Court Opinion

ID: 9891126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 16:10:12.955329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:09.892657
License: Public Domain

J-S31014-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 MARTIN WALKER                          :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 188 EDA 2023

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 19, 2021
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-CR-0003247-2020

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

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                       FILED OCTOBER 17, 2023

     Appellant, Martin Walker, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered on October 19, 2021. We affirm.

     The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this case:

       On April 13, 2020, at around 10:15 [p.m., the victim, Mark
       Johnson (“the Victim”)] was walking to a shop on Girard
       Avenue by Carlisle Street to get cigarettes with two of his
       friends. [The Victim] entered the shop and his friends waited
       outside. Also outside on Girard Sheet, to the west of the
       store, was a parked vehicle with [Appellant] in the passenger
       seat with a group of guys clustered outside of the vehicle.
       One of the men that was with Appellant went into the shop
       and exchanged words about a fight that [the Victim] believed
       had been resolved a year earlier and exited the store. [The
       Victim] paid for his cigarettes and exited the store. As [the
       Victim] and his friends started walking east on Girard
       Avenue, the men clustered outside of the vehicle Appellant
       was sitting in started calling out to [the Victim. The Victim]
       stopped in the street of the crosswalk on Carlisle Street and
       turned around asking what was going on. As [the Victim]
       turned to see what was going on, he noticed six to seven men
J-S31014-23

       running up on him, including Appellant who had exited the
       passenger side of the vehicle he was in.

       While panicking, [the Victim] turned to one of his friends and
       asked for his friend's firearm. [The Victim] took his friend's
       firearm and held it by his side. However, he did not point the
       gun at anyone, nor did he use it. While his back was turned,
       [the Victim] was shot [in his left calf and in his “groin area
       next to [his femoral] artery.” N.T. Trial, 5/12/21, at 59]. He
       got up and started running. Someone picked [the Victim] up
       and he was transported to the hospital.

       Officer Mark Washel received a radio call reporting the
       gunshot incident that occurred on Girard Avenue and Carlisle
       Street. He arrived on location at 10:17 [p.m.], about one
       minute after receiving the call. He immediately went inside
       the store to recover video surveillance footage. On video
       surveillance retrieved, Officer Washel observed Appellant exit
       the passenger side of a white Dodge Magnum. He also
       observed Appellant running westbound on Girard [Avenue]
       and heading towards 15th Street going southbound after
       Appellant was done firing shots at [the Victim]. He observed
       the specific articles of clothing Appellant was wearing[,]
       which [were] a distinct dark colored jacket with navy blue in
       the center with what appeared to be distinct white sleeves;
       dark pants with a single thick white stripe down the pants;
       and gray, white sneakers. Flash information was put out to
       responding officers which included Officer Miguel Diaz and his
       partner.

       When Officer Diaz and his partner arrived at 16th and Ogden,
       they observed Appellant walking with another male. Officer
       Diaz and his partner handcuffed Appellant. Officer Diaz
       transported Appellant to Temple University Hospital for a
       post-incident identification by [the Victim]. As Officer Diaz
       was transporting Appellant through the hallways of Temple
       Hospital, Appellant was shouting, non-compliant, and
       continuously stated that "he does not know me, he's going to
       tell you he does not know me, he doesn't know me." When
       they arrived in [the Victim’s] hospital room, before [the
       Victim] could give any identification, Appellant again
       screamed "he does not know me, he's going to tell you he
       does not know me, tell him you don't know me" in a loud
       voice. [The Victim] stated that he did not know Appellant

                                   -2-
J-S31014-23

         and looked away. Appellant was transported to Central
         Detectives for further investigation.

         Detective Michael Repici and his partner arrived at the scene
         and retrieved [13] 9-millimeter fired cartridge casings and
         video surveillance from a store at 1417 Girard Avenue. When
         Detective Repici arrived at Central Detectives, he swabbed
         Appellant's hands for gunshot residue. Forensic Scientist,
         Lacey Shaw from the RJ Lee Group laboratory testified that
         based on the swab samples (gunshot SEM kits) taken by
         Detective Repici of Appellant's hands, there were positive
         component particles of gunshot residue on Appellant's right
         and left hands. Appellant did not present any witnesses at
         trial.

Trial Court Opinion, 4/10/23, at 1-4 (citations and footnotes omitted).

       A jury found Appellant guilty of attempted murder, aggravated assault,

firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying a firearm on the public

streets of Philadelphia, and possessing an instrument of crime.1 On October

19, 2021, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve an aggregate term of

13-and-one-half to 27 years in prison for his convictions. N.T. Sentencing,

10/19/21, at 41.

       Following the nunc pro tunc restoration of his direct appellate rights,

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant raises one claim on appeal:

         1. Should Appellant’s judgment of sentence be vacated in
         relation to the conviction for attempted murder because
         Appellant did not aim at or fire at or hit a vital part of [the
         Victim’s] body and thereby Appellant did not exhibit specific
         intent to kill, an element of attempted murder, and there is,
         thus, insufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction
         for attempted murder?
____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a), 2702(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), 6108, and 907(a),
respectively.

                                           -3-
J-S31014-23

Appellant’s Brief at 4 (some capitalization omitted).

      We review Appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge under the

following standard:

        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. Callen, 198 A.3d 1149, 1167 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citations

and quotation marks omitted).

