Court Opinion

ID: 9954166
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 18:13:00.495767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:51.580547
License: Public Domain

J-S47007-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                    :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                    :
              v.                    :
                                    :
                                    :
 JULIAN JOHNSON                     :
                                    :
                   Appellant        :   No. 88 EDA 2023

    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 2, 2022
          In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
            Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0003235-2019

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                    :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                    :
              v.                    :
                                    :
                                    :
 JULIAN JOHNSON                     :
                                    :
                   Appellant        :   No. 89 EDA 2023

    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 2, 2022
          In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
            Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0003237-2019

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                    :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                    :
              v.                    :
                                    :
                                    :
 JULIAN JOHNSON                     :
                                    :
                   Appellant        :   No. 90 EDA 2023

    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 2, 2022
          In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
            Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0003239-2019

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                    :        PENNSYLVANIA
J-S47007-23

                                                 :
                v.                               :
                                                 :
                                                 :
  JULIAN JOHNSON                                 :
                                                 :
                       Appellant                 :   No. 91 EDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 2, 2022
            In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
              Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0003241-2019

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:                                FILED MARCH 25, 2024

       Appellant, Julian Johnson, appeals from his judgment of sentence of

twelve to fifty years’ imprisonment in these consolidated cases. At docket CP-

51-CR0003235-2019, he was convicted of theft by unlawful taking, receiving

stolen property, and unauthorized use of an automobile. At dockets CP-51-

CR0003237-2019, CP-51-CR-0003239-2019 and CP-51-CR-0003241-2019,

he was convicted of one count of attempted murder and three counts each of

conspiracy, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm with an altered

manufacturer’s number, possessing an instrument of crime, simple assault,

and recklessly endangering another person.             Appellant contends that the

evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Alternatively, he requests

a new trial on the ground that the verdicts were against the manifest weight

of the evidence. We affirm.

       The following evidence was adduced during Appellant’s trial. The first

case against Appellant arose from his theft of an automobile. On November
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

                                           -2-
J-S47007-23

26, 2018, Philadelphia police received a report of a theft of a silver 2006 Acura

SUV, with the license plate KLC-8465, owned by Assad Houssein. Houssein

last saw his car in front of 261 Linton Street in Philadelphia at approximately

9:00 p.m. on November 26, 2018. The SUV had a distinct dent on the driver’s

side passenger door.

      The second and third cases against Appellant arose from two shootings

on November 27, 2018, one day after the car theft.         On that date, police

officers responded to a shooting at 5166 N. 8th Street and found a man

suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim, Kevon Clarke, was transported

to Einstein Hospital and treated for a gunshot wound to the head. Inside the

house at this location, the officers found another man suffering from a gunshot

wound. The victim, Derrick Bolling, was transported to Einstein Hospital and

treated for a gunshot wound to the back. The police recovered thirteen .45

caliber fired cartridge casings (“FCCs”) in the immediate vicinity of the

shootings. Ballistic testing of the FCCs revealed that two different guns had

been used.    The police also recovered surveillance video from a nearby

residence that showed a vehicle near the scene of the first shooting that

matched the description of Houssein’s stolen vehicle.

      The fourth case against Appellant arose from a shooting on December

1, 2018. On that date, the police responded to a report of gunshots at 8th

and Duncannon Streets. A man later identified as Ameen Allen approached

the officers at that location, said he was shot, and fell to the ground. Officers

transported Allen to the hospital, where he was treated for gunshot wounds

                                      -3-
J-S47007-23

to the upper body and legs. Detectives recovered surveillance videos from

nearby residences that showed a silver Acura SUV with a distinctive dent near

the scene of the shooting. This vehicle matched the description of Houssein’s

stolen SUV as well as the vehicle spotted near the scene of the shootings on

November 27, 2018.

      While investigating Allen’s shooting, detectives recovered twenty-nine

.45 caliber FCCs, one .22 caliber FCC, two projectiles and three glass

fragments. The FCCs were fired from three different guns. Thirteen of the

FCCs were fired from a gun used in the November 27, 2018 shooting.

      On December 3, 2018, at approximately 8:00 pm, Officer Michael Braun

and his partner observed a vehicle resembling the Acura SUV seen in the

surveillance videos at the scene of the shooting two days earlier. The SUV

had a distinct dent on the driver’s side passenger door, and its license plate

(KLC-8465) matched the plate number on the stolen vehicle.

