Court Opinion

ID: 9881109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-29 17:09:47.868507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:59:02.155054
License: Public Domain

J-A19006-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  RAHEEM GLADNEY                               :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2270 EDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 12, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-51-CR-0002262-2021

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:                           FILED SEPTEMBER 29, 2023

       Raheem Gladney appeals from the judgment of sentence of two years

of probation imposed on his convictions for theft by unlawful taking, receiving

stolen property, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person.

We affirm.

       This matter involves a dispute between neighbors.       We set forth the

relevant testimony presented at Appellant’s bench trial from the trial court’s

opinion:

             At trial, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of the
       complainant, Damian Paige (“Mr. Paige”). Mr. Paige testified that,
       on January 5, 2021, at approximately 4:53 p.m., he was returning
       home from running errands at Office Depot. At this time, he saw
       a red SUV “flying down the street” and recognized [Appellant]
       getting out of the vehicle. Mr. Paige continued walking toward his
       front steps, at which time [Appellant] rushed over to him, spat in
       his face[,] and placed him in a headlock. Mr. Paige managed to
____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A19006-23

     free himself, at which point [Appellant] ripped up the papers that
     Mr. Paige had just printed at Office Depot. In an attempt to get
     away from [Appellant], Mr. Paige threw a flowerpot at him.
     [Appellant] then chased Mr. Paige up his front steps and stomped
     on his lower leg, causing Mr. Paige to trip and fall. Prior to leaving,
     [Appellant] stated, “I told you I’ll be back.”

            Mr. Paige testified that, prior to this incident, he had a Ring
     [doorbell] camera installed by his front door. In the aftermath of
     the incident, he observed that his Ring camera was missing.
     Unfortunately, the Ring camera did not capture any footage of the
     above incident. However, a neighbor’s camera captured some of
     the events, and that video was played at trial. The video depicted
     [Appellant] and Mr. Paige in a heated altercation; it showed
     [Appellant] ripping up papers, after which Mr. Paige threw a
     flowerpot at [Appellant], followed by [Appellant] stepping on Mr.
     Paige’s leg as he tried to run up the steps, causing him to fall. The
     video also showed [Appellant] standing over Mr. Paige with his
     hand by the front door – although it did not clearly depict
     [Appellant] taking the Ring camera. [However, it does depict a
     flash of light coming from near the doorway when Appellant places
     his hand near the door.]

            Mr. Paige testified that his right knee was dislocated during
     the incident, which caused him a great deal of pain. His girlfriend
     called 9-1-1. After he provided a statement to police, Mr. Paige
     was transported to the hospital. Upon evaluation, Mr. Paige was
     assessed with a right patella dislocation and right knee contusion.
     The Commonwealth submitted photographs from the date of the
     incident depicting the injuries to Mr. Paige’s knee. Mr. Paige
     testified that prior to the incident he never had any problems with
     his right knee. As a result of the incident, he underwent surgery
     to repair his patella in April 2021.

            On cross-examination, Mr. Paige acknowledged that the
     video did not capture [Appellant] placing him in a choke hold, but
     it picked up right after that point. Mr. Paige also acknowledged
     that the video showed him throwing a flowerpot at [Appellant],
     and [Appellant] chasing and tripping him. Additionally, Mr. Paige
     acknowledged that his hospital records state, “[h]istory of present
     illness: Patient states he was running and fell and then was
     unable to bend his knee.” However, Mr. Paige explained that the
     above history concerned the incident at issue, not a separate or
     prior incident. Nonetheless, Mr. Paige acknowledged that his [x]-

                                      -2-
J-A19006-23

        rays indicated “no acute fracture or dislocation” and a “[] lesion
        suggesting prior injury to the medial collateral ligament
        [(“MCL”)].”    Mr. Paige further acknowledged that his police
        statement contained no reference to a “choke hold” – which he
        attributed to “not being the person responsible for writing the
        report.” Finally, Mr. Paige was asked if he had ever been convicted
        of a crime of dishonesty, to which he responded, “[n]o.”

              Prior to resting, the Commonwealth introduced stipulated
        evidence establishing that Mr. Paige sought medical attention on
        January 5, 2021, at 6:51 p.m. His [x]-rays showed no acute
        fracture or dislocation; however, he was diagnosed with a patella
        dislocation and knee contusion. Mr. Paige was instructed to follow
        up with an orthopedic physician, and he underwent surgery for a
        right patella tendon rupture on April 7, 2021.

               For his case-in-chief, [Appellant] introduced stipulated
        evidence establishing that: (1) if called, the Clerk of Quarter
        Session would testify that Mr. Paige has a 2017 conviction for
        giving false identification to law enforcement, which would be
        crimen falsi; and (2) if called, Ms. Michael Pickney would testify
        that she knows [Appellant], and his reputation in the community
        is that of a non-violent person. [Appellant did not testify.]

Trial Court Opinion, 11/8/22, at 2-4 (cleaned up).

