Court Opinion

ID: 9914905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-03 17:07:27.057247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:20.431403
License: Public Domain

J-S47018-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :          PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  DARYL BURNS                                  :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :     No. 874 EDA 2023

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 4, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-51-CR-0007485-2019

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

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                              FILED JANUARY 3, 2024

       Daryl Burns appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following

his convictions for murder of the first degree1 and other crimes. We affirm.

       On July 15, 2018, Burns attended a cookout at the home of Vitia Wilson.

Also at the cookout were Wilson’s fiancé Richard Jackson (the victim), Wilson’s

daughter Erica Lyons, Lyons’ baby, Burns’ brother Marcus (the baby’s father),

and Burns’ cousin Tamir Pinkney.

       As the cookout came to an end, Jackson told Marcus to stop selling drugs

and to get a job to care for his baby.             Burns interjected and fought with

Jackson. Marcus and Wilson joined in the fight, which left Jackson with a black

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a).
J-S47018-23

eye. After the fight, Burns, Marcus, and Pinkney were asked to leave. They

walked away. Jackson also left the cookout and went to his house.

       Later that night, Burns, Marcus, and Pinkney walked to Jackson’s house.

A neighbor across the street, Cinette Washington, watched as Burns gestured

for Marcus and Pinkney to sit down while Burns went to the door. Burns calmly

knocked on the door and identified himself. When Jackson opened the door,

Burns shot him once in the chest. Burns, Marcus, and Pinkney walked away.

Police rushed Jackson to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

       Surveillance video captured Burns, Marcus, and Pinkey walking near the

house. Wilson identified the group on the video. Washington identified Burns

as the man she saw shoot Jackson.

       Following trial in May of 2022, a jury found Burns guilty. On October 4,

2022, the trial court sentenced Burns to an aggregate term of life in prison.

Burns filed a post-sentence motion on October 14, 2022, which was denied by

operation of law on February 14, 2023. Burns appealed.2 Burns and the trial

court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 1925.

____________________________________________

2 Burns had until March 16, 2023, to file a timely notice of appeal.    Pa.R.A.P.
903(a); Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(2)(b). The Philadelphia Office of Judicial Records
did not stamp Burns’ notice of appeal until March 20, [2023]. However, it is
clear that Burns delivered his notice of appeal to prison authorities for mailing
prior to the deadline. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423, 426
(Pa. 1997) (applying “the prisoner mailbox rule to all appeals by pro se
prisoners”); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 621, 624 (Pa.
Super. 2016) (requiring a court to docket a pro se notice of appeal from a
defendant who has an attorney). We thus accept Burns’ appeal as timely.

                                           -2-
J-S47018-23

       Burns puts two issues in one question3: “Did the trial judge err as a

matter of law by allowing a verdict of first-degree murder to stand which was

against the weight and sufficiency of evidence?” Burns’ Brief at 7. In his brief,

Burns attacks his murder conviction by alternative means: First, Burns argues

that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was the shooter or that he

had the specific intent to kill. Second, Burns submits that the verdict was

against the weight of the evidence because the jury did not consider that he

was not the shooter or that he lacked the intent to kill.

       Challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence follow distinct

standards of review. Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa.

2000). The standard for sufficiency is as follows:

              A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a
       question of law. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the
       verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime
       charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a
       reasonable doubt. Where the evidence offered to support the
       verdict is in contradiction to the physical facts, in contravention to
       human experience and the laws of nature, then the evidence is
       insufficient as a matter of law. When reviewing a sufficiency claim
       the court is required to view the evidence in the light most
       favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit
       of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.

Id. at 751 (citations omitted).

       The elements of murder of the first degree are “that a human being was

unlawfully killed; the person accused is responsible for the killing; and the

accused acted with specific intent to kill.”     Commonwealth v. Housman,
____________________________________________

3 We do not endorse combining multiple issues into one question on appeal.

Nonetheless, Burns’ format does not hinder our review.

