Court Opinion

ID: 9364918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 17:08:18.920577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:41.358859
License: Public Domain

J-S28040-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
    LUIS MIGUEL NAVEDO                         :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :       No. 331 MDA 2022

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 16, 2014
                In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0002427-2013

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                        FILED: JANUARY 20, 2023

       Appellant, Luis Miguel Navedo, appeals nunc pro tunc from the judgment

of sentence entered in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, following his

jury trial convictions for first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder,

aggravated assault, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and possession

of instruments of crime.1 We affirm.

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

case as follows:

          September 2, 2012 was the Saturday before Labor Day and
          there was a large crowd that night at the Jet Set Bar &
          Restaurant in Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania. One
          bouncer reported to the police that more than 650 patrons
          had been at the nightclub. As closing time approached in
          the early morning hours of September 3, 2012, people were
____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 901(a), 2702(a)(1), 2702(a)(4) and 907(a),
respectively.
J-S28040-22

       walking to Jet Set’s parking lot when shots rang out and
       chaos ensued.

       Reading Police Officers Adam J. Linderman and Mark
       Hackney were first to respond to the scene, having been
       assigned to a city-wide patrol that happened to find them
       blocks from the Jet Set Bar & Restaurant around 2 a.m.
       From approximately 10 yards from the entrance to the
       parking lot, Officer Linderman recalled hearing 6 to 7 shots
       fired. Officers Linderman and Hackney were quickly joined
       by Reading Police Officer Sneeringer. All three entered the
       parking lot “tactically,” not sure of where the “threat” was
       at that point in time, nor who the victim or victims were. As
       Officer Linderman explained, “We didn’t know if the shooter
       was still on location.” In fact, additional shots were fired as
       the officers were arriving on the scene. Officer Sneeringer
       testified that when he arrived, he caught up to Officers
       Linderman and Hackney to form a tactical “stack” formation.

       As the officers entered the parking lot, multiple people were
       fleeing: “people were screaming, some people were
       hysterical.”   The officers quickly located one apparent
       shooting victim in a car. Officer Sneeringer testified that he
       observed a burgundy Toyota SUV in the northwest corner of
       the parking lot. Officer Sneeringer made contact with Victim
       Mizraim Ortiz, who by then was standing outside of the
       passenger side of the Toyota SUV. Victim Jose Rivera was
       inside the vehicle, apparently bleeding to death.

       The responding officers called for an ambulance and
       attempted to interview the victims, but they were unable to
       identify the shooter. Officer Sneeringer testified that Victim
       Jose Rivera told him it was “two Hispanic males” that had
       attacked him but was unable to provide more information.
       Ultimately, Victim Jose Rivera died as a result of the gunshot
       wounds inflicted in the parking lot of the Jet Set Bar &
       Restaurant and Victim Mizraim Ortiz sustained injuries from
       which he still suffered residual pain.

       Although there had been a large number of people in the
       parking lot, few seemed to have witnessed the shooting.
       For example, Commonwealth Witness Mabel Pacheco had
       been at the Jet Set with two friends that evening. They were
       walking to the car of one friend, Ms. [Marianne] Marrero,

                                    -2-
J-S28040-22

       when the ladies heard gunshots. Ms. Pacheco estimated
       that the shots were fired from approximately 15 feet away,
       but she testified that she did not see the shooter. She
       recalled that she had been walking behind a group of people,
       who had been “loud” but she was reluctant to describe the
       interaction as an argument.

       Commonwealth witness and surviving victim, Mizraim Ortiz,
       the former neighbor of deceased Victim Jose Rivera,
       testified that on September 2, 2012 the two men had been
       out for the evening together, first at an establishment called
       Rancho Merengue and then, later, at the Jet Set Bar &:
       Restaurant. At the Jet Set when walking to get drinks,
       Victim Mizraim Ortiz accidentally bumped into someone,
       which appeared to anger this other person. He stated that
       he “just bumped someone and it was a heated argument
       and [they said] we’re going to wait for you outside.” He
       further explained that the other guy “tried to be a tough guy
       or whatever, but I just let it go, but he was getting angry
       over it. I just said let it go and he said he’s going to wait
       for me outside.”