        At the conclusion of trial, the trial court found Appellant guilty of the

crimes indicated hereinabove but acquitted him of, inter alia, aggravated

assault.    Appellant was subsequently sentenced and filed a post-sentence

motion requesting a new trial, asserting the verdicts were against the weight

of the evidence. The court denied the motion and this timely appeal followed.

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

Appellant presents the following two issues for our review:

   I.      Was not the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to establish
           the offenses of theft by unlawful taking or receiving stolen
           property where the evidence failed to establish that Appellant
           is the person who took the complainant’s ring camera, or that
           he ever possessed it?

                                       -3-
J-A19006-23

   II.     Did not the trial court abuse its discretion in deciding that the
           verdict was not against the weight of the evidence so as to
           shock the trial court’s conscience and sense of justice, and as
           such denying the motion for a new trial?

Appellant’s brief at 4.

         Regarding Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we

consider this claim mindful of the following well-settled standard:

         When reviewing a [sufficiency] claim, we face a question of law.
         Accordingly, our standard of review is de novo. We view the
         evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the
         verdict winner, and we draw all reasonable inferences therefrom
         in the Commonwealth’s favor. Through this lens, we must
         ascertain whether the Commonwealth proved all of the elements
         of the crime at issue beyond a reasonable doubt.

         The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every
         element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of
         wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, we may not weigh the
         evidence and substitute our judgment for the factfinder. Any
         doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the
         factfinder, 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.

Commonwealth v. Roberts, 293 A.3d 1221, 1223 (Pa.Super. 2023)

(cleaned up). This Court has further held that, in the context of sufficiency of

the evidence questions, “something more than mere presence at the scene of

the crime must be shown to convict one of the participants in the commission

of [a] crime.” Commonwealth v. Gladden, 665 A.2d 1201, 1210 (Pa.Super.

1995) (en banc) (citation omitted).

         Appellant challenges both of his theft convictions. Concerning theft by

unlawful taking, a “person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises

                                       -4-
J-A19006-23

unlawful control over, movable property of another with intent to deprive him

thereof.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921(a). As to receiving stolen property, a “person is

guilty of theft if he intentionally receives, retains, or disposes of movable

property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it has

probably been stolen, unless the property is received, retained, or disposed

with intent to restore it to the owner.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a).

      On appeal, Appellant argues that the circumstantial evidence was

insufficient to prove that he was the person who stole the doorbell camera

from Mr. Paige’s front door. He purports that the video footage entered into

evidence does not clearly show the camera or Appellant taking it, and in his

view shows Appellant walking away from the house emptyhanded.               See

Appellant’s brief at 16. He also highlights that Mr. Paige never testified as to

when he had last seen the camera prior to the incident.          Id.   Appellant

contends that at most, the evidence shows that he was present near the door

on the day in question, but his presence alone does not support the theft

convictions. Id. at 14-16. As such, Appellant believes that the trial court,

sitting as factfinder, was not entitled to infer that Appellant was guilty of

stealing the camera.

      In rejecting this claim, the trial court found that Appellant assaulted the

victim near where the camera was located, and at one point placed his hand

along the front door of Mr. Paige’s residence.       See Trial Court Opinion,

11/8/22, at 10. The court further determined that Appellant had motive for

                                      -5-
J-A19006-23

taking the camera, either in spite arising from the altercation or to conceal the

assault. Id. It also observed that Mr. Paige testified at trial that the Ring

camera was missing in the aftermath of the attack. Id.

      In the same vein, the Commonwealth contends that the video shows

Appellant “swiping” at the door frame, near where the camera would be

located, and that there is a light flash as Appellant’s arm reaches toward the

camera. See Commonwealth’s brief at 9. It posits that a factfinder could

reasonably infer that the flash resulted from Appellant ripping the camera from

the wall.    Id.   The Commonwealth additionally notes that there was

uncontradicted testimony from Mr. Paige that his girlfriend discovered the

camera was missing right after the assault ended. Id.

      Upon review of the certified record, we agree with the trial court and

the Commonwealth that there was sufficient evidence supporting Appellant’s

convictions for theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen property. While

the Commonwealth lacked direct evidence of Appellant taking and retaining

the stolen camera, those acts are reasonably inferred from the circumstantial

evidence. First, it is clear that Appellant had both the opportunity and motive

to take the camera. He stood at the doorway to the residence right after he

assaulted Mr. Paige and tore up his belongings, in broad daylight. Further,

the evidence went beyond merely placing Appellant at the scene of the theft.

Gladden, supra at 1210. The flash from the wall, which occurred right at the

time Appellant placed his hand near the door, supports the conclusion that

                                      -6-
J-A19006-23

something electrical was disconnected at that moment. Finally, Mr. Paige’s

undisputed testimony that his girlfriend noticed the camera missing in the

immediate aftermath raises an inference that Appellant engaged in the theft

during the incident. In all, we cannot conclude that “the evidence is so weak

and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact may be drawn

from the combined circumstances.” Roberts, supra at 1223.

