Court Opinion

ID: 9371672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-16 17:09:38.609267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:29.406653
License: Public Domain

J-S45038-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    TYREEK JACKSON                             :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 200 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 15, 2021
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
                 Criminal Division at CP-51-CR-0000245-2020

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                           FILED FEBRUARY 16, 2023

       Tyreek Jackson (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed after the trial court found him guilty of robbery, burglary, persons

not to possess firearms, conspiracy, criminal trespass, firearms not to be

carried without a license, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property,

carrying firearms on the public streets of Philadelphia, unlawful restraint,

possessing an instrument of crime, terroristic threats, simple assault,

recklessly endangering another person (REAP), and false imprisonment.1 We

affirm.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701(a)(1)(ii), 3502(a)(1)(i), 6105(a)(1), 903(c),
3503(a)(1)(ii), 6106(a)(1), 3921(a), 3925(a), 6108, 2902(a)(1), 907(a),
2706(a)(1), 2701(a), 2705, and 2903(a), respectively.
J-S45038-22

        As the facts and procedural history of this case are fully set forth in the

trial court’s opinion, we do not restate them.         See Trial Court Opinion,

4/28/22, at 1–9.        We briefly note that, on August 16, 2018, Appellant,

accompanied by Brooklyn Bradley (Bradley), and Jaquil Watson (Watson),

invaded the home of 70-year-old Larry Feinberg (the Victim). N.T., 10/5/21,

at 12-16, 31-33. Appellant and Watson restrained the Victim with plastic ties,

pressed a gun to the Victim’s head, pushed him, and sprayed mace in the

Victim’s eye. Id. at 13-16, 35-36.

        On October 5, 2021, the trial court convicted Appellant of the above

charges. On December 15, 2021, the trial court, with the benefit of a pre-

sentence investigation report, sentenced Appellant on the charges of robbery,

burglary, persons not to possess firearms, and conspiracy, to an aggregate 7

– 20 years in prison.        The trial court did not sentence Appellant on the

remaining charges. Appellant timely appealed.2

        Appellant raises two issues on appeal:

        [1.] Is the evidence sufficient, as a matter of law, to convict
        [Appellant] of the crimes of possessing a firearm without a license
        and carrying a firearm in Philadelphia as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S.A.
        §§ 6106 and 6108 of the Crimes Code where the evidence of
        record does not establish that the item allegedly used by
        [Appellant] had a barrel length or overall length which satisfied
        the definition of firearms as that term is defined in 18 Pa.C.S.A.
        § 6102?

        [2.] Is the evidence sufficient, as a matter of law, to convict
        [Appellant] of the crimes of [REAP] and unlawful restraint as set
____________________________________________

2   Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

                                           -2-
J-S45038-22

        forth in 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2705 and 2902 of the Crimes Code where
        the evidence of record does not establish that [Appellant] or his
        accomplices placed [the Victim] at risk of suffering “serious bodily
        injury” as that term is defined in 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

        Our standard of review 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 the above test, we may not weigh
        the evidence and substitute our judgment for [that of] 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. Leaner, 202 A.3d 749, 768 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation

omitted).

        Appellant argues his convictions under 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6106 and 61083

were not supported by sufficient evidence because:

        Both offenses require possession of a “firearm.” “Firearm” is
        defined in § 6102 of the Crimes Code as “[a]ny pistol or revolver
        with a barrel length less than 15 inches, any shotgun with
        a barrel length less than 18 inches or any rifle with a barrel
____________________________________________

3   As noted, the trial court did not impose a sentence on these charges.

                                           -3-
J-S45038-22

        length less than 16 inches, or any pistol, revolver, rifle or
        shotgun with an overall length of less than 26 inches.” 18
        Pa.C.S.A. § 6102 (emphasis supplied). With respect to the “gun”
        allegedly possessed by [Appellant], the only description offered
        into evidence at trial was that the weapon was a gun that looks
        like a “relatively small or medium sized automatic pistol” without
        any description by the witness of the size of the weapon.
        [Bradley], who was a coconspirator in the robbery at issue,
        testified that the gun was fake.

Appellant’s Brief at 17 (emphasis in original). Appellant further asserts the

evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions for REAP and unlawful

restraint:4

        Both crimes require that [Appellant] expose the victim to the risk
        of suffering serious bodily injury. The [Victim] here did not suffer
        an injury meeting the definition of serious bodily injury, namely
        “injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes
        serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or
        impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.”

Id. at 18.

        The record belies Appellant’s arguments. Upon review, we conclude that

the evidence presented at trial, viewed in a light most favorable to the

Commonwealth, supports the trial court’s verdicts.             Furthermore, the

Honorable Charles A. Ehrlich, sitting as the trial court, has authored a

comprehensive opinion, which we adopt in its entirety and incorporate in this

decision. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/28/22, at 14, 17 (concluding evidence

was sufficient to sustain convictions under 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6106 and 6108

where the Commonwealth’s evidence showed Appellant “wielded” a gun

____________________________________________

4   Again, the trial court did not impose a sentence on these charges.

                                           -4-
J-S45038-22

during the home invasion and had a criminal record making him ineligible to

carry a firearm; the evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant’s convictions

for REAP and unlawful restraint where evidence showed Appellant used plastic

ties to restrain the Victim, held a gun to his head throughout the robbery, and

sprayed mace in the Victim’s eye, thereby exposing him to the risk of serious

bodily injury).

       Consistent with the foregoing, we adopt Judge Ehrlich’s opinion as our

own.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/16/2023

                                     -5-
Circulated 01/27/2023 11:32 AM