the relevant facts
           of record, controlling case law, and/or statutes on
           point that have led to the conclusion that the appeal
           is frivolous.

Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361.

     With respect to the briefing requirements, Anders does not require

“that counsel’s brief provide an argument of any sort, let alone the type of

argument that counsel develops in a merits brief.      [W]hat the brief must

provide under Anders are references to anything in the record that might

arguably support the appeal.” Santiago, 978 A.2d at 359-360.

     Finally, Anders counsel must furnish a copy of the Anders brief to her

client and “advise[] him of his right to retain new counsel, proceed pro se or

raise any additional points that he deems worthy of the court’s attention, and

attach[] to the Anders petition a copy of the letter sent to the client.”

Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590, 594 (Pa.Super. 2010) (citation

omitted). “[If] counsel has satisfied the above requirements, it is then this

Court’s duty to conduct its own review of the trial court’s proceedings and

render an independent judgment as to whether the appeal is, in fact, wholly

                                    -6-
J-S33032-23

frivolous.”   Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 291 (Pa.Super.

2007) (en banc) (quotation marks and quotation omitted).

       Our review of Counsel’s petition to withdraw, supporting documentation,

and her Anders brief reveals that she has substantially complied with all of

the foregoing requirements. We note that Counsel furnished a copy of the

brief to Appellant, and ultimately advised him of his right to retain new

counsel, proceed pro se, and/or raise any additional points that he deems

worthy of this Court’s attention.3 Counsel’s revised letter properly advised

Appellant of his rights under Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748,

751-752 (Pa.Super. 2005).             As Counsel has complied with all of the

requirements set forth above, we conclude that Counsel has satisfied the

procedural requirements of Anders and Santiago. We, therefore, proceed

to conduct an independent review to ascertain whether the appeal is wholly

frivolous. See Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1197 (Pa.Super.

2018) (en banc).

____________________________________________

3 The record reflects that Counsel’s initial notification letter did not properly

inform Appellant of his right to proceed pro se or retain private counsel.
Pursuant to this Court’s May 19, 2023 order, Counsel was thereafter directed
to file seven copies of a letter addressed to Appellant advising him of his
immediate right to proceed pro se or with privately retained counsel and a
proof of service on Appellant within 14 days. Counsel, however, failed to
timely comply. Accordingly, on June 9, 2023, this Court issued an order
directing Counsel to comply with its May 19th order within five days. The same
day, this Court received a response from Counsel, notifying it that she had
served a new, revised notification of rights letter on June 9, 2023 that properly
informed Appellant of his immediate right to proceed pro se or with privately
retained counsel.

                                           -7-
J-S33032-23

      In her Anders brief, Counsel sets forth the following issue for Appellant:

            1.    Whether the trial court erred in denying the
                  Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal at
                  the close of the Commonwealth’s case as there
                  was insufficient evidence [of the crimes of first-
                  degree murder, burglary, and carrying a firearm
                  without a license] to submit the case to the
                  jury?

Anders brief at 5.

      “A motion for judgment of acquittal challenges the sufficiency of the

evidence to sustain a conviction on a particular charge, and is granted only in

cases in which the Commonwealth has failed to carry its burden regarding that

charge.”   Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick, 159 A.3d 562, 567 (Pa.Super.

2017) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 173 A.3d 255 (Pa. 2017).           Our

standard of review in evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence

is as follows:

            In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must
            determine whether the evidence admitted at trial and
            all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in
            the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as
            verdict winner, is sufficient to prove every element of
            the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.           As an
            appellate court, we may not re-weigh the evidence
            and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-
            finder. Any question of doubt is for the fact-finder
            unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that
            as a matter of law no probability of fact can be drawn
            from the combined circumstances.

Commonwealth v. Thomas, 988 A.2d 669, 670 (Pa.Super. 2009) (citations

omitted), appeal denied, 4 A.3d 1054 (Pa. 2010).

                                     -8-
J-S33032-23

      “The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element

of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial

evidence.”   Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa.Super.

2000) (citation omitted).