      The officers flashed their patrol lights, and the SUV sped off and ran a

red light. The officers pursued the SUV for a short distance. The car stopped,

and three individuals got out and fled on foot. While pursuing the suspects,

Officer Braun saw one of them discard a black object into a vacant lot. The

individuals were not apprehended, but the officers recovered a black ski mask,

as well as a Glock 30 Model S handgun with a damaged serial number from

the vacant lot where the suspect was seen running. They also recovered a

.45 caliber magazine with thirteen live rounds from a nearby sidewalk.

                                    -4-
J-S47007-23

Forensic testing revealed that the recovered gun had been used in both

shootings.

      The gun and ski mask were sent to the lab for testing. The DNA mixture

found on the mask belonged to Appellant and two other individuals. The DNA

mixture found on the gun belonged to Appellant and three other individuals.

Additionally, the Firearms Identification Unit was able to restore the serial

number on the recovered gun. The gun was traced to a man named Robert

Lighty, who purchased the gun in 2017 and sold it to Appellant in August 2018.

      The police obtained a search warrant for the SUV and recovered several

items, including an Apple iPhone. The officers observed in plain view on the

phone’s home screen a notification of activity on the Instagram app by a

person with the username “Qua2ndst.” After obtaining a warrant for the

device, detectives learned that its phone number was registered to Appellant.

      The police recovered fingerprints from the stolen SUV which were sent

to the lab for testing. The prints recovered from the exterior driver’s side door

and the exterior rear passenger side door matched those of a man named

Quadir Simmons.      The police then obtained a warrant for the Instagram

account “Qua2ndst,” and learned that it belonged to Simmons. Posted on the

Instagram page was a photo of the interior of a car that matched the

description of the stolen SUV, with the caption “Turkey LOL.” The photo had

been posted one day after the SUV was reported stolen and the same day of

the first two shootings. The police also obtained Simmons’ cellphone number

from the account.

                                      -5-
J-S47007-23

     Further, the police found Appellant’s Instagram account under the

username “4st.Juju” from a search of Simmons’ account.            Posted on

Appellant’s account was a photo of him and Simmons holding what appeared

to be Glock handguns. The photo was posted on November 20, 2018, about

one week before the shootings. There was also a message that Appellant sent

to another individual saying, “I got my Glock .45. That’s the only jawn I got

to myself. If I come across another one, I gotchu.” Appellant and Simmons

also had conversations regarding a stolen “Jeep” on November 26, 2018, the

same night that Houssein’s SUV was stolen.

     The police analyzed the cellphone tower data from both Appellant’s and

Simmons’s cellphones.     The records showed that both men were near the

location where the SUV was stolen on November 26, 2018, at the approximate

time the van was stolen.     On November 27, 2018, the date of the first

shooting, both cellphones “pinged” from a tower less than a mile from the

location of the shooting. Also, both cellphones “pinged” from a tower less

than a mile from the scene of the second shooting on December 1, 2018.

Lastly, on December 3, 2018, both cellphones “pinged” in the area of where

the car chase occurred.

     Both Appellant and Simmons were arrested. Following a non-jury trial,

the court found Appellant guilty of the aforementioned charges. On December

2, 2022, the trial court imposed sentence. Appellant filed a timely appeal,

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

                                    -6-
J-S47007-23

      The first issue presented in Appellant’s statement of matters complained

of on appeal to the trial court was as follows:

      The evidence presented at trial was insufficient as a matter of law
      to sustain the verdicts of guilty:

      a. CP-51-CR-0003235-2019

            i. Theft By Unlawful Taking (F3)

            ii. Receiving Stolen Property (F3)

            iii. UUA (M2)

      b. CP-51-CR-0003237-2019

            i. Attempted Murder (F1)

            ii. Conspiracy (F1)

            iii. Aggravated Assault (F1)

            iv. VUFA Section 6110.2(A) (F2)

             v. PIC (M1)

            vi. Simple Assault (M2)

            vii. REAP (M2)

      c. CP-51-CR-0003239-2019

            i. Conspiracy (F1)

            ii. Aggravated Assault (F1)

            iii. VUFA Section 6110.2(A) (F2)

            iv. PIC (M1)

            v. Simple Assault (M2)

            vi. REAP (M2)

      d. CP-51-CR-0003241-2019

            i. Conspiracy (F1)

            ii. Aggravated Assault (F1)

                                      -7-
J-S47007-23

             iii. VUFA Section 6110.2(A) (F2)

             iv. PIC (M1)

             v. Simple Assault (M2)

             vi. REAP (M2)

Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, 2/16/23, at ¶ 1.

