The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCP-21-CR-1834-2011 :INTHECOURTOFCOMMONPLEASOF COMMONWEALTH :CUMBERLANDCOUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA :CHARGES:(I)BURGLARY-ADAPTEDFOR. OVERNIGHTACCOMMODATION (2CTS.) (2)CRIMINALCONSPIRACYTOCOMMIT BURGLARY(2CTS.) (3)CRIMINALTRESPASS(2CTS.) (4)THEFTBYUNLAWFULTAKINGOR DISPOSITION(ICT.) (5)CRIMINALMISCHIEF(SUM.)(2CTS.) BRANDOND. McCALISTER :CP-21-CR-1834-2011 OTN:T046003-6 INRE:OPINIONPURSUANTTOPA.R.A.P.1925 OLER,SJ.,May15,2012. Inthiscriminalcase,Defendantwasfoundguiltybyajuryoftwohouse burglaries,twocountsofconspiracytocommittheburglaries,tworelatedcountsof criminaltrespass,andonecountoftheftassociatedwithitemstakeninoneofthe burglaries,andwasfoundguiltybythecourtoftwocountsofsummarycriminalmischief inconnectionwithphysicaldamagedonetothehousesinthecourseofthebreak-ins.He wassentencedtopayrestitutionandtoundergoanaggregateperiod'ofimprisonmentin theCumberlandCountyPrisonofnotlessthansixmonthsnormore.than23months, 2 followedbyaperiodofprobationof23months. 8:i ~ SeeOrderofCourt,NovemberIS,2011,Inre:JuryTrial;OrderofCourt,November15,2011,Inre: SummaryVerdict. SeeOrdersofCourt,December13,2011(originalsentence),March5,2012(modificationofs~ntence). 2 Theminimumprisonsentencewasatthebottomofthestandardrangeoftheguidelines.Defendant'sEx. I,HearingonDefendant'sPost-SentenceMotions,March2,2012(presentenceinvestigationreport). Apost-sentencemotioninthefOlmofamotionforjudgmentofacquittalwas denied.Fromthejudgmentofsentence,Defendanthasfiledadirectappealtothe 4 PennsylvaniaSuperiorCourt. ThegroundsfortheappealhavebeensetforthinDefendant'sstatementoferrors complainedofonappealasfollows: 1.Therewasinsufficientevidencepresentedattrialtosustainaconvictionfor theabove-eaptionedoffensesbecausetherewasnoevidencelinkingMr. McCalistertothecrimeexceptthewordoftwounchargedadmittedburglars whocommittedtheseacts. 2.Theverdictofguiltywasagainsttheweightoftheevidence,becausethere wasnophysicalevidencelinkingMr.McCalistertothesecrimes,no confessiongivenbyMr.McCalisterandtheco-defendantswerenever chargedinthecrimesandminimizedtheirownrolesinthecrimeswhile layingblameonMr.McCalister. Thisopinioninsupportofthejudgmentofsentenceiswrittenpursuantto PennsylvaniaRuleofAppellateProcedure1925(a). STATEMENTOFFACTS AsaresultoftwohouseburglariesinUpperMifflinTownship,Cumberland County,Pennsylvania,inSeptemberof2009,Defendantwaschargedbythe PennsylvaniaStatePolicewithburglary,conspiracy,criminaltrespass,theftand maliciousrnischief.Ajurytrialwasheld,concludingonNovember15,2012. Atthetrial,theCommonwealthpresentedthetestimonyoffivewitnesses:the ownersofthehousesburglarized,thetwojuvenileaccompliceswhoparticipatedinthe burglaries,andtheinvestigatingstatetrooper.Notestimonywaspresentedonbehalfof thedefense. OrderofCourt,March5,2011.Defendant'spost-sentencemotionalsosoughtareductioninhis 3 sentence,andthisaspectofthemotionwasgrantedtotheextentthatDefendant'saggregateminimumjail sentenceofsevenmonthswasreducedtosixmonths.OrderofCourt,March5,2011. Defendantremainsatlibertyonunsecuredbailpendingdispositionofhisappeal.OrderofCourt, December13,2011. Defendant'sNoticeofAppeal,filedMarch19,2012. Defendant'sConciseStatementoftheErrorsComplainedofonAppeal,filedApril24,2012. 