       Victims Mizraim Ortiz and Jose Rivera left the bar
       approximately 45 minutes after this incident and went into
       the parking lot. Victim Mizraim Ortiz testified that he had
       gotten into his car, turned it on, and then heard gunshots.
       Victim Jose Rivera was in the passenger side of the car, and
       Victim Mizraim Ortiz testified that he didn’t realize at the
       time that they both had been shot. Victim Mizraim Ortiz got
       out of the car and came around to the passenger side where
       Victim Jose Rivera was on the floor. He did not see who had
       shot them, nor did he see anyone outside when he got out
       of the car. On cross-examination, Victim Mizraim Ortiz
       recalled telling the police that the person he had bumped
       into earlier inside the Jet Set was a Hispanic male, but at
       trial he denied telling the police that the man he had
       bumped into had long hair, or at least did not recall telling
       the police that the shooter had long hair.

       Despite the confusion and uncertainty at the scene
       immediately following the shooting, there was one eye-
       witness at trial who conclusively identified Appellant as the
       shooter. This witness’s name is Johnny Ayala-Ocasio, who
       had contacted the Reading police via letter indicating that

                                   -3-
J-S28040-22

       he had information about the shooting.           The police
       interviewed Mr. Ayala-Ocasio in December of 2012. At trial,
       Mr. Ayala-Ocasio testified that on September 3, 2012, he
       saw his childhood friend Jose Rivera-Aguirre8 at the Jet Set
       Bar & Restaurant with a man known to him as “Menor”
       (identified as Appellant). Mr. Ayala-Ocasio had worked with
       Appellant for one or two years. Mr. Ayala-Ocasio testified
       that Mr. Rivera-Aguirre and Appellant arrived around the
       same time as he had (approximately 10:30 in the evening),
       and that Mr. Rivera-Aguirre and Appellant had arrived in the
       same vehicle. Mr. Ayala-Ocasio did not park in the Jet Set
       parking lot, but instead parked in the back alley behind it.
       The men all entered the Jet Set together.

          8   Not to be confused with Victim, Jose Rivera.

       Around 11 p.m. Appellant and Jose Rivera-Aguire told Mr.
       Ayala-Ocasio that there was a “problem.” With respect to
       the “problem”, Mr. Ayala-Ocasio testified as follows:

          Witness: Everything was normal at the moment, around
          11 [p. m.], Jose Rivera (Aguirre) and Menor came to me.
          They offered me a beer. I told them yes. They went and
          they got buckets of beer. They put them on the table. I
          asked if they were okay. They told me yes. Sorry.

          ADA Waterloo: And then what happened?

          Witness: I asked Jose Rivera (Aguirre) if he was okay
          because I saw that he was somewhat intoxicated. He
          told me that, yes, that he was fine. Then they left.
          Sometime later Jose Rivera (Aguirre) came back to me,
          told me that he had a problem.

          ADA Waterloo: How would you describe Jose Rivera-
          Aguirre’s demeanor when he came back to you?

          Witness: He looked somewhat upset.

          ADA Waterloo: And was Menor or Luis Navedo with him
          at that time?

          Witness: Yes.

                                    -4-
J-S28040-22

          ADA Waterloo: And then what happened?

          Witness: He told me that, yes, that he was fine. Then
          sometime later they left again, supposedly to check out
          women. Then they returned. And then were there and
          they have—kept talking about an issue, but he didn’t tell
          me specifically who the person was that he had the issue
          with.

       Mr. Ayala-Ocasio testified that although Appellant and Mr.
       Rivera-Aguirre would periodically leave the table, he
       remained at the table the whole time and did not see “the
       problem.” Around 1:45 a.m., Jose Rivera-Aguirre and
       Appellant told Mr. Ayala-Ocasio that they were leaving, and
       five minutes later Mr. Ayala-Ocasio also left. Mr. Ayala-
       Ocasio was 30 to 40 feet behind Appellant and Mr. Rivera-
       Aguirre as they walked into the parking lot. He testified that
       Appellant told him they were waiting for the person with
       whom they had had the “problem” inside. He stated:
       “[T]hey were waiting for the person they had the problem
       with, that when they exited, they were going to fight, when
       these people were coming.” Mr. Ayala-Ocasio saw Mr.
       Rivera-Aguirre throw a bottle, and then he saw Appellant
       take out a gun and fire a total of 10 to 15 shots.

       On redirect, Mr. Ayala-Ocasio reiterated that it was
       Appellant, Jose Navedo, known as “Menor”, who fired a gun
       10 to 15 times on Monday, September 3, 2012 in the
       parking lot of the Jet Set Bar & Restaurant.

