Court Opinion

ID: 9404616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 16:09:55.256174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:15.764967
License: Public Domain

J-S04022-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
    RONALD MURPHY                              :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :       No. 537 EDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 4, 2022
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
             Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003808-2019

BEFORE:      MURRAY, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                                  FILED JUNE 23, 2023

        Appellant, Ronald Murphy, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench

trial convictions for third-degree murder, attempted murder, aggravated

assault, persons not to possess firearms, firearms not to be carried without a

license, carrying firearms on public streets in Philadelphia, possession of an

instrument of crime (“PIC”), and recklessly endangering another person

(“REAP”).1 We affirm.

        The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows:

           [O]n September 4, 2016, Ryan Shields and his girlfriend,
           Amber Michael went to the Yolo Bar at 17th and
____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

118 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c); 901(a), 2702(a); 6105(a); 6106(a); 6108; 907(a);
and 2705, respectively.
J-S04022-23

         Susquehanna Streets in North Philadelphia to celebrate their
         one-year anniversary. Later that night, early into the
         morning hours of September 5th, [Ms. Michael] got hungry
         and went diagonally across the street to the China Bowl to
         order some food. [Mr. Shields] stood by his car outside the
         bar. [Appellant] entered the restaurant and began to strike
         up a conversation with [Ms. Michael], quickly turning into
         inappropriate comments.      [Ms. Michael] signaled [Mr.
         Shields] to come over which he did, calmly separating
         [Appellant] from [Ms. Michael] and escorting her out of the
         eatery. The couple crossed the street and were followed by
         [Appellant] who continued his unwanted remarks. This in
         turn caused an exchange between different groups in the
         middle of Susquehanna Avenue. [Appellant] then walked
         away towards 17th Street. [Ms. Michael] and [Mr. Shields]
         walked back to the bar.       All of this was caught on
         surveillance video.

         About twenty minutes later, [Ms. Michael], still upset about
         the confrontation, left the bar to take a walk up North
         Chadwick Street, with [Mr. Shields] close behind. Halfway
         up the block, [Mr. Shields] noticed [Appellant] on the steps
         of an abandoned building. When the two approached,
         [Appellant] got up, pulling out a pistol from his waist. [Mr.
         Shields] told [Appellant] “It’s not that deep” but [Appellant]
         replied that it was and began firing. [Appellant] shot [Mr.
         Shields] in the torso and he fell to the ground. As he was
         struggling on the ground, defenseless and paralyzed,
         [Appellant] continued shooting him, striking him with ten
         bullets throughout his body, including in his head and at the
         base of his skull, his groin, right shoulder, right hip, left
         forearm, left hand, and right forearm. [Appellant] also shot
         at [Ms. Michael] down the street, striking her in the back,
         with the bullet travelling through both lungs and the aorta.
         [Ms. Michael] did not survive.         Mr. Shields positively
         identified [Appellant] as the shooter.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 6/16/22, at 3-4) (internal record citations omitted).

      Following a bench trial, the trial court convicted Appellant of the above-

mentioned offenses on November 30, 2021. On February 4, 2022, the court

sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of thirty-five to seventy years’

                                      -2-
J-S04022-23

incarceration plus five years’ probation. On February 11, 2022, Appellant filed

a timely post-sentence motion, which the court denied on February 14, 2022.

On February 21, 2022, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. On February

22, 2022, the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal, and Appellant complied.

      Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

         The evidence was insufficient to convict [Appellant] of
         murdering [Ms.] Michael.

         All of the convictions were against the weight of the
         evidence.

(Appellant’s Brief at 8-9).

      In his issues combined, Appellant argues the Commonwealth failed to

present sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for third-degree murder.

Appellant alleges the Commonwealth did not present any evidence to establish

that Appellant was the individual who shot and killed Ms. Michael. Appellant

asserts that Mr. Shields testified that after he was shot, he did not see where

Appellant or Ms. Michael went and did not see Appellant shoot Ms. Michael.

Appellant further contends that the surveillance video shows there were other

individuals that Mr. Shields interacted with on the night of the shooting who

could have been the shooter. Specifically, Appellant submits that there was

another individual present whose clothing matched the description that Mr.

Shields provided to the police when he described the shooter.        Appellant

emphasizes that the Commonwealth presented no direct evidence identifying

                                     -3-
J-S04022-23

Appellant as the individual who shot Ms. Michael and no evidence to exclude

other potential suspects.

      Additionally, Appellant asserts that his convictions were against the

weight of the evidence because the Commonwealth did not provide any

reliable evidence identifying Appellant as the perpetrator of the crimes.

Appellant alleges that Mr. Shields’ testimony is entirely unreliable because he

was unable to recall many details about the night in question and testified

inconsistently with his prior statements. Specifically, Appellant contends that

Mr. Shields described the individual who shot him as wearing a gray hoodie in

his initial statement to the police. Appellant argues that another individual

matching this description was present at the scene, raising significant doubts

about the reliability of Mr. Shields’ subsequent identification testimony.