                                           -3-
J-S47018-23

226 A.3d 1249, 1271 (Pa. 2020). A defendant’s identity as the shooter, like

any element, may be proven by circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v.

Williams, 255 A.3d 565, 579 (Pa. Super. 2021). So, too, the Commonwealth

may use circumstantial evidence to prove that a defendant had the specific

intent to kill; a jury can “infer that the defendant intended to kill a victim

based on the defendant’s use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the victim’s

body.” Housman, 226 A.3d at 1271.

      Here, the trial court rejected Burns’ general challenge to evidentiary

sufficiency of his murder conviction:

      [T]he Commonwealth presented evidence which included video
      surveillance, physical evidence, and eyewitness testimony.
      Although video surveillance did not capture the killing, video
      surveillance showed [Burns] walking away from the crime scene
      [shortly after the murder]. Most importantly, eyewitness Cinetta
      Washington observed the murder as she watched [Burns] walk up
      to [Jackson’s] residence, take a gun out from under his shirt, point
      it at [Jackson,] and shoot him in the chest. Erica Lyons and her
      mother Vitia Wilson also testified that a physical and verbal
      altercation occurred between Mr. Jackson and [Burns] earlier that
      evening which shows [Burns’] motive. [Burns] went to Mr.
      Jackson’s house, knocked on the door, waited for him to answer
      and then at close range, fired one bullet into [Jackson’s chest],
      killing him. [Jackson] was unarmed.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/27/23, at 6–7.

      We agree with the trial court that the evidence was sufficient to sustain

Burns’ conviction for murder of the first degree. The jury was free to credit

the witnesses’ identification of Burns as the man who walked to Jackson’s

house with Marcus and Pinkney, identified himself, and shot Jackson in the

chest. Furthermore, the jury could infer that Burns had the specific intent to

                                        -4-
J-S47018-23

kill because Burns waited for Jackson to open the door and then shot Jackson

in the chest. Housman, 226 A.3d at 1271. Because the evidence is sufficient

to sustain Burns’ conviction for murder of the first degree, Burns is not entitled

to relief on his sufficiency challenge.

      Turning to Burns’ weight challenge, we observe that a claim “that the

verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of

the trial court.” Widmer, 744 A.2d at 751–52. A trial court grants a new

trial on this basis only if “the evidence [is] so tenuous, vague and uncertain

that the verdict shocks the conscience of the [trial] court.” Commonwealth

v. Hobel, 275 A.3d 1049, 1071 n.9 (Pa. Super. 2022). Accordingly, this Court

will not reverse a trial court’s ruling on a weight claim unless the trial court

abused its discretion:

             Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise
      of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict
      is against the weight of the evidence. Because the trial judge has
      had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, an
      appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings
      and reasons advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial
      court’s determination that the verdict is against the weight of the
      evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for granting or
      denying a new trial is the lower court’s conviction that the verdict
      was or was not against the weight of the evidence and that a new
      trial should be granted in the interest of justice.

Widmer, 744 A.2d at 753 (citations omitted).

       Here, the trial court considered the evidence presented at trial and

rejected Burns’ claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence:

      In the instant case, Ms. Washington identified [Burns] as the
      shooter while Ms. Wilson identified [Burns] when shown a photo

                                          -5-
J-S47018-23

       array and gave testimony which corroborated Ms. Washington and
       Erica [Lyons’] version of events. All three witnesses were further
       corroborated by evidence establishing [Burns’] motive for the
       crime and video surveillance. The jury’s decision to credit the
       Commonwealth’s eyewitness testimony under such
       circumstances does not “shock the [conscience.]”

Trial Court Opinion, 6/27/23, at 8–9 (emphasis added).

       We discern no abuse of discretion. The trial court observed the evidence

that was presented to the jury and determined that the resulting verdict did

not shock the court’s conscience.    The trial court’s treatment of this issue

appropriately recognizes that the jury was free to credit the consistent,

corroborated evidence and find that Burns shot Jackson with the specific intent

to kill.   As Burns has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion, his weight

challenge fails.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 1/03/2024

                                     -6-