Court Opinion

ID: 9959778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 16:10:32.998694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:53.460143
License: Public Domain

J-S06036-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                    :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                    :
              v.                    :
                                    :
                                    :
 SAEDAIR D. LINDSEY                 :
                                    :
                   Appellant        :   No. 1228 EDA 2023

   Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 29, 2022
          In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003535-2020

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                    :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                    :
              v.                    :
                                    :
                                    :
 SAEDAIR D. LINDSEY                 :
                                    :
                   Appellant        :   No. 1229 EDA 2023

   Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 29, 2022
          In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003537-2020

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                    :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                    :
              v.                    :
                                    :
                                    :
 SAEDAIR D. LINDSEY                 :
                                    :
                   Appellant        :   No. 1230 EDA 2023

   Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 29, 2022
          In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003539-2020
J-S06036-24

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:                             FILED APRIL 12, 2024

       Saedair Lindsey (“Lindsey”) appeals from the judgment of sentence

following his convictions for first-degree murder, criminal conspiracy, firearms

not to be carried without a license, carrying firearms on the streets of

Philadelphia, aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person

(“REAP”), and possession of an instrument of crime (“PIC”).1 We affirm.

       The facts as recited by the trial court are as follows:

              On April 23, 2020, at around 3:00 p.m., Philadelphia Police
       Officer Gilbert Brito was off duty and on his way to work in his
       personal vehicle. While driving northbound on 65th Street and
       Dicks Avenue, Officer Brito came to a stop at a traffic light. While
       waiting for the light to change, Officer Brito heard multiple
       gunshots and looked around to see where the gunshots were
       coming from. Still inside his personal vehicle, Officer Brito
       observed a black male wearing a blue jacket with a black hoodie
       and dark colored pants, walk in front of his vehicle with a handgun.
       Seconds later, Officer Brito observed another black male walk in
       front of his vehicle on foot. Officer Brito immediately pulled over
       to call 911 after he observed the [victim], who was shot, through
       his rearview mirror, and another off-duty officer at the scene.
       Officer Brito exited his vehicle and proceeded to render aid to the
       [victim]. Once the marked patrol vehicle arrived, Officer Brito and
       Officer Roman[1] carried the [victim’s] body into the patrol car and
       the [victim] was transported to the hospital.

              [1] Officer Roman’s first name does not appear in the record.

             Detective Michael McKenna and his partner retrieved video
       surveillance for Masis Market . . . . Detective McKenna watched
       the video surveillance from Masis and then followed the path the

____________________________________________

1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 903, 6106, 6108, 2702, 2705, 907.

                                           -2-
J-S06036-24

     shooters took after the shooting to obtain more video. They
     obtained video from the Philadelphia Police Department’s real time
     crime center, private residences[,] and private businesses.

            Detective Thorsten Lucke, an expert in the field of digital
     forensic recovery and compilations, testified to extracts of
     contents that were recovered from the cellular device of [co-
     defendant, Tyrek McWilliams], as well as to the videos recovered
     by Detective McKenna. In his presentation, Detective Lucke
     showed video evidence of [Lindsey] and . . [McWilliams],
     approaching Masis Market . . .. Lindsey can be seen wearing a
     grey jacket, a black hoody under it, and sneakers with a reddish
     bottom, with a Nike swoosh. [McWilliams] can be seen in the
     video wearing a dark colored jacket, a black hoody, and black
     shoes with a white vertical stripe at the heel. [Lindsey] and
     [McWilliams] are seen lingering by a parked van for quite some
     time, while looking in the direction of the store . . .. A white SUV
     comes and circles around the area and parks on the corner of 65th
     and Dicks Avenue . . .. [Lindsey] and [McWilliams] immediately
     leave the location by the white van and walk quickly and directly
     to the corner where the white SUV parks.                [The victim],
     seventeen-year-old Tahj Williams, exits the white SUV. He walks
     towards the store but stays on the sidewalk as [Lindsey] and
     [McWilliams] approach him. Two other people, Tyquan Smith and
     Lamar Richards also exit the white SUV. As . . . Williams is on the
     sidewalk in front of the store, [Lindsey] [shoots] Williams while .
     . . Williams’s back is turned and from a very close distance.
     [Lindsey] shoots . . . Williams four times; once in the face, twice
     in the back and once in the arm. The shots to the back proved to
     be the fatal shots. The cause of death was multiple gunshot
     wounds, and the manner of death was homicide. As [Lindsey]
     shoots . . . Williams, [McWilliams] simultaneously begins firing at
     Tyquan Smith and Lamar Richards. [S]mith and . . . Richards
     avoid the shots fired by [McWilliams] by running away and taking
     cover on the other side of the SUV. There were seventeen fired
     cartridge casings recovered at the scene, from two guns.
     Detectives found the white SUV and discovered it had multiple
     bullet holes in the passenger side of the car.