      As we have held, the elements of attempted murder are as follows:

        Criminal attempt is separately codified at 18 Pa.C.S.A § 901,
        which states, “A person commits an attempt when, with
        intent to commit a specific crime, he does any act which
        constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that
        crime.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901(a).

        Criminal attempt is a specific-intent crime. Thus, attempted
        murder requires a specific intent to kill. Commonwealth v.
        Robertson, 874 A.2d 1200, 1207 (Pa. Super. 2005) (“For

                                     -4-
J-S31014-23

        the Commonwealth to prevail in a conviction of criminal
        attempt to commit homicide, it must prove beyond a
        reasonable doubt that the accused with a specific intent to
        kill took a substantial step towards that goal.”).

Commonwealth v. Palmer, 192 A.3d 85, 88 (Pa. Super. 2018) (brackets

omitted).   “Specific intent to kill can be established through circumstantial

evidence, such as the use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the victim's

body.” Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 956 A.2d 926, 932 (Pa. 2008). “The

presumption from the use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the body arises

from the fact that it is common knowledge that such a use is likely to cause

death and therefore a jury may infer that the intent of the person using such

a weapon in such a manner was to kill.” Commonwealth v. Kluska, 3 A.2d

398, 401 (Pa. 1939).

      On appeal, Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to

support his attempted murder conviction because the Commonwealth failed

to prove that he possessed the specific intent to kill the Victim. Specifically,

Appellant claims, “he did not shoot at a vital part of [the Victim’s] body,” as

he only targeted the Victim’s legs. Appellant’s Brief at 11. Thus, Appellant

argues, the evidence is insufficient to prove that he had the specific intent to

kill the Victim. Id. As the trial court explained, Appellant’s claim fails:

        Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the
        evidence at trial demonstrated that after [the Victim] entered
        a shop to get cigarettes, a man came into the shop and
        exchanged words with him about some fight that occurred a
        year prior. When [the Victim] exited the shop and started to
        walk to his destination with his friends, a group of six to seven
        men started to harass him and began to charge at him.

                                      -5-
J-S31014-23

        Appellant is seen on video surveillance getting out of the
        passenger side of a white vehicle that was parked outside of
        the shop, running up to [the Victim] and firing shots at [the
        Victim], not once, or even three times, but [13] times. This
        was also corroborated when Detective Repici arrived at the
        scene and found [13 fired cartridge cases]. [The Victim] fell
        due to the gunshot wounds, got back up, and proceeded to
        run for his life.

        . . . [A]lthough [the Victim] may not have been struck or hit
        in a vital part of his organ[s,] he was hit [at least twice, with
        gunshot wounds to his left calf and his “groin area next to
        [his femoral] artery.” N.T. Trial, 5/12/21, at 59.] While [the
        Victim’s] injuries may not have been life threatening,
        Pennsylvania courts have held that “the necessary intent for
        attempted-murder may be inferred from a defendant’s
        conduct of taking aim and firing a shot that narrowly misses
        the vital organs of another human being.” Commonwealth
        v. Jones, 629 A.2d 133, 135 n.2 (Pa. Super. 1993). . . .

        Therefore, there was sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable
        doubt to prove that Appellant had the requisite mens rea to
        form the specific intent to kill and actus reus as it was
        established that he took substantial steps when he fired a
        deadly weapon at [the Victim 13] times.

Trial Court Opinion, 4/10/23, at 7-8 (some citations omitted).

      We agree with the trial court. Here, Appellant ran towards the Victim

and shot at him 13 times, hitting him at least twice, including once near the

Victim’s femoral artery. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to

the Commonwealth, the evidence is sufficient to establish that Appellant

possessed the specific intent to kill the Victim, as the evidence establishes

that Appellant intentionally aimed his weapon at the Victim and then

unleashed a sustained volley of gunshots directly at his target, hitting his

target twice. Based upon our precedent, these facts are sufficient to establish

                                      -6-
J-S31014-23

that   Appellant     possessed      the    specific   intent   to   kill   the   Victim.2

Commonwealth v. Manley, 985 A.2d 256, 272 (Pa. Super. 2009) (“the

evidence reveals that [the defendant] attacked the victim, shooting multiple

shots, five of which hit the victim. The victim was struck in the groin, thigh,

shoulder and twice in the hand. Although none of the bullets hit the victim in

a vital organ, the jury could properly infer the specific intent to kill from these

circumstances”); Commonwealth v. Wyche, 467 A.2d 636, 637 (Pa. 1983)

(“[the defendant] aggressively attacked the victim, shooting four shots, three

of which hit their target. Although the fatal slug entered the victim through

the buttock, the jury could properly infer the specific intent to kill from these

circumstances”). Appellant’s claim on appeal thus fails.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

       Judge McLaughlin joins.

       Judge Stabile concurs in the result.

____________________________________________

2 According to Appellant, the fact that the Victim only suffered gunshot wounds

to his legs proves that Appellant was only aiming at the Victim’s legs and,
thus, that Appellant “did not intend to kill” his target. See Appellant’s Brief
at 11. This claim necessarily fails, as it does not view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the Commonwealth. The mere fact that Appellant only hit
the Victim in his legs does not prove that Appellant was only aiming at the
Victim’s legs. Indeed, since Appellant was shooting at a moving target, at
night, and from some distance away, the jury could have reasonably
concluded that Appellant simply missed his intended, killing shot. See
Manley, 985 A.2d at 272 (“[the defendant’s] poor aim does not constitute a
lack of” specific intent to kill).

                                           -7-
J-S31014-23

Date: 10/17/2023

                   -8-