Appellant insists that Mr. Shields’ testimony was the only evidence the

Commonwealth presented to identify Appellant as the shooter, rendering his

convictions against the great weight of the evidence. Appellant concludes he

is entitled to relief on his challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the

evidence, and this Court should vacate his judgment of sentence or remand

for a new trial. We disagree.

      When examining a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our

standard of review is as follows:

         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

                                     -4-
J-S04022-23

        element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In
        applying [the above] test, we may not weigh the evidence
        and substitute our judgment for 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. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal

denied, 613 Pa. 642, 32 A.3d 1275 (2011) (quoting Commonwealth v.

Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super. 2005)). Additionally:

           The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder
           of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of the
           evidence and to determine the credibility of the
           witnesses. An appellate court cannot substitute its
           judgment for that of the finder of fact. Thus, we may
           only reverse the…verdict if it is so contrary to the
           evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.

        Commonwealth v. Small, 559 Pa. 423, [435,] 741 A.2d
        666, 672-73 (1999). Moreover, where the trial court has
        ruled on the weight claim below, an appellate court’s role is
        not to consider the underlying question of whether the
        verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Rather,
        appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably
        abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.

Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444, 832 A.2d 403, 408

(2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939, 124 S.Ct. 2906, 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004)

                                     -5-
J-S04022-23

(most internal citations omitted).

      In determining whether a particular identification was reliable, this Court

has explained that we:

         should consider the opportunity of the witness to view the
         criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of
         attention, the accuracy of [his] prior description of the
         criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the
         confrontation, and the time between the crime and the
         confrontation. The opportunity of the witness to view the
         actor at the time of the crime is the key factor in the totality
         of the circumstances analysis.

Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801, 806 (Pa.Super. 2014).

      The Crimes Code defines murder and criminal attempt as follows:

         § 2502. Murder

         (a) Murder of the first degree.—A criminal homicide
         constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed
         by an intentional killing.

         (b) Murder of the second degree.—A criminal homicide
         constitutes murder of the second degree when it is
         committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or
         an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.

         (c) Murder of the third degree.—All other kinds of
         murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the
         third degree is a felony of the first degree.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a)-(c).

         § 901. Criminal attempt

            (a) Definition of attempt.―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). “Murder in the third degree is an unlawful killing with

                                      -6-
J-S04022-23

malice but without the specific intent to kill.” Commonwealth v. Dunphy,

20 A.3d 1215, 1219 (Pa.Super. 2011). Malice is defined as:

         [A] wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty,
         recklessness of consequences, and a mind regardless of
         social duty, although a particular person may not be
         intended to be injured…. [M]alice may be found where the
         defendant consciously disregarded an unjustified and
         extremely high risk that his actions might cause serious
         bodily injury.

Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574, 582 (Pa.Super. 2001), appeal

denied, 569 Pa. 716, 806 A.2d 858 (2002).        “Malice may be inferred by

considering the totality of the circumstances.” Dunphy, supra.

      “A person may be convicted of attempted murder if he takes a

substantial step toward the commission of a killing with the specific intent in

mind to commit such an act.” Commonwealth v. Dale, 836 A.2d 150, 153

(Pa.Super. 2003) (quoting Commonwealth v. Hobson, 604 A.2d 717, 719

(Pa.Super. 1992)).     “Specific intent to kill can be established though

circumstantial evidence, such as the use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of

the victim’s body.” Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 598 Pa. 263, 274, 956

A.2d 926, 932 (2008), cert denied, 556 U.S. 1186, 129 S.Ct. 1989, 173

L.Ed.2d 1091 (2009). A gun is a deadly weapon. See Commonwealth v.

Bond, 539 Pa. 299, 305, 652 A.2d 308, 311 (2003). Further, the neck and

head are vital parts of the body.           Montalvo, supra.        See also

Commonwealth v. Mattison, 623 Pa. 174, 185, 82 A.3d 386, 392 (2013).

      Additionally, the Crimes Code defines aggravated assault and REAP in

                                     -7-
J-S04022-23

relevant part as follows:

         § 2702. Aggravated Assault

         (a) Offense defined.—A person is guilty of aggravated
         assault if he:

             (1) Attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another,
         or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly
         under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to
         the value of human life.

18 Pa.C.S.A § 2702(a)(1).

         § 2705. Recklessly endangering another person

         A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if
         he recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place
         another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705.

      As it pertains to these sections, “bodily injury” is defined as

“[i]mpairment of physical condition or substantial pain.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301.

“Serious bodily injury” is defined as “[b]odily injury which creates a substantial

risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted

loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.” Id.

      Further, the Crimes Code defines PIC as follows:

         § 907. Possessing instruments of crime

           (a) Criminal instruments generally.—A person
         commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if he possesses
         any instrument of crime with intent to employ it criminally.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a).