5 CriminalComplaint,filedAprilII,20II. 6 Theownerofoneofthehouses,locatedat19MountainTopDrive,UpperMifflin Township,CumberlandCounty,Peunsylvania,testifiedthathediscoveredonSeptember 25,2009,thathisstructurehadbeenbrokenintoanddamaged"andthatvariousitems 7 valuedat$1,200.00to$1,300.00hadbeenstolenfromit.Theownerofthesecond house,locatednearbyat17MountainTopDrive,testifiedsimilarlythatshefoundouton. September26,2009,thatherstructurehadbeenbrokeninto,thatithadbeendamaged, 8 andthatitemshadbeenstolenfromit. Oneofthetwojuvenileparticipantsinthecrimestestifiedthathehadbeen16 9 yearsoldinSeptemberof2009.Accordingtohistestimony,he,theotherjuvenile,and Defendant,whowereschoolmatesatthetime,metatapublicparkafterschooloneday 10 inSeptember,2009.HetestifiedthatDefendantthendrovetheminhisJeepadistance ofseventotenmilestothetopofamountain,wherethehousesinquestionweresituated, withanunderstandingthattheywouldbreakinandstealthings.Accordingtohis 12 testimony,thetriobrokeintoonestructureandstolevariousitems.Hetestifiedthathe thenactedasalookoutwhileDefendantandtheotherjuvenilewentbeyondhisfieldof vision,presumablytoanotherstructure,13wherethey"didwhattheyhadtodO.,,14The propertystolenduringtheincident,hetestified,wasplacedinDefendant'sJeep,and 5 DefendantthendrovehimandtheotherjuveniletoNewviIIe/inCumberlandCounty. NT.8-15,Trial,November15,2011(hereinafterN.T.-l. 7 'N.T.16-25. 9N.T.27. NT.27-29. NT.29-30,37. NT.32-34. N.T.NT.34-35. 13 NT.34. NT.37. 15 Thesecondjuvenilewhoparticipatedinthecrimestestifiedthathehadbeen17 yearsoldinSeptemberof2009/andthatDefendanthadbeen19or20.He corroboratedthetestimonyofhisaccomplicethatthethreeschoolmatesmetatthepark afterschool,thatDefendantdrovetheminhisJeepupthemountainwherethehousesin questionweresituated,andthattheunderstandingwasthatupontheirarrivaltheywould 18 breakintohousesandstealthingS.Accordingtohistestimony,Defendantkickedthe doorofthefirsthousein,19allthreeofthementeredthehouse,itemsweretakenfrom inside,andtheotherjuvenilethereafteractedinthecapacityofalookout.20Hetestified furtherthatheandDefendantthenwenttothesecondhouse,whichDefendantbrokeinto, removedsomeitems,andreturnedtotheJeep,wherethestolenitemswereplacedinthe trunk.21Hetestifiedthatfollowingthecrimeshewasdroppedoffathishomeby 22 Defendant. BothofthesewitnesseswereMirandizedbythecourtpriortotheirtestimony,and wereawarethattheirtestimonymightbeusedagainsttheminacriminalprosecution?3 Eachtestifiedthatneitherthestatepolicenortheprosecutorhadpromisedhimanything inreturnforhistestimony?4 PennsylvaniaStateTrooperBenjanJinWilsontestifiedthatin2010,asaresultof informationobtainedinthecourseofanotherinvestigation,hereopenedtheinvestigation intothetwo2009burglariesreferredtoabove?5Accordingtohistestimony,onseparate 16N.T.48. NT.50-53. 54-55. 55-56. N.T.57,62. N.T.5-7.ThiswasdoneattherequestofDefendant'sattorney,andoutsidethepresenceofthejury. N.T.5. N.T.41-42,60.61 SeeNT.68-70. occasionshequestionedbothjuveniles,whoinitiallydeniedinvolvementintheoffenses 26 butlateradmittedwhathadtakenplace.Hetestifiedthatoneofthejuvenilesvisitedthe 27 sceneofthecrimeswithhiminOctoberof2010. WhenultimatelyquestionedinMarchof2011inconnectionwiththeinformation concerningthecrimesprovidedtoTrooperWilson,Defendantdeniedthathehadbeen involved,accordingtothetrooper'stestimony?8Thetroopertestifiedthatforensic evidencedidnotproveusefulinfurtheridentifyingtheperpetrators. 