      Instantly, Appellant challenges whether the Commonwealth presented

sufficient evidence to sustain his convictions for first-degree murder, burglary,

and carrying a firearm without a license. First-degree murder is an intentional

killing, which is defined as a “willful, deliberate and premeditated killing.” 18

Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a), (d). “To obtain a first-degree murder conviction, the

Commonwealth must demonstrate that a human being was unlawfully killed,

the defendant perpetrated the killing, and that the defendant acted with

malice and a specific intent to kill.” Commonwealth v. Burno, 94 A.3d 956,

969 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 574 U.S. 1193 (2015). It is

well settled that “[s]pecific intent to kill can be established through

circumstantial evidence, such as the use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of

the victim's body[.]” Commonwealth v. Jacoby, 170 A.3d 1065, 1076 (Pa.

2017) (citation omitted), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 58 (2018).

      A person will be found guilty of the crime of burglary if, “with the intent

to commit a crime therein, the person … enters a building or occupied

structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof, that is adapted

for overnight accommodations in which at the time of the offense any person

                                      -9-
J-S33032-23

is present and the person commits, attempts or threatens to commit a bodily

injury crime therein[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a)(1)(1).

      The crime of carrying a firearm without a license is codified in Section

6106 of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act and provides, in relevant part,

as follows:

              [A]ny person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or
              any person who carries a firearm concealed on or
              about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed
              place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued
              license under this chapter commits a felony of the
              third degree.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1).

      “[N]on-licensure is the essential element of the crime of carrying a

firearm without a license, and … the Commonwealth has the burden of

establishing this element beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v.

Woods, 638 A.2d 1013, 1016 (Pa.Super. 1994), appeal denied, 651 A.2d

537 (Pa. 1994).

      Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth

as the verdict winner, we conclude that the Commonwealth presented

overwhelming direct and circumstantial evidence to support Appellant’s

convictions for first-degree murder, burglary, and carrying a firearm without

a license.

      The record establishes that on the day in question, Appellant entered

the victim’s residence through a closed window in the kitchen with the intent

to commit a burglary. When Appellant he encountered the victim, he shot

                                      - 10 -
J-S33032-23

him three times in the chest and one time in the face, killing him. Notes of

testimony, 6/8/21 at 46-54, 138-144, 158-160; Notes of testimony, 6/9/21

at 294-296, 313.

      Testimony at trial established that Appellant was observed outside the

victim’s residence moments after shots were fired wearing a blood-splatted

yellow hoodie, one orange and black size 6 Nike shoe, and bleeding from a cut

to his lip. Notes of testimony, 6/8/21 at 67, 71-82. When encountered by

UPMC security personnel, Appellant fled the scene into a nearby wooded area

where he ultimately discarded both his remaining shoe and the blood-stained

hoodie. Id. at 94-96. Appellant subsequently fled from law enforcement after

they observed him emerging from the same wooded area without a shirt or

shoes. Notes of testimony, 6/9/21 at 119-123.

      The record further establishes that tests on the discarded hoodie

revealed that it contained blood spatter containing Appellant’s DNA as well as

the victim’s DNA. Id. at 405-407. The cuffs and front panel of the discarded

hoodie, as well as Appellant’s hands, also contained evidence of gunshot

residue. Id. at 356, 361-362, 366-367, 370-372. Additionally, the orange

and black size 6 Nike shoe found discarded in the wooded area matched the

one found at the crime scene in close proximity to the victim’s body. Notes

of testimony, 6/8/21 at 172-174; Notes of testimony, 6/9/21 at 285. Lastly,

the testimony at trial established that Appellant did not have a license to carry

a firearm. Notes of testimony, 6/8/21 at 202.

                                     - 11 -
J-S33032-23

      Based on the foregoing, we find that the        trial court properly denied

Appellant’s   motion   for   judgment   of    acquittal   at   the   close   of   the

Commonwealth’s case and established that there was sufficient evidence to

sustain his convictions. Appellant’s claim to the contrary is wholly frivolous.

      Finally, our independent review of the entire record, as required

pursuant to Anders, reveals no additional non-frivolous claims. Yorgey, 188

A.3d at 1195. Accordingly, we grant Counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm

Appellant’s October 7, 2021 judgment of sentence.

      Petition to withdraw granted. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

  10/24/2023

                                     - 12 -
J-S33032-23

              - 13 -