Court Opinion

ID: 9840443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-18 16:09:11.903425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:46:27.946571
License: Public Domain

J-S23008-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :          PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 ROBERT F. WOOLFORD                       :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :     No. 2053 EDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 11, 2022
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
           Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002915-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                    FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2023

      Robert F. Woolford appeals from the judgment of sentence entered by

the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on July 11, 2022. On appeal,

Woolford challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting his

convictions. After careful review, we affirm.

      The trial court accurately summarized the factual history as follows:

      On March 22, 2021 at approximately 11:00 pm, [Woolford] went
      to Nevelyn Davis's home at 2047 Granite Street in Philadelphia,
      Pennsylvania. She was his former girlfriend and was not home at
      the time. Complainant, Kaseem Davis (Nevelyn Davis' son)
      answered the door and met [Woolford], who asked Complainant
      if he could retrieve something from inside the home.

      While inside the home, [Woolford] proceeded to give "life advice"
      to the Complainant while following him upstairs. [Woolford]
      apparently was downstairs in the living room at some point during
      this exchange, while Complainant was at the top of the stairwell
      on the second floor. Despite that, Complainant said he could see
      [Woolford] down at the bottom of the stairs in the living room.
      When [Woolford] failed to get the Complainant's attention,
J-S23008-23

      [Woolford] became aggressive, telling Complaint "when I'm
      talking to you, pay attention." The Complainant subsequently
      received a phone call on his cell phone from Nevelyn Davis, after
      which Complainant told [Woolford] to promptly leave the home.
      [Woolford] explicitly refused to leave the premises and continued
      to argue with the Complainant.

      After arguing with Complainant, [Woolford] removed a firearm
      from [] his waistband and then tucked it back in, saying, "you
      don't know who I am. You ain't gonna do nothing". [Woolford]
      ultimately left the residence and walked into the street. He
      repeated that phrase, then took out the firearm from his
      waistband a second time while standing in the middle of the street
      in front of Complainant's home.

      The Complainant saw [Woolford] brandishing the firearm while
      standing in the street and shut the front door. Complainant
      continued to speak with his mother on his cell phone. [Woolford]
      ultimately left the area and did not return that evening.

      The police were subsequently notified.

      Philadelphia Police Detective Thomas Bartol obtained a search
      warrant for [Woolford]’s home at 1625 E. Lycoming Street and
      also conducted a record search to see if [Woolford] was licensed
      to carry a weapon. Detective Bartol determined from the record
      check that [Woolford] was not licensed to possess a firearm; In
      addition, pursuant to the search of [Woolford]’s home, Detective
      Bartol recovered a firearm and thirty-four (34) rounds of nine (9)-
      millimeter ammunition. The recovered firearm was a nine (9)-
      millimeter SCCY handgun, model number CPX-1, serial number
      715445.

Trial Court Opinion, 12/5/2022, at 3-4 (citations to record omitted).

      On May 10, 2022, following a bench trial, the trial court found Woolford

guilty of firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying firearms in public

in Philadelphia, possession of an instrument of crime with intent to commit a

crime, and terroristic threats with intent to terrorize another. The court found

Woolford not guilty of recklessly endangering another person. Sentencing was

                                       -2-
J-S23008-23

deferred for preparation of a presentence investigation and a mental health

report. On July 11, 2022, the trial court sentenced Woolford to three years’

probation. This timely appeal followed.

      Woolford raises the following two issues on appeal:

      a) Was the evidence insufficient to sustain [Woolford]’s conviction
      for terroristic threats w/intent to terrorize another in that the
      evidence failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that
      [Woolford] communicated, either directly or indirectly, a threat to
      commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another?

      b) Did the trial court err as a matter of law in not properly
      weighing [Woolford]’s testimony and character evidence in that
      the court focused primarily on the time that [Woolford] arrived at
      the complainant’s home and admonished him repeatedly that he
      should not have been there: wherein the timing of this incident
      appears to outweigh all other credible testimony put forth during
      the hearing?

Appellant’s Brief, at 4.

      Our standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence

is to determine whether, when viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict

winner, the evidence at trial and all reasonable inferences therefrom are

sufficient for the trier of fact to find that each element of the crimes charged

is established beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Dale, 836

A.2d 150, 152 (Pa. Super. 2003). The Commonwealth may meet this burden

of proving every element of the crime by utilizing only circumstantial evidence.

See Commonwealth v. Bruce, 916 A.2d 657, 661 (Pa. Super. 2007).

      “[T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need

not preclude every possibility of innocence.” Id. (citation omitted). Any doubt

                                     -3-
J-S23008-23

raised as to the accused’s guilt is to be resolved by the fact-finder, so long as

the evidence presented is not utterly incapable of supporting the necessary

inferences. See id. This Court does not independently assess credibility or

otherwise assign weight to evidence on appeal. See Commonwealth v.

Kinney, 863 A.2d 581, 584 (Pa. Super. 2004).

      Woolford challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his

terroristic threats conviction. Specifically, Woolford claims the Commonwealth

failed to establish that he threatened to commit a crime of violence or that he

intended to terrorize the Complainant. See Appellant’s Brief, at 10.

Alternatively, Woolford argues that if a threat was established, the threat

occurred during a heated exchange and therefore constituted “a spur-of-the-

moment threat made during a period of transitory anger.” Id. at 12.

      “A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person

communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to … commit any crime of

violence with intent to terrorize another[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2706(a)(1). As this

Court has stated, for a defendant to be convicted of terroristic threats “the

Commonwealth must prove that 1) the defendant made a threat to commit a

crime of violence, and 2) the threat was communicated with the intent to

terrorize another or with reckless disregard for the risk of causing terror.”

