Court Opinion

ID: 9839265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-12 17:09:09.522633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:56.421338
License: Public Domain

J-S26023-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
              v.                               :
                                               :
    DAVIS L. JOSEPHUS                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 2655 EDA 2022

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 26, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-51-CR-0004200-2021

BEFORE: STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                       FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2023

       Josephus Davis1 appeals from the judgment of sentence entered after a

jury convicted him of murder of the second degree and other offenses. 2 We

affirm.

       On January 13, 2021, Davis was arrested and charged in connection

with the shooting death of Milan Loncar. The case proceeded to a jury trial

beginning on June 22, 2022. The trial court summarized the evidence at trial:

             On January 13, 2021, [Davis] robbed and killed the [25-
       year-old decedent, who] was walking his dog. At approximately
       6:53 p.m., [Davis], his co-conspirator, and the decedent all
       converged at the intersection of 31st Street and Jefferson Street
____________________________________________

1 The appellant stated that his name is “Josephus Davis, but in the system it’s

backwards.” N.T., 5/20/22, at 5. We use his preferred name in the body of
this opinion but keep the case caption consistent with the trial court docket.
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(b), 903(c) (conspiracy to commit murder),
3701(a)(1)(i) (robbery), 6106(a)(1) (carrying a firearm without a license),
and 907(a) (possessing an instrument of crime).
J-S26023-23

     in Philadelphia. After turning right on Jefferson Street and seeing
     [Davis] and his co-conspirator walking towards him, the decedent
     attempted to keep to the left; however, [Davis] veered to the left
     forcing the decedent to walk between the two co-conspirators.
     [Davis] pulled his gun from his jacket pocket, points it at the
     decedent’s chest, and both men began searching through the
     decedent’s pockets. As the decedent jerked away, [Davis] shot
     him at point blank range. Both men immediately fled the scene.

            As the decedent attempted to use his cellphone, he
     collapsed on the sidewalk, suffering from one perforating gunshot
     wound to the chest. Approximately four minutes later, police
     officers responded to the scene and rush the decedent to Temple
     Hospital, where he died a half-an-hour later.

           Video surveillance captured both the incident and [the
     conspirators’] flight to [Davis’] home.     [Davis] and his co-
     conspirator ran south on 31st Street, across the parking lot of the
     Pointe, an apartment building at 1415 North 31st Street, and
     climbed a fence to reach an alleyway that ends on Master Street.
     Surveillance footage from the 30th Street Mini Market at 1400
     North 30th Street and four private residences showed the co-
     conspirators exiting the alleyway and walking east on Master
     Street, until eventually turning left and walking north on
     Hollywood Street out of camera view.

           About [15 ]minutes later, at 7:13 p.m., video surveillance
     showed the co-conspirators walking south on Hollywood Street
     towards [Davis’] residence at 1446 Hollywood Street, three
     houses south from the camera. [Davis] looked at his phone and
     said, “Just say you outside . . . nothing wrong with saying you
     outside.” [Davis] asked his mother, who was off camera, “What
     did you say mom?” [Davis’] mother replied, “I didn’t say s[—],
     what you doing?” [Davis] said “I’m waiting for my ride” as he
     walked off-camera towards his home with his co-conspirator.
     After about twenty seconds, [Davis] could be heard saying “just
     stay right there” before he and his co-conspirator walk north on
     Hollywood [S]treet, turn right onto Jefferson Street, and get into
     the backseat of a waiting silver Ford Focus on 29th and Jefferson
     Street.

           Approximately an hour [and] a half later, police attempted
     to pull over the silver Ford Focus on the 1800 block of Hart Lane
     because the vehicle was reported stolen the night before. Once
     the officer activated his car’s lights and sirens, a chase ensued for

                                     -2-
J-S26023-23

      approximately three fourths of a mile with the officer losing sight
      of the vehicle around D Street and Indiana Avenue.

            After receiving information about the vehicle over police
      radio, Highway Patrol Officer James Boone saw the vehicle parked
      at B Street and Indiana Avenue and observed three men flee from
      the vehicle.    Approximately five minutes later, [Davis] was
      secured by another officer at the 200 block of Indiana Avenue and
      Officer Boone identified [him as one of the men who had fled].

             When he was arrested, [Davis] wore clothing consistent with
      the shooter on the surveillance video: gray, white, and red
      Balenciaga sneakers, black jeans with a bedazzled belt, a dark
      blue hooded jacket, a gray zip-up jacket, and a white t-shirt. One
      particle of gunshot residue was found on the left sleeve of [Davis’]
      gray zip-up jacket. [Davis] provided an alias [Joseph Daniels] and
      an incorrect date of birth to the officers.

             From the scene [of the shooting], police recovered one fired
      cartridge casing (“FCC”), one 9mm projectile, and two matching
      bullet fragments. The FCC matched a black and tan Polymer80
      handgun with no serial number, which was recovered by police in
      an unrelated incident [five months later], on May 20, 2021.

Trial Court Opinion, 12/6/22, at 2–4 (record citations omitted, tense altered).