      Additionally, the Uniform Firearms Act provides, in relevant part, as

                                      -8-
J-S04022-23

follows:

           § 6105. Persons not to possess, use, manufacture,
                control, sell or transfer firearms

              (a)   Offense defined.—

                    (1) A person who has been convicted of an
                 offense enumerated in subsection (b), within or
                 without this Commonwealth, regardless of the length
                 of sentence or whose conduct meets the criteria in
                 subsection (c) shall not possess, use, control, sell,
                 transfer or manufacture or obtain a license to possess,
                 use, control, sell, transfer or manufacture a firearm in
                 this Commonwealth.

           § 6106. Firearms not to be carried without a license

              (a)   Offense defined.—

                   (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any
              person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person
              who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person,
              except in his place of abode or fixed place of business,
              without a valid and lawfully issued license under this
              chapter commits a felony of the third degree.

           § 6108. Carrying firearms on public streets or public
                property in Philadelphia

              No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any
           time upon the public streets or upon any public property in
           a city of the first class unless:

              (1)   such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or

              (2) such person is exempt from licensing under section
           6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried
           without a license).

18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), and 6108. A witness’s testimony

alone   can    establish   a   defendant’s   possession   of   a   firearm.   See

                                       -9-
J-S04022-23

Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 757 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal

denied, 626 Pa. 681, 95 A.3d 275 (2014).

      Instantly, Mr. Shields testified that while Ms. Michael was waiting for

food in the China Bowl, Appellant made disrespectful statements to her,

causing her to call Mr. Shields over to her. As a result, Mr. Shields walked

into the restaurant and stood with Ms. Michael to wait for her food. When

they left the restaurant, Appellant followed them out of the China Bowl and

continued to make disrespectful remarks to Ms. Michael, resulting in a brief

verbal altercation between Appellant and Mr. Shields. The surveillance video

footage confirmed Mr. Shields’ account.      Mr. Shields further testified that

although they interacted with other people in the restaurant, on the street and

in the bar, neither he nor Ms. Michaels had any negative interactions with

anyone else that night. Ms. Michael’s father also stated that he had a very

close relationship with his daughter, and he was not aware of anyone in his

daughter’s life at the time of the shooting that would want to harm her.

      Additionally, Mr. Shields testified that he and Ms. Michael left the bar

shortly after their interaction with Appellant at China Bowl.     Ms. Michael

wanted to take a walk to distance herself from the commotion and Mr. Shields

followed close behind her. As they were walking, Mr. Shields noticed Appellant

sitting on the steps of an abandoned house.         Appellant approached Mr.

Shields, pulled out his gun, and began shooting. Mr. Shields fell to the ground

after being struck and heard more gunshots in rapid succession. Ms. Michael,

                                    - 10 -
J-S04022-23

who was discovered lying in the same area as Mr. Shields, died as a result of

a gunshot wound. Police noted that bullets also struck a white van that was

parked between where Ms. Michael and Mr. Shields were found. An expert

witness in firearms identification and ballistics examination testified that all

the recovered cartridge casings from the scene were from the same gun.

Taken in its totality and viewed in the light most favorable to the

Commonwealth as the verdict winner, we agree with the trial court that the

Commonwealth presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to sustain

Appellant’s third-degree murder conviction.      See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(c);

Hansley, supra.

      Additionally, the trial court found that Appellant’s convictions were not

against the weight of the evidence presented. Mr. Shields stated that he had

a clear opportunity to observe Appellant’s face in the brightly lit China Bowl

and on the street when they interacted on the night of the shooting. Although

Mr. Shields misremembered the details of the clothing that Appellant was

wearing when Mr. Shields gave his initial statement to police, Mr. Shields

definitively identified Appellant as the shooter on multiple occasions

thereafter.   Specifically, Mr. Shields identified Appellant in a photo array

during a police interview, stated that he recognized Appellant by his voice at

the preliminary hearing, and positively identified Appellant at trial. Further,

Mr. Shields clarified at trial that the individual in the gray hoodie at the scene

had nothing to do with the altercation in China Bowl or the shooting.         Mr.

                                     - 11 -
J-S04022-23

Shields gave detailed testimony about the events of the night of the shooting,

much of which was corroborated by video surveillance footage. Accordingly,

even though Mr. Shields briefly mistook an article of clothing that Appellant

was wearing, this error does not render Mr. Shields’ identification testimony

so entirely unreliable such that it cannot form the basis for Appellant’s

convictions. See Valentine, supra.

      Mr. Shields’ testimony established that Appellant drew a gun and fired

numerous shots at Mr. Shields while he was walking on the street with Ms.

Michael.   Mr. Shields sustained ten bullet wounds throughout his body,

including his head, the base of his skull, his groin, right shoulder, right hip,

left forearm, left hand, and right forearm. Ms. Michael died as a result of a

gunshot wound.     Additionally, the parties stipulated that Appellant did not

have a valid license to carry a firearm. On this record, we see no reason to

disrupt the trial court’s conclusion that Appellant was not entitled to relief on

his challenge to the weight of the evidence.         See Champney, supra.

Accordingly, we affirm.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/23/2023

                                     - 12 -