      We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that because the video

does not conclusively show him walking away from the residence with the

camera in hand, and because there was no testimony as to the last time

anyone saw the camera before the incident, he cannot be found guilty of theft.

While these facts collectively are perhaps indicative of the possibility that an

unknown person stole the camera prior to the altercation, that does not

undermine the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence in this case. See

Commonwealth v. Brockington, 230 A.3d 1209, 1212 (Pa.Super. 2020)

(stating that that “[t]he facts and circumstances established by the

Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence”).                  As

factfinder, the trial court was free to resolve any doubts in favor of the

Commonwealth.

      Further, we find this matter distinguishable from the two cases Appellant

cites as comparable in his brief. See Commonwealth v. Store, 463 A.2d

1108 (Pa.Super. 1983) (finding that the circumstantial evidence was

insufficient   to   support   convictions   for   theft   when,   inter   alia,   the

                                       -7-
J-A19006-23

Commonwealth could not prove that numerous other customers in the jewelry

store could have taken the stolen rings in the hours after the defendant was

last observed in the store); Commonwealth v. Lowry, 452 A.2d 552

(Pa.Super. 1982) (holding that the Commonwealth failed to prove that Lowry

committed a theft based on circumstantial evidence when there were other

people present at the scene and no one observed the items being taken).

Here, unlike in either of those cases, there was no significant lapse in time

from when the theft occurred to the discovery that the item was missing. Nor

were there any other persons in the immediate vicinity of the front door during

the assault who could have taken the camera. For all of the reasons above,

Appellant is not entitled to relief on this claim.

      Appellant next argues that his verdicts are against the weight of the

evidence, and thus the court erred in denying his request for a new trial. The

following law applies to our review of Appellant’s claim:

      A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict is against
      the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the
      trial court. A new trial should not be granted because of a mere
      conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same facts
      would have arrived at a different conclusion. Rather, the role of
      the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts,
      certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them
      or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.

      An appellate court’s standard of review when presented with a
      weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of review
      applied by the trial court. 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.

                                       -8-
J-A19006-23

Commonwealth v. Arias, 286 A.3d 341, 352 (Pa.Super. 2022) (cleaned up).

Therefore, we must determine whether the trial court, in rejecting Appellant’s

challenge, “abused its discretion by reaching a manifestly unreasonable

judgment, misapplying the law, or basing its decision on partiality, prejudice,

bias, or ill-will.” Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1056 (Pa. 2013)

(cleaned up).

      Appellant argues that the convictions here shock the conscience because

they depend upon the testimony of Mr. Paige, which he believes was

contradicted by the video footage, medical records, and stipulations.       See

Appellant’s brief at 17. More specifically, he highlights that the video refutes

any contention that Appellant placed Mr. Paige into a choke hold or otherwise

assaulted him.   Id. at 20-21.    Further, Appellant asserts that the medical

records suggest evidence of a prior knee injury, despite Mr. Paige’s testimony

that his knee was “100 percent” prior to the incident. Id. at 21. Finally, he

laments that Mr. Paige denied being convicted of a crime of dishonesty,

despite the subsequent stipulation that he had a 2017 conviction for false

identification to law enforcement. Id. at 21-22.

      In addressing this claim, the trial court stated that, “having presided as

the trier of fact, the [c]ourt is confident that its verdict of guilty is soundly

supported by the weight of the evidence. The [c]ourt found the testimony of

Mr. Paige to be detailed, consistent, and corroborated by the physical

evidence[.]” Trial Court Opinion, 11/8/22, at 6. The court ascertained from

                                      -9-
J-A19006-23

the video that Appellant did step on Mr. Paige’s leg as he retreated, which

formed the basis of the conviction for simple assault. Id. at 3. It did not rely

on any allegation from Mr. Paige about being placed in a headlock as a basis

for that conviction. Concerning the medical records, the court found that the

statement in the report concerning a possible prior MCL injury was immaterial

to “Mr. Paige’s indisputably injured patella,” and further noted that it properly

considered the extent of Mr. Paige’s injuries when it acquitted Appellant of

aggravated assault. Id. at 6. Finally, it stated that although Mr. Paige denied

having a conviction for false identification to law enforcement in contravention

to a later stipulation, this did not require the court to disregard the remainder

of Mr. Paige’s testimony, especially any supported by the video. Id. at 7.

      We find no abuse of discretion with the court’s conclusion that the

verdict was not conscience-shocking. The court reconciled discrepancies to

the extent possible and appropriately disregarded any of the testimony that

was contradicted by objective evidence.       Indeed, in so doing, the court

acquitted Appellant of two charges. Accordingly, no relief is due.

      Since Appellant presents no meritorious issues on appeal, we have no

cause to disturb his judgment of sentence.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                     - 10 -
J-A19006-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/29/2023

                          - 11 -