                                *    *    *

       Commonwealth witness Martin Pena testified that he knows
       Appellant, and that he had seen him several times on
       September 3, 2013 at Appellant’s residence at 241 South
       Sixth Street in the City of Reading, Pennsylvania. He
       testified that Appellant was friends with Gilberto Delgado-
       Mendez and Giovanni Delgado-Santos, father and son. Mr.
       Pena lived close enough to the Jet Set Bar & Restaurant that
       he could hear the shooting, and he testified that he had seen
       Appellant return home 15 to 20 minutes after the sound of
       gunshots, and that Appellant seemed “scared, desperate.”
       Mr. Pena explained that there is an abandoned property
       directly adjacent to Appellant’s residence at 241 South Sixth

                                    -5-
J-S28040-22

       Street. When Mr. Pena went over to 241 South Sixth Street
       the day after the shooting, he saw that Appellant was there
       with Gilberto Delgado-Mendez and Giovanni Delgado-
       Santos, and Mr. Pena was in the room when the three men
       were having a conversation. Mr. Pena overheard Appellant
       say that he had done something “bad” and that he had to
       get out of the country fast. Mr. Pena testified as follows:
       “He said in street language, he was saying I wiped
       somebody out.” Mr. Pena testified that he saw Appellant
       holding something white, like a sheet or towel, and he heard
       Appellant say, “put these away, hide them good.” Mr. Pena
       testified further that Giovanni Delgado-Santos took the
       white object next door to the abandoned property. Mr. Pena
       further testified that Appellant told Giovanni Delgado-
       [Santos] that the object was actually guns, one handgun
       and one shotgun.

       According to Mr. Pena, Appellant then asked the men for
       money, and that they gave Appellant money. Finally, Mr.
       Pena observed Appellant leave 241 South Sixth Street and
       enter the car of a Mr. Luis Velasquez, who lived a few houses
       up the street from 241 South Sixth Street. After witnessing
       all of this, Mr. Pena contacted Criminal Investigator Kevin
       Maser of the Reading Police Department.

       …Commonwealth witness, and Criminal Investigator,
       Michael Perkins, … testified at trial that he had executed a
       search warrant on 239 South Sixth Street, which is the
       abandoned property described by Mr. Pena, separated only
       by a badly dilapidated fence from Appellant’s residence at
       241 South Sixth Street. The structure of 239 South Sixth
       Street was deteriorated to the point that the rear exterior
       wall of the building had collapsed.

       The search of 239 South Sixth Street took place on
       September 4, 2012 at 3:13 a.m., just over 24 hours after
       the shooting. During the search, C.I. Perkins noticed part
       of a gun stating: “what I initially noticed was the butt stock
       of some kind of rifle.” C.I. Perkins testified that he “also
       noted that there was a clean white shirt next to the butt
       stock of the unknown weapon.” He further observed that
       the house was filthy and in deplorable condition, but the
       white tee shirt was clean. Inside the shirt was a handgun,
       which was determined to be a black and silver

                                   -6-
J-S28040-22

        semiautomatic Springfield Army 9mm, along with a box of
        ammunition.

        Commonwealth Witness Pennsylvania State Police Corporal
        Mark A. Garrett, who works in the Bureau of Forensic
        Services in the Ballistics Division, was qualified at trial as an
        expert witness in the area of firearms and tool mark
        analysis. He testified that the 19 discharged cartridges
        recovered from the scene at the Jet Set Bar & Restaurant
        were all discharged from the Springfield 9mm handgun
        recovered from 239 South Sixth Street.... He further
        testified that the 14 bullets and/or bullet fragments
        recovered from the scene … are consistent with the 9mm
        semiautomatic firearm recovered from 239 South Sixth
        Street.

                                  *    *    *

        Criminal Investigator Eric Dreisbach of the Reading Police
        Department testified that he had obtained Appellant’s cell
        phone number from Commonwealth Witness Martin Pena.
        Employing a cell-phone-locating technique known as
        “pinging,” C.I. Driesbach was able to determine that, as of
        approximately 4 a.m. on September 4, 2012, Appellant’s
        cell phone was “within 1855 meters of the Philadelphia
        International Airport.” C.I. Driesbach continued to “ping”
        Appellant’s cell phone at 30-minute intervals, each time
        receiving the same result.… After a period where no
        information was received from Appellant’s cell phone, there
        was a final “ping” received from the phone which took place
        around noon on September 4, 2012. This indicated that
        Appellant’s cell phone was in Puerto Rico.

