Commonwealth v. Bentley

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JYLIL BENTLEY Appellant

No. 2081 EDA 2023

No. J-S21019-24

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

September 9, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 18, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000777-2021

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., NICHOLS, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM

NICHOLS, J.

Appellant Jylil Bentley appeals from the judgment of sentence following his conviction for persons not to possess firearms, firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia, and recklessly endangering another person (REAP).^[1] On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, as well as the discretionary aspects of his sentence. We affirm.

The trial court set forth the following factual history:

On March 10, 2020, at approximately 8:55 p.m., [Philadelphia] Police Officer Christopher Rycek (hereinafter Officer Rycek) responded to a radio call for a shooting at 700 West Bristol Street. Upon arrival, Officer Rycek learned two shooting victims were transported to Temple Hospital.

While in the area of the shooting, Officer Rycek observed a red Cadillac drive at a high rate of speed south on 8^th Street, two [to] three blocks from the incident. Officer Rycek chased the vehicle with activated lights. [] Appellant pulled the car over and informed the officer he was en route to the hospital for his brother who was shot. Officer Rycek provided a police escort for [] Appellant to Temple Hospital.

In the interim, video surveillance was obtained that showed the targets of the shooting running inside the Lucky Laundromat. The two men are seen falling and sliding across the floor to dodge bullets. Appellant was identified as one of the men targeted and is provided a gun from the other man who fled inside. Appellant takes the gun and runs out of the laundromat into the street shooting in the direction of the assailant's vehicle down the block.

While at the hospital, [Officer] Rycek received information including a screenshot from the surveillance video, depicting Appellant shooting a firearm at a vehicle driving away from the laundromat. Appellant was subsequently arrested. The parties stipulated that Appellant was ineligible to possess a firearm.

Trial Ct. Op., 9/20/23, at 2-3 (citations omitted and some formatting altered). Following a non-jury trial, the trial court convicted Appellant of the above-referenced offenses.^[2] On October 18, 2022, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of four and one-half to nine years' incarceration. Appellant filed a timely motion for reconsideration. Although the 120-day period for the trial court to decide Appellant's motion for reconsideration expired on February 22, 2023, the trial court's office of judicial records did not enter an order denying Appellant's motion for reconsideration by operation of law. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(a), (c).

On April 1, 2023, Appellant filed a petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act^[3] (PCRA) seeking to reinstate his direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc. The trial court subsequently granted Appellant's motion and issued an order reinstating Appellant's post-sentence and direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc. See PCRA Ct. Order, 5/15/23. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion challenging the weight of the evidence and the discretionary aspects of his sentence, which the trial court denied on August 8, 2023.

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

On appeal, Appellant raises the following claims, which we have re-ordered as follows:

1. Was the evidence insufficient to sustain the guilty verdicts for all of the firearms charges, as there was no intent to unlawfully possess any firearm, as [] Appellant was handed then shot a firearm in justified self-defense against assailants who first shot at him. [] Appellant did not intend to unlawfully possess a firearm?

2. Were the guilty verdicts against the weight of the evidence for all of the firearms charges (VUFA-6105, 6106 & 6108) and REAP, as [] Appellant acted in justified self-defense when he came to hold and then shot a firearm at assailants who first shot at him. The Commonwealth failed to disprove Appellant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt?

3. Was the sentence excessive, more than necessary to protect the public and rehabilitate [] Appellant, especially in light of the fact that [] Appellant acted in justified self-defense, and indeed is a victim?

Appellant's Brief at 5 (formatting altered).

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed to present evidence that he intended to possess a firearm for the purposes of his firearms convictions. Id. at 31. In support Appellant refers to the following statement by the trial court: "I didn't find you guilty of PIC because I decided you were doing it in self-defense. Another judge might've found it another way because at that point, they may have said you didn't have a need to defend yourself, but I felt like it was in the heat of the moment." N.T. Sentencing Hr'g, 10/18/22, at 37-38. Appellant contends that "if there is insufficient evidence that [A]ppellant possessed the firearm with the intent to employ it criminally under PIC, then the evidence must also be insufficient to prove that he intended to unlawfully possess the firearm for purposes of the VUFA charges." Appellant's Brief at 31. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our standard of review is as follows:

A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the evidence offered to support the verdict is in contradiction to the physical facts, in contravention to human experience and the laws of nature, then the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law. When reviewing a sufficiency claim, the court is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.

In applying the above test, we may not [re]weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder.

Commonwealth v. James, 297 A.3d 755, 764 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citations omitted and formatting altered), appeal denied, 309 A.3d 691 (Pa. 2023).

Under the Crimes Code, self-defense is a defense of justification, which is a complete defense to criminal liability. See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 502, 505. We have explained that

[t]he use of force against a person is justified when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 505(a). When a defendant raises the issue of self-defense, the Commonwealth bears the burden to disprove such a defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Commonwealth v. Bullock, 948 A.2d 818, 824 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).

To disprove a defendant's claim of self-defense, the Commonwealth must establish at least one of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

1) the accused did not reasonably believe that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury; or 2) the accused provoked or continued the use of force; or 3) the accused had a duty to retreat and the retreat was possible with complete safety. It remains the province of the [fact-finder] to determine whether the accused's belief was reasonable, whether he was free of provocation, and whether he had no duty to retreat.

Commonwealth v. McClendon, 874 A.2d 1223, 1230 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

"To claim self-defense, the defendant must be free from fault in provoking or escalating the altercation that led to the offense, before the defendant can be excused from using deadly force." Commonwealth v. Smith, 97 A.3d 782, 788 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted and emphasis in original). "The complainant can serve as a witness to the incident to refute a self-defense claim. Although the Commonwealth is required to disprove a claim of self-defense arising from any source beyond a reasonable doubt, a fact-finder is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim." Id. (citations omitted and formatting altered); see also Commonwealth v. Micklos, 159 A.3d 962 (Pa. Super. 2017).

In Micklos, the trial court convicted the defendant of persons not to possess firearms and acquitted the defendant of criminal homicide and robbery. Micklos, 159 A.3d at 964, 966 n.1. In that case, the victim pulled a gun on the defendant during a drug transaction and, following a scuffle, the weapon discharged and struck the victim. Id. at 965-66. Ultimately, the trial court concluded:

The [trial] court agrees [the defendant] did not have specific intent to possess the firearm at the time he struggled with [the victim] to control the firearm. His intent was to prevent [the victim] from shooting [the defendant]. In essence, [the defendant] raised a justification defense pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.[] §§ 302 and 303. In other words, whatever possession occurred while [the defendant] was attempting to prevent [himself] from being shot, was justified. This would include even the possession when the firearm discharged in the initial struggle, which fired the fatal shot killing [the victim]. However, any possession of the firearm after this point by [the defendant] was not justified.

After [the victim] was initially shot, the gun fell to the ground. At

...