29 Followingtheevidentiaryphaseofthecaseandclosingarguments,thejurywas instructedontheelementsofthevariousoffensesbeforeit,includingthe Commonwealth'sobligationtoprovebeyondareasonabledoubtthatDefendantwasa perpetratoroftheoffenses,3oaswellasontheconceptofaccompliceliability.31The testimonyoftheyoungmenwhohadparticipatedinthecrimesasjuvenileswas expresslydeclaredbythecourttobeaccomplicewitnesstestimony,andthejurywas cautionedastotheuseofsuchtestimonyinaccordancewiththestandardPennsylvania criminaljuryinstructiondealingwithaccomplicewitnesstestimony: WhenaCommonwealthwitnessisanaccomplicehisorhertestimonyhastobe judgedbyspecialprecautionaryrules.Experienceshowsthatanaccomplicewhencaught mayoftentrytoplacetheblamefalselyonsomeoneelse.Heorshemaytestifyfalselyin thehopeofobtainingfavorabletreatmentorforsomecorruptorwickedmotive.Onthe otherhand,anaccomplicemaybeaperfectlytruthfulwitness.ThespecialrulesthatI willgiveyouaremeanttohelpyoudistinguishbetweentruthfulandfalseaccomplice testimony. Inviewoftheevidenceofthecriminalinvolvementof[thetwoCommonwealth witnesseswhoparticipatedinthecrimes]youmustregardeachofthemasanaccomplice inthecrimeschargedandapplythespecialrulesthatIgiveyoutotheirtestimony.These arethespecialrulesthatapplytoaccomplicetestimony. First,youshouldviewthetestimonyofanaccomplicewithdisfavorbecauseit comesfromacorruptandpollutedsource.Second,youshouldexaminethetestimonyof N.T.70,77-85. 26 N.T.74-75. 29 92-98. 30 N.T.98-100. 31 anaccomplicecloselyandacceptitonlywithcareandcaution.Third,youshould considerwhetherthetestimonyofanaccompliceissupportedinwholeorinpartbyother evidence. Accomplicetestimonyismoredependableifsupportedbyindependentevidence. However,evenifthereisnoindependentsupportingevidence,youmaystillfindthe Defendantguiltysolelyonthebasisofanaccomplice'stestimonyif,afterusingthe specialrulesIjusttoldyouabout,youaresatisfiedbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthe accomplicetestifiedtruthfullyandthattheDefendantisguilty.32 Followingtheguiltyverdictsandsentence,Defendantfiledapost-sentencemotion consistingofa"motionforreconsiderationofsentence,"seekingareductioninthe sentence,anda"motionforextraordinaryrelief:judgmentofacquittal,"seekinga judgmentofacquittalonthegroundsthat"[t]heweightoftheevidencewasnotofsucha qualityandpersuasivenesstofrodguiltbeyondareasonabledoubt"andthat"[t]he evidencewasnotsufficienttofindguiltbeyondareasonabledoubt.,mAfterahearing, thecourtgrantedthemotionforreconsiderationofsentencetotheextentthat Defendant'saggregateminimumprisonsentencewasreducedtothesix-monthterm 4 referredtoatthebeginningofthisopinion/butdeniedthemotionforjudgmentof 35 acquittal. DISCUSSION Onareviewofthe Motionforjudgmentofacquittal-sufficiencyoftheevidence. sufficiencyoftheevidencetosupportaconviction,alloftheevidenceandanyinferences drawntherefrommustbeviewedinthelightmostfavorabletotheCommonwealthasthe verdictwinner.2008PASuper19,943A.2d299.The Commonwealthv.McCurdy, questiontoberesolvediswhether,viewedinthislight,"theevidenceadmittedat trial...[was]sufficienttoproveeveryelementoftheoffense[s]beyondareasonable doubt."2009PASuper245,1[4,988A.2d669,670.Sucha commonwealthv.Thomas, considerationdoesnotinvolveare-weighingoftheevidenceorasubstitutionof N.T.102-04. 