        Further, [C.I.] Dreisbach testified that he was able to verify
        that Luis Velasquez is the registered owner of a Chevrolet
        Impala, which is the car Martin Pena testified he saw Luis
        Velasquez driving Appellant in the day after the shooting.
        C.I. Dreisbach obtained Luis Velasquez’s phone number
        from one of his roommates, and a review of the Sprint cell
        phone records indicated that Mr. Velasquez’s phone and
        Appellant’s phone interacted six times between September
        3, 2012 and September 6, 2012.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 4/13/22, at 4-12) (internal citations and some

                                      -7-
J-S28040-22

footnotes omitted).

      Justin Uczynski, a Reading police officer, testified that he interviewed a

Jet Set patron named Marianne Marrero on the night of the shooting.

According to his report, Ms. Marerro stated that she had seen a man in a black

t-shirt get out of a red jeep and apologize for “scraping it,” which she

understood to mean that an accident had taken place in the parking lot. After

this, she saw a Hispanic male in a white shirt with turquoise horizontal stripes

shoot at the man that exited the jeep. Ms. Marerro did not see the face of the

shooter. When called to testify, Ms. Marerro did not recall providing these

details to the police on the night of the shooting and reiterated that she did

not see the shooter’s face.

      Officer John Solecki, a Reading police sergeant, testified that he

interviewed a Jet Set security officer named Marilyn Santiago on the night of

the shooting. Ms. Santiago reported that she overheard a Hispanic male in a

white polo with blue horizontal stripes on the phone saying, “We will open the

gates to heaven.” Ms. Santiago interpreted this to mean that someone would

die that night, and she contacted other security personnel anticipating trouble

outside of the club.   Officer Solecki presented Ms. Santiago with a photo

lineup, and Ms. Santiago indicated that the individual she heard make this

statement was Ilfrin Moncion-Perez. Ms. Santiago did not report seeing Mr.

Moncion-Perez in possession of a firearm.       Brian Adler, a Reading police

officer, testified that he detained Mr. Moncion-Perez shortly after the shooting

                                     -8-
J-S28040-22

and searched him for weapons. Officer Adler did not find any weapons on Mr.

Moncion-Perez’s person and released him after he explained that he was in

the parking lot looking for his sister-in-law.

      Mr. Delgado-Mendez testified that he lives at 241 South Sixth Street and

knows Appellant as “Menor.” Mr. Delgado-Mendez stated that he has seen

Appellant hang out on his street, but Appellant has never been inside his

house.   Mr. Delgado-Mendez denied hearing Appellant confess to shooting

anyone or giving Appellant money to go to Puerto Rico. Mr. Delgado-Mendez

confirmed that Luis Velazquez lives on his street and drives a Chevrolet Impala

but denied seeing Appellant leave for the airport with Mr. Velazquez.      Mr.

Delgado-Santos testified that he recognized Appellant but did not know him

or his name. He further stated that Appellant did not confess to killing anyone

in his presence and did not give him a firearm to hide.

      Emily Navedo, Appellant’s sister, testified that Appellant had a close

relationship with their grandmother who resided in Puerto Rico. She stated

that their grandmother was diagnosed with cancer in the summer of 2012 and

was suffering from cognitive decline. When their father requested help to take

care of their grandmother, they decided that Appellant would go to Puerto

Rico. Ms. Navedo learned that Appellant went to Puerto Rico on the day after

he arrived when he called her and asked her to pick up his check from work.

      On March 21, 2014, a jury convicted Appellant of first-degree murder,

attempted first-degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, two counts

                                      -9-
J-S28040-22

of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and possessing instruments of

crime. The trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment on May 16,

2014. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on April 1, 2015, and our

Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on March 23, 2016.                See

Commonwealth v Navedo, No. 959 MDA 2014 (Pa.Super. April 1, 2015)

(unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 635 Pa. 752, 135 A.3d 585

(2016).     On January 9, 2017, Appellant filed a petition under the Post

Conviction Relief Act2 (“PCRA”) raising allegations of ineffective assistance of

counsel, including counsel’s failure to file post-sentence motions. The PCRA

court entered an order reinstating Appellant’s post-sentence rights and direct

appeal rights nunc pro tunc on November 9, 2021.

        On November 19, 2021, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion which

was denied on January 20, 2022. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on

February 22, 2022. On March 17, 2022, the court ordered Appellant to file a

concise statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) and Appellant timely

complied on March 31, 2022.

        Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

           Whether the trial court reversibly erred in denying
           [Appellant]’s post sentence challenge to the weight of the
           evidence where the evidence of the defense witnesses
           and/or statements of Marriane Marrero, Marilyn Duval,
           Gilberto Delgado-Mendez, Giovanni Delgado-Santos, Emily
           Navedo and other clearly outweighed the evidence of the
           prosecution?
____________________________________________

2   42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.

                                          - 10 -
J-S28040-22

(Appellant’s Brief at 5).

      On appeal, Appellant contends that there was no reliable evidence

identifying him as the shooter or connecting him to the recovered gun.

Specifically, Appellant claims that Mr. Ayala-Ocasio’s testimony was not

credible because there were inconsistencies between his account and the

accounts given by other witnesses. Appellant further avers that it was unclear

whether Mr. Ayala-Ocasio was speaking about Victim Jose Rivera or Jose

Rivera-Aguirre in his testimony because he interchangeably used the names

“Jose Rivera,” “Jose A. Rivera,” and “Jose Rivera-Aguirre” on different

occasions. Additionally, Appellant asserts that Mr. Ayala-Ocasio’s motivations

are questionable because he admitted that he was previously convicted of

identity theft and is a Commonwealth witness in three other pending murder

cases. Appellant further asserts that Mr. Pena’s testimony was contradicted

by the unimpeached testimony of Mr. Delgado-Mendez and Mr. Delgado-

Santos.    Appellant states that Ms. Navedo’s testimony established that

Appellant went to Puerto Rico for reasons completely unrelated to the

shooting. Therefore, Appellant concludes that the jury’s verdict was against

the great weight of the evidence because there was no reliable evidence

connecting Appellant to the shooting, and we must vacate the judgment of

sentence. We disagree.

      When examining a challenge to the weight of the evidence, our standard

of review is as follows:

                                    - 11 -
J-S28040-22

            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.

         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)

(internal citations omitted). A “trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial

based on a weight of the evidence claim is the least assailable of its rulings.”

Commonwealth v. Rivera, 603 Pa. 340, 363, 983 A.2d 1211, 1225 (2009),

cert. denied, 560 U.S. 909, 130 S.Ct. 3282, 176 L.Ed.2d 1191 (2010).

      Instantly, the court found that Appellant failed to establish that the

evidence was overwhelmingly contrary to the verdict. Mr. Ayala-Ocasio was

the only person who testified that he saw the shooter’s face. Although other

witnesses reported seeing a man in a white and turquoise/blue shirt, none of

those witnesses reported seeing the shooter’s face or recalled the details of

the night when testifying. The Commonwealth also produced evidence that

the man identified by these witnesses was detained on the night of the

shooting and no weapons were found on his person. Additionally, regardless

of how Mr. Ayala-Ocasio referred to Mr. Rivera-Aguirre, there was no

                                     - 12 -
J-S28040-22

uncertainty about Mr. Ayala-Ocasio’s testimony regarding Appellant.        Mr.

Ayala-Ocasio stated that he knew Appellant, was with Appellant at the bar for

part of the night, and witnessed Appellant take out a gun and fire 10 to 15

shots in the parking lot.

      Further, even though Mr. Pena’s testimony was contradicted by Mr.

Delgado-Mendez and Mr. Delgado-Santos, C.I. Perkins corroborated Mr.

Pena’s statements. C.I. Perkins testified that he recovered a rifle and handgun

in the location described by Mr. Pena just over 24 hours after the shooting.

C.I. Dreisbach also corroborated Mr. Pena’s testimony by confirming that Luis

Velazquez owns a Chevrolet Impala and had multiple calls from Appellant’s

phone in the days immediately following the shooting. In addition, although

Appellant may have had a legitimate reason to visit Puerto Rico, the

Commonwealth presented evidence showing that Appellant departed suddenly

without informing his family, purchasing a ticket in advance, or collecting his

paycheck. The court also noted that the jury was made aware of any potential

bias or improper motivation behind the Commonwealth witnesses’ testimony,

and it was free to consider those facts in weighing their credibility.

      Based on the foregoing, we agree with the court that the inconsistencies

and conflicting testimony noted by Appellant do not outweigh Mr. Ayala-

Ocasio’s direct testimony that he witnessed Appellant fire a gun in the Jet Set

parking lot, Mr. Pena’s corroborated testimony that Appellant attempted to

hide the murder weapon, and the questionable circumstances under which

                                     - 13 -
J-S28040-22

Appellant fled to Puerto Rico. Accordingly, we discern no error in the court’s

determination that the jury’s verdict does not shock the conscience.     See

Champney, supra. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.

     Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 1/20/2023

                                    - 14 -