Commonwealth v. Beasley, 138 A.3d 39, 46 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation

omitted).

                                      -4-
J-S23008-23

       Section 2706 is not meant to encompass “mere spur-of-the-moment

threats which result from anger.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2706, Comment. However,

anger “does not render a person incapable of forming the intent to terrorize.”

Commonwealth v. Walker, 836 A.2d 999, 1001 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation

omitted). In determining whether a threat was a spur-of-the-moment

statement made during a heated verbal exchange, we consider the totality of

the circumstances. See Commonwealth v. Sexton, 222 A.3d 405, 418 (Pa.

Super. 2019). Further, in Commonwealth v. Tizer, 684 A.2d 597, 601 (Pa.

Super. 1996), this Court concluded that a lack of evidence that the victim was

acting violently was sufficient to negate the defendant’s claim that his threats

were caused by heated argument.

       We have long held that a defendant’s intent to terrorize can be inferred

from    his   actions   and   from   the   message   he   communicated.       See

Commonwealth v. Kelley, 664 A.2d 123, 128 (Pa. Super. 1995). Moreover,

as our Court has explained,

       [n]either the ability to carry out the threat, nor a belief by the
       person threatened that the threat will be carried out, is an element
       of the offense. Rather, the harm sought to be prevented by the
       statute is the psychological distress that follows from an invasion
       of another’s sense of personal security.

Beasley, 138 A.3d at 46 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Also, the Commonwealth is not required to produce evidence that the person

to whom the defendant communicated the threat was actually frightened. See

id.

                                      -5-
J-S23008-23

      Viewing the facts and circumstances of this case in the light most

favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, Woolford’s terroristic

threats conviction is supported by the record. Our review of the record reflects

the trial judge had sufficient evidence to conclude that Woolford possessed

the necessary intent to commit the crime. Despite Woolford’s characterization

of his actions as spur-of-the-moment threats, the testimony indicates this was

not a fleeting argument. Rather, Woolford went to the complainant’s house on

his own accord, and chose to bring an unlicensed gun with him. Further, the

complainant testified that Woolford brandished the gun not once, but twice.

Accordingly, even if the initial flash of the gun occurred during a heated

exchange, this would not explain why Woolford displayed the gun a second

time while outside of the complainant’s home. Finally, there was no evidence

presented that the complainant was acting violently toward Woolford. See

Tizer, 684 A.2d at 601 (concluding that lack of evidence that victim was acting

violently was sufficient to negate defendant’s claim his threats were caused

by heated argument). Rather, the trial court credited the complainant’s

testimony that he asked Woolford to leave and that Woolford refused to leave.

Accordingly, this claim merits no relief.

      In his second and final issue, Woolford challenges the weight of the

evidence supporting his convictions. We are constrained to conclude this issue

is waived, as a review of the record reveals Woolford did not properly preserve

a weight challenge before the trial court.

                                      -6-
J-S23008-23

      Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 607(A) requires a challenge to

the weight of the evidence to be raised with the trial court in a motion for a

new trial that is presented “(1) orally, on the record, at any time before

sentencing; (2) by written motion at any time before sentencing; or (3) in a

post-sentence motion.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A). “Failure to properly preserve the

claim will result in waiver, even if the trial court addresses the issue in its

opinion.” Commonwealth v. Lofton, 57 A.3d 1270, 1273 (Pa. Super. 2012)

(citation omitted).

      Woolford did not file any post-sentence motions, let alone one raising a

weight challenge. Further, Woolford did not raise a weight challenge before

sentencing. Accordingly, the weight of the evidence was not properly

preserved. Therefore, we conclude the weight of the evidence claim is waived.

See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A); Lofton, 57 A.3d at 1273.

      Even if Woolford had preserved a weight challenge, we would

nevertheless find the issue without merit.

      We may only reverse the lower court’s verdict if the court abuses its

discretion in assessing whether the verdict was so contrary to the evidence as

to shock the court’s sense of justice. See Commonwealth v. Champney,

832 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa. 2003) (citations omitted). A verdict is said to be

contrary to the evidence such that it shocks one’s sense of justice when “the

figure of Justice totters on her pedestal,” or when “the jury’s verdict, at the

time of its rendition, causes the trial judge to lose his breath, temporarily, and

                                      -7-
J-S23008-23

causes him to almost fall from the bench, then it is truly shocking to the

judicial conscience.” Commonwealth v. Davidson, 860 A.2d 575, 581 (Pa.

Super. 2004) (citations omitted).

      In advancing his weight challenge, Woolford claims the complainant's

testimony was “conflicting and incredible”. Appellant’s Brief, at 15. Further,

Woolford argues the trial court failed to consider any character evidence and

therefore did not afford it any weight. Woolford therefore contends the verdict

was against the weight of the evidence.

      In its opinion, the trial court makes it clear that its decision was a

credibility determination and that it believed the complainant’s testimony,

while finding Woolford’s testimony “largely incredible”. Trial Court Opinion,

12/5/2022, at 9. We cannot conclude that the trial court’s reasoning

constitutes an abuse of its discretion. No witness is ever perfectly credible.

The circumstances highlighted by Woolford are circumstances that fact-finders

evaluate in every trial and cannot be said to be so concerning that no rational

fact-finder could believe the victim’s testimony.

      As we find Woolford’s claims are either waived or without merit, we

affirm the judgment of sentence.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

                                     -8-
J-S23008-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/18/2023

                          -9-