       The trial court reasoned that the lack of specificity in the 1925(b)

statement resulted in waiver of Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence:

       To preserve a sufficiency claim, an Appellant’s Rule 1925(b)
       statement “must specify the element or elements upon which the
       evidence was insufficient so [the Superior Court] can then analyze
       the element or elements on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Roche,
       153 A.3d 1063, 1072 (Pa. Super. 2017). If the appellant fails to
       specify such elements, the sufficiency claim is deemed waived.
       Commonwealth v. McFarland, 278 A.3d 369, 381 (Pa. Super.
       2022) citing Roche, 153 A.3d at 1072.

       Here, Appellant failed to provide any specificity in his 1925(b)
       statement. Appellant failed to provide the element or elements
       upon which he claims the evidence was insufficient. The Appellant
       listed the charges, but that is too vague to conduct a meaningful
       review.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, 3/15/23, at 7-8.

       The second issue in Appellant’s 1925(b) statement was a challenge to

the weight of the evidence.      Although Appellant did not raise a weight

challenge at sentencing or file post-sentence motions, the trial court

addressed the merits of this claim, concluding that Appellant was not entitled

to relief.

                                      -8-
J-S47007-23

       Appellant raises two issues in this appeal.      First, he challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions, using identical language

from his 1925(b) statement. Appellant’s Brief at 3-4 (Statement of Questions

Presented).     Second, Appellant seeks a new trial on the ground that the

verdicts were against the weight of the evidence.1 Id.

       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.... Finally, the finder 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. Brockman, 167 A.3d 29, 38 (Pa. Super. 2017).

       As observed by the trial court, Appellant’s statement of matters

complained of on appeal failed to specify which element or elements of any

offense the Commonwealth failed to prove. “In order to preserve a challenge

____________________________________________

1  Appellant listed a third issue in his Statement of Questions Presented:
whether the trial court erred in denying his motions to dismiss under
Pa.R.Crim.P. 600. In a footnote, however, Appellant conceded that he did not
file Rule 600 motions prior to trial, thus making it impossible to raise this issue
until the postconviction stage. Therefore, we will not address this issue in this
direct appeal.

                                           -9-
J-S47007-23

to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, an appellant’s Rule 1925

statement must state with specificity the element or elements upon which the

appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient.”    Commonwealth v.

Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa. Super. 2013). “Where a 1925(b) statement

“does not specify the allegedly unproven elements ... the sufficiency issue is

waived [on appeal].” Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252, 1257

(Pa. Super. 2008). Thus, Appellant has waived his sufficiency challenge.

      In his second issue, Appellant challenges the weight of the evidence.

Once again, Appellant has waived this argument.

      A challenge to the weight of the evidence must be raised before the trial

court either orally or in a written motion before sentencing, or in a post-

sentence motion. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A)(1)-(3). Failure to challenge the

weight of the evidence presented at trial in an oral or written motion prior to

sentence or in a post-sentence motion will result in waiver of the claim, even

when the defendant raises a weight challenge in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925 statement

of matters complained of on appeal and the court addresses the substance of

the weight challenge in its opinion. Commonwealth v. Barkman, 295 A.3d

721, 736 (Pa. Super. 2023); Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478,

491 (Pa. Super. 2014).

      Here, Appellant did not file any written motions challenging the weight

of the evidence, and he did not raise a weight challenge at sentencing. The

first time that Appellant raised a weight challenge was in his Rule 1925

statement of matters complained of on appeal. Even though the trial court

                                    - 10 -
J-S47007-23

reviewed the substance of the weight claim in its Rule 1925 opinion, our

precedents make clear that this issue is waived.   Barkman, Thompson,

supra.

     For these reasons, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.

     Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 3/25/2024

                                  - 11 -