33Defendant'sPost-SentenceMotions,filedDecember27,2011. 34Theaggregateminimumsentenceoriginallywassevenmonths.SeeOrderofCourt,December13, 2011. 35OrderofCourt,March5,2012. judgmentforthatofthefact-fmder,36whowasfreetobelieveall,partornoneofthe evidence."v.2011PASuper212,~-'31A.3d699,702.A judgmentofacquittalisnotappropriate"unlesstheevidenceissoweakandinconclusive thatasamatteroflawnoprobabilityoffactcanbedrawnfromthecombined circumstances."2009PASuper245,~4,988A.2d669,670. OnefactthattheCommonwealthmustproveinacriminalcaseisthatthe defendantwastheperpetratorofthecrime.453Pa.427,309 A.2d564(1973)(proofbeyondareasonabledoubtoftheidentityoftheaccusedasthe personwhocommittedthecrimeisessentialtoaconviction).However,afmdingofguilt maybebasedupontheprincipleofaccompliceliability.18Fa.C.S.~306; Pa.~32A.3d613(2011).Furthermore,itiswell settledthataccomplicetestimonyaloneissufficienttosupportaguiltyverdict. v.498Pa.455,447A.2d234(1982)."Guiltmaybe predicatedsolelyuponuncorroboratedtestimonyofanaccomplice."v. 444Pa.Super.607,618,664A.2d600,606(1995);v. 325Pa.Super.401,473A.2d128(1984)."Themerefactthattherearesome inconsistenciesinawitness'testimonyisnotalonesufficienttodestroythe Commonwealth'scaseorrendertheevidenceinsufficient."v. 321Pa.Super.457,466,468A.2d799,803(1983). Inthepresentcase,thedetailedtestimonyoftwoeyewitness/accomplices implicatingDefendantasaparticipantinthecrimeschargedwasobviouslyfound crediblebythejuryinitscapacityasafact-finder,asitwasbythecourt,notwithstanding theclosescrutinywhichwasknowntobeapplicabletoanevaluationofaccomplice witnesstestimony.Basedupontheforegoingprinciples,thecourtwasunabletoagree withDefendant'spositiononhispost-sentencemotionthattheevidencewasinsufficient tosupportafmdingthathewasaperpetratorofthecrimescharged. Commonwealthv.Thomas,2009PASuper245,14,988A,2d669,670.Amotionforjudgmentof acquittalchallengesthesufficiencyoftheevidence,notitsweight.SeeCommonwealthv.Xander,2011 PASuper33,14A.3d174. Reliefonaweightoftheevidenceclaimisreservedfor casesinvolving"extraordinarycircumstances,whenthe...verdictissocontrarytothe evidenceastoshockone'ssenseofjusticeandtheawardofanewtrialisimperativeso thatrightmaybegivenanotheropportunitytoprevail."v. Pa.-'-'36A.3d24,39(2011);v.2012PASuper61,40 A.3d160;v.2003PASuper34,816A.2d1109.Giventhe detailed,unequivocal,andagainst-penal-interesttestimonyoftwoeyewitnessestothe crimesthatDefendantdrovethemtothescenewithanunderstandingthatburglarieswere tobecommitted,wasanactiveparticipantinthecriminalepisodeupontheirarrival,and drovethemfromthescenewiththeproceedsofthecrimesinhisvehicle,andgiventhe absenceofanyevidenceofanexculpatorynatureinDefendant'sfavor, thecourtwasoftheviewthattheverdictswerenotconscience-shockingandthata comparisonoftherelativeweightoftheCommonwealthanddefensecasesdidnotinure toDefendant'sbenefit. Fortheforegoingreasons,itisbelievedthatthejudgmentofsentencefromwhich Defendanthasappealedwasproperlyentered. BYTHECOURT, MatthewP.Smith,Esq. CumberlandCountyDistrictAttorney'sOffice 1CourthouseSq. Carlisle,PA17013 FortheCommonwealth MichaelHalkias,Esq. CumberlandCountyPublicDefender'sOffice 1CourthouseSq. Carlisle,PA17013 FortheDefendant