      On June 24, 2022, the jury found Davis guilty of the above counts. On

August 26, 2022, the trial court sentenced Davis to an aggregate term of life

imprisonment. Davis filed a timely post-sentence motion, which the trial court

denied on September 21, 2022. Davis timely appealed. Davis and the trial

court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

      Davis presents two questions for review:

      I.    Was the evidence sufficient to sustain [Davis’] conviction at
            all counts?

      II.   Were the verdicts for all counts against the clear weight of
            the evidence?

Davis’ Brief at 4.

                                     -3-
J-S26023-23

      Davis’ first issue is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. While

he concedes that the evidence at trial was sufficient to prove that the crimes

occurred, he maintains that the evidence was insufficient to identify him as

the perpetrator. Davis emphasizes the lack of eyewitnesses, direct testimony,

DNA, and fingerprints. He argues that the surveillance video (which did not

show the perpetrator’s face) and the gunshot residue test (which found one

particle on his sleeve) did not meet the burden of proving his identity.

      The following well-settled principles frame this Court’s review of an issue

challenging evidentiary sufficiency:

      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 this 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. Dixon, 276 A.3d 794, 800 (Pa. Super. 2022) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Walsh, 36 A.3d 613, 618–19 (Pa. Super. 2012))

(brackets omitted).

                                       -4-
J-S26023-23

      At trial, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving the defendant’s

identity as the perpetrator. “Evidence of identification need not be positive

and certain to sustain a conviction. Although common items of clothing and

general physical characteristics are usually insufficient to support a conviction,

such evidence can be used as other circumstances to establish the identity of

a perpetrator.” Commonwealth v. Edwards, 229 A.3d 298, 306 (Pa. Super.

2020) (quoting Commonwealth v. Kinney, 157 A.3d 968, 971 (Pa. Super.

2017)). Distinctive clothes can be circumstantial evidence of identity. See,

e.g., Commonwealth v. Hobel, 275 A.3d 1049, 1070–71 (Pa. Super. 2022)

(finding sufficient evidence of identity based in part on the defendant having

the same distinctive clothing as the robber as seen on surveillance video).

      Here, the Commonwealth produced surveillance video showing the two

co-conspirators shooting the victim, running away, and climbing over a fence.

Notably, the different camera angles consistently depict the distinctive shoes

that the shooter was wearing, as well as a specific pattern of metal buttons

and a shoulder patch on his jacket. These are all consistent with what Davis

was wearing when he was talking outside his house fifteen minutes later and

when he was arrested two hours later. It was reasonable for the jury to infer

from Davis’ unique clothing that he was the perpetrator.           That the co-

conspirators were wearing masks, resulting in the videos not showing their

faces, does not negate the remaining evidence of distinctive clothing. Rather,

the jury could weigh this evidence of Davis’ identity. Because the evidence

                                      -5-
J-S26023-23

was sufficient for the jury to infer that Davis was the perpetrator, his first

issue fails.

      Davis’ second issue is a challenge to the weight of the evidence. As

above, Davis contests the evidence that he was the perpetrator. He argues

that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence, which “merely”

consisted of surveillance footage in which the perpetrator wore a mask and a

gunshot residue test that showed a single particle on his sleeve.             Davis

preserved his weight issue in his post-sentence for a new trial.

            We are guided by a well-settled set of precepts when
      addressing a weight-of-the-evidence claim. First, we note that
      the weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact, who
      is free to believe all, none or some of the evidence and to
      determine the credibility of witnesses. Second, a verdict will only
      be reversed on this basis where the evidence is so tenuous, vague
      and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the [trial]
      court. Third, the fact-finder is charged with the responsibility to
      resolve contradictory testimony and questions of credibility, and
      we may not substitute our judgment in place of the fact-finder.

             A motion for a new trial based on a weight-of-the-evidence
      claim, like what happened in this case, is addressed to the
      discretion of the trial court, and therefore, we review only the
      [trial] court’s exercise of discretion and not the underlying
      question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the
      evidence. When reviewing a trial court’s determination on a
      weight claim, we give the gravest consideration to the findings
      and reasons advanced by the trial judge because it is the trial
      judge, not the appellate court, who had the opportunity to see and
      hear the evidence presented.

Commonwealth v. Fuentes, 272 A.3d 511, 516 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citations

and quotation marks omitted).

                                      -6-
J-S26023-23

      Here, the trial court explained that the jury’s verdict did not shock the

trial court’s sense of justice. Trial Court Opinion, 12/6/22, at 7. The court

addressed the severity of the crimes and Davis’ identity as a perpetrator:

      [Davis] killed the decedent by shooting him at close range after
      he and his co-conspirator robbed the decedent at gunpoint.
      [Davis’] distinctive clothing, weight, and height are consistent
      with the shooter seen on the surveillance video.        The co-
      conspirators fled back to [Davis’] home, and [Davis] even had a
      conversation with his mother before the co-conspirators got into
      a silver Ford Focus together. Less than two hours after the
      incident, [Davis] was arrested fleeing from a vehicle which was
      the same make, model, and color as the vehicle on the
      surveillance footage.      Accordingly, [Davis’] claim that his
      conviction is against the weight of the evidence fails.

Id. at 7–8 (tense altered).

      We find no abuse of discretion. The trial court assessed the evidence in

light of the jury’s verdict and found that the verdict did not shock its sense of

justice. Davis has not shown how this determination represents an abuse of

discretion. Accordingly, we affirm Davis’ judgment of sentence.

      Affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/12/2023

                                      -7-