           The video evidence recovered by Detective McKenna and
     presented by Detective Lucke to the jury, follows the path of the
     shooters for several blocks. The videos show that during their
     travel, [Lindsey] and [McWilliams] shed the clothes, masks and
     hats worn at the corner of 64th and Dicks. The shoes [they] wore

                                     -3-
J-S06036-24

     at the shooting location could also be seen in the surveillance
     video following their path leaving the scene, as well as items of
     clothes. The jurors were able to compare zoomed in video stills
     of the faces of the shooters, without masks and hoods, to known
     photographs of both [Lindsey] and [McWilliams]. The jurors were
     also able to compare the stills from the video and the actual videos
     to [Lindsey] sitting in the courtroom. This is not the only evidence
     of identification provided by the Commonwealth.

           Police Officer Kevin Tilghman testified that he knows []
     Lindsey because he "watched him grow up." As part of his duties
     as a police officer, P.O. Tilghman played basketball at the Hewey
     Elementary school in the 18th District and became friendly with
     the neighborhood kids. He and . . . Lindsey saw each other
     sometimes three times a week at the school and in the
     neighborhood over the course of approximately 8 years. P.O.
     Tilghman knew him so well he was able to give Homicide
     detectives [] Lindsey’s home address off the top of his head.
     Homicide detectives showed him the videos and stills from the
     shooting and P.O. Tilghman identified [Lindsey] immediately.

           Detective Mikal Carr worked in the 16th police district in
     Philadelphia for 4 years before becoming a detective. Because of
     his familiarity with people in his district, Homicide detectives
     asked Detective Carr if he would view the video surveillance
     recovered in this investigation and see if he knew any of the
     people in the video. Detective Carr identified [McWilliams] and
     [Lindsey] as the people in the video, based on the regular contact
     he had with [McWilliams] for 4 years prior to the murder, and
     based upon his familiarity [with] [Lindsey] from the neighborhood.
     He stated he was not as familiar with [Lindsey] as he was with
     McWilliams.

            Police Officer Robert Lamanna also identified [Lindsey] from
     the videos and stills. P.O. Lamanna spent approximately 4-5
     years in the 18th District and knows [Lindsey] from his time there.
     As part of his assignment for 2 years in the Criminal Intelligence
     unit of the Philadelphia police department, P.O. Lamanna followed
     [Lindsey’s] Instagram account where he would see photographs
     of [Lindsey], who identified himself as " Siddy" or Saedair Lindsey.
     He also testified that he knew of [Lindsey] from his investigation
     of him in another case.

                                    -4-
J-S06036-24

              Police Officer Jeremy Olesik, a 15-year veteran of the
       Philadelphia Police Department[,] also identified [Lindsey] from
       the video surveillance recovered from the scene of the murder and
       the flight therefrom, as well as the still photos from the video.
       Officer Olesik knew [Lindsey] from numerous contacts in the
       confines of the 18th police district. In fact, Officer Olesik had a
       documented interaction with [Lindsey] on February 28, 2020.

              The Commonwealth also called Sergeant Ronald Green, a
       veteran Philadelphia police officer with more than twenty-five
       years of experience in the area where [Lindsey] was known to
       spend time. He had a documented interaction with [Lindsey] also
       on February 28, 2020[,] and easily identified him in the videos
       and stills from the shooting, based upon his knowledge of
       [Lindsey] and his documented interaction with him only months
       prior.

            Police obtained an arrest warrant for [Lindsey] and arrested
       him on September 14, 2020.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/16/23, at 3-6 (footnotes and citations omitted, some

punctuation and capitalization corrected).

       In November 2022, a jury convicted Lindsey of the above-listed

charges.2 Later that month, the court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment

without parole. Lindsey filed a post-sentence motion the trial court denied by

operation of law.3 Lindsey also filed a timely notice of appeal and he and the

trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

____________________________________________

2 The jury convicted co-defendant McWilliams of first-degree murder,
conspiracy, two counts of aggravated assault, REAP, two counts of violating
the Uniform Firearms Act, and possession of an instrument of crime.

3 The clerk of court prematurely entered an order on the 120 th day denying

Lindsey’s post-sentence motion by operation of law.        That action has no
significance to this appeal.

                                           -5-
J-S06036-24

      On appeal, Lindsey raises two issues for our review:

      1. Did the trial judge err in sustaining a jury verdict of first-degree
      murder?

            a. Did the jury err as a matter of law in finding a verdict of
               first-degree murder despite the insufficiency of the
               evidence?

            b. Did the trial court mis-instruct the jury by failing to
               distinguish between the two defendants?

