Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-1149 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH VS. RALPH STEVENSON BELLE, SR. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 02-1149 CRIMINAL IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925 Defendant, Ralph Stevenson Belle, Sr. was convicted on November 18, 2002, following a jury trial of simple assault, retail theft and robbery. He was subsequently sentenced. On appeal, defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to sustain convictions for the offenses of robbery and retail theft. IN his concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, the defendant complains specifically that the Commonwealth did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant exited a store with concealed merchandise. Therefore, he argues that the simple assault which occurred as he was fleeing the store was not committed in the course of a theft, thereby precluding a conviction for robbery. Defendant, in essence, argues that an actual theft must occur in order for the crime of robbery to be committed. Pennsylvania law, however, provides that an attempt to commit theft satisfies the relevant requirement. The offense of robbery is defined in 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701. It states, as apposite to the present action: (1) A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he: (i) inflicts serious bodily injury upon another... (iv) inflicts bodily injury upon another or threatens another with or intentionally puts him in fear of immediate bodily injury... (2) An act shall be deemed "in the course of committing a theft" if it occurs in an attempt to commit theft or inflight after the attempt or commission. 02-1149 CRIMINAL 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701 (emphasis added). There is no dispute in this case that bodily injury that bodily injury was inflicted by the defendant. The question then becomes whether there was sufficient evidence upon which the jury could find that it occurred "in the course of committing a theft." Much of the evidence of the attempted retail theft, in this case, came from a witness who was in the store shopping with her husband. According to the witness, the defendant lifted his jacket and put something that appeared to look like packs of cigarettes down his pants (Tr. at 8-10). At the time of the incident, the witness was in the same aisle and approximately twenty feet away from the defendant (Tr. at 9-10). If the jury believed the evidence provided by the witness, and they apparently did, it was reasonable to infer that the defendant was attempting to steal something from the store. At any rate, the witness alerted store personnel. When one of the clerks confronted the defendant, Mr. Belle struck him in the face and ran from the store. In Commonwealth v. Ebo, 280 Pa. Super. 181,421 A.2d 465 (1980), a case dealing with issues similar to the present action, the court was presented with the argument that the Commonwealth's evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for robbery and criminal attempt-theft, because there was no evidence that anything was taken, or that an attempt to take anything was made. Id. at 466. The court set out to "determine if the evidence established an attempt to commit theft, because such proof is sufficient to establish the pertinent element of robbery which Ebo claims was not established, as well as the crime of criminal attempt." Id. The court explained: 2 02-1149 CRIMINAL "An attempt to commit a specific crime is accomplished when a person (, with intent to commit a specific crime,) does by any act that which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that crime." In reviewing the evidence to determine if an attempt to commit a theft as delineated was here established, we must accept as true all of the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom upon which, if believed, the jury could have based its verdict. /d (quoting Commonwealth v. Butch, 238 Pa. Super. 524, 528, 361 A.2d 380, 382 (1976); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901(a)). The court in Ebo, agreeing with the trial court that the evidence presented was sufficient to support an inference that the defendant had the intent to commit a theft, relied upon the testimony of a woman who witnessed the attack from her car approximately twenty-seven feet away. In particular, the witness stated that after the victim had been hit with a pipe, the defendant opened the victim's car door, though he did not enter the vehicle before he fled. According to the court, this was enough evidence upon which the jury could have based its verdict. "[T]he opening of the car door by Ebo was a substantial step toward the commission of [theft]." /d at 467. In this case, the evidence of a theft or attempted theft is even more compelling. The witness, in fact, observed the defendant conceal merchandise which was being offered for sale. The jury' s conclusion that the defendant was guilty of both retail theft and robbery was amply supported by the evidence. April ,2003 Kevin A. Hess, J. 3 02-1149 CRIMINAL Michael Mervine, Esquire Assistant District Attorney Aria Waller, Esquire Assistant Public Defender :rlm 4