See Lindsey’s Brief at 8.

      Lindsey’s first issue implicates the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining

his first-degree murder conviction.

      This Court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence under the following

standard:

      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. . .. 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.

Commonwealth v. Stahl, 175 A.3d 301, 303-04 (Pa. Super. 2017) (added

emphasis removed).      In reviewing a sufficiency claim, this Court has also

acknowledged that:

      we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for
      the fact-[]finder . . .. 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
      finder of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and

                                       -6-
J-S06036-24

      the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or
      none of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 756 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation

omitted).   A reviewing court “evaluate[s] the entire trial record and all

evidence actually received, in the aggregate and not as fragments isolated

from the totality of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Nixon, 801 A.2d 1241,

1243 (Pa. Super. 2002).

      To convict a defendant of first-degree murder, the Commonwealth must

prove he acted with the specific intent to kill, a human being was unlawfully

killed, and the killing was done with premeditation or deliberation.         See

Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 861 A.2d 898, 907 (Pa. 2004). The intent to

kill may be formulated in a fraction of a second. Commonwealth v. Jordan,

65 A.3d 318, 323 (Pa. 2013). The Commonwealth may prove the specific

intent to kill with circumstantial evidence. See Fletcher, 861 A.3d at 907.

The use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of a victim’s body is sufficient to

establish the specific intent to kill. See Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.3d

873, 878 (Pa. 2009).

      Lindsey asserts the evidence failed to prove his specific intent to kill

because only one of the victim’s injuries was fatal, the shots were not explicitly

aimed at the victim’s vital organs, the ballistic evidence was weak, there was

no DNA evidence, there were no eyewitnesses, the other people shot at did

not testify, and the killing must have been third-degree murder because it was

not premeditated. See Lindsey’s Brief at 14-18.

                                      -7-
J-S06036-24

       The trial court found the evidence sufficient to sustain Lindsey’s first-

degree murder conviction. It cited the assistant medical examiner’s testimony

the victim suffered multiple gunshot wounds, including fatal shots to the

torso/back area and the head, both vital parts of the body. See Trial Court

Opinion, 10/16/23, at 9-10.          The court also stated the evidence showed

Lindsey and his conspirator waited for the victim, came to the scene armed,

and immediately ambushed the victim and his companions. See id.

       We perceive no error in the trial court’s ruling. Lindsey’s act of shooting

the victim twice in vital parts of the body would itself permit the inference of

the intent to kill. See Diggs, 949 A.2d at 878. Moreover, the ample evidence,

which included videos of the killing and Lindsey’s flight with his conspirator,

clearly showed that Lindsey and his conspirator came to the scene armed and

lay in wait for the victim, then attacked when he arrived. That evidence amply

demonstrated Lindsey’s intent to kill. See Jordan, 65 A.3d at 323; Fletcher,

861 A.3d at 907.4

       Lindsey’s second issue asserts the trial court erred in its jury

instructions.

____________________________________________

4  As noted, a proper sufficiency analysis considers all the evidence and
inferences in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner.
Lindsey’s attempt to defeat sufficiency by focusing on “absent” factors cannot
undo the ample evidence of his guilt. Cf. Commonwealth v. Meals, 912
A.2d 213, 222-23 (Pa. 2006) (holding a reviewing court should not assign
excessive importance to “absent” factors than those found and relied upon by
the trial court).

                                           -8-
J-S06036-24

      As a preliminary matter, we consider whether Lindsey’s claim is

reviewable. An issue not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed

waived for the purpose of appellate review. Commonwealth v. Lord, 719

A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998). Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) is “very clear

and very strict.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 304 A.3d 35, 39 (Pa. Super.

2023). The Rule is “a crucial part of the appellate process because it allows

the trial court to identify and focus on those issues the parties plan to raise

on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Bonnett, 239 A.3d 1096, 1106 (Pa. Super.

2020).

      Lindsey filed a 1925(b) statement but challenged only the sufficiency

and weight of the evidence sustaining his convictions of first-degree murder,

aggravated assault, and REAP. See Statement of Matters Complained of on

Appeal, 7/19/23, Trial Court Opinion, 10/16/23, at 2. Lindsey did not assert

an error in the trial court’s jury instruction, and the trial court did not address

that claim. Having failed to afford the trial court the opportunity to address

his assertion of error, Lindsey cannot obtain our review of a claim first asserted

on appeal. See Lord, 719 A.3d at 309; Bonnett, 239 A.3d at 1106.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                       -9-
J-S06036-24

Date: 4/12/2024

                  - 10 -