Commonwealth v. Dixon

276 A.3d 794

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Theodore B. DIXON, Appellant

No. 1072 EDA 2021

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted March 7, 2022

Filed May 26, 2022

Douglas L. Dolfman, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Lawrence J. Goode, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Mackenzie D. Hayes, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.^*

OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.:

Theodore B. Dixon appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, following his conviction by a jury of second-degree murder,¹ conspiracy to commit murder² and robbery.³ After careful review, we affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: On June 30, 2019, at approximately 2:30 a.m., Tianna Valentine-Eatman, Bruce Hall, Diamond Ward (Valentine-Eatman's sister), Michael Hall (Bruce Hall's brother), and Phillip Drumgoole (Bruce Hall's friend) left the Picadilly Club on 30^th Street in Philadelphia, and walked to their cars, which were parked nearby on Clearfield Street. While the group was standing by their cars, Ward observed a Mercury Grand Marquis pass by multiple times. The car eventually stopped in front of the group. A man stepped out of the car with a gun, pointed the gun at Hall, and shot Hall in the neck. Immediately after, another individual exited the car and began shooting. The driver never exited the car. Valentine-Eatman was shot in the head, and likely died almost instantly. Hall suffered additional shots to the back and arm and ran away from the scene into a nearby alleyway. The shooters then got back into their car and drove away. Drumgoole eventually found Hall and drove him to the hospital, where he made a full recovery.

When the police arrived at the scene, they found six fired cartridge casings that were fired from a 0.9mm Luger. The police could not find Valentine-Eatman's bag, which contained her passport, cash, business phone, and personal phone.

After Valentine-Eatman's death, Valentine-Eatman's mother, Tamika Valentine, accessed Valentine-Eatmen's iCloud account. This revealed that Valentine-Eatman's personal phone was active in the Abbotsford Projects. The police executed a search warrant and found the phone in the possession of Shaquille Sistrunk. The account also revealed that Valentine-Eatman's business phone was used to make a call after the shooting. The police determined that this call was made to a phone number registered to Ernestine Dixon, Theodore Dixon's grandmother. Cell-site analysis revealed that, less than twenty minutes before the shooting, the phone number associated with Ernestine Dixon connected with a cell phone tower approximately three-tenths of a mile from the crime scene.

In August of 2019, Tamika Valentine discovered that, after Valentine-Eatman's death, $700 was transferred to a Cash App⁴ account from Valentine-Eatman's bank account. The name on the Cash App account was "Bashir," which is Dixon's middle name. The police determined that the "identity verification name" linked to the Cash App account was Theodore Dixon. The Cash App account was also linked to the phone number associated with Ernestine Dixon and the email account bashirdixon@gmail.com.

The Police acquired street security footage, which showed a tan-colored Mercury Grand Marquis drive by the scene of the crime multiple times before the shooting. The police conducted a database search and found a Grand Marquis that was originally owned by Shaquille Sistrunk. However, at some point before the shooting, Sistrunk transferred ownership of the vehicle to Dixon.

Dixon was subsequently arrested. He later gave a statement to the police, stating that Valentine-Eatman gave him $700 via Cash App in exchange for marijuana. However, he had no explanation for how the transaction could have occurred after Valentine-Eatman's death.

On November 4, 2020, prior to his jury trial, Dixon filed a motion to quash all charges. Specifically, Dixon claimed that Commonwealth did not make out a prima facie case as to any of the charges during the preliminary hearing held on February 18, 2020. On December 4, 2020, the trial court denied Dixon's motion to quash all charges.

On April 13, 2021, following jury selection, Dixon presented an oral motion to relax the facial mask mandate for the witnesses and counsel at trial. N.T. Trial, 4/13/21, at 5. Specifically, Dixon argued that masks would impede the jurors’ ability to observe the witnesses’ facial expressions and movements on the stand, and, thus, the jurors would be unable to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. Id. At 5-6. At this time, "the Pennsylvania courts were operating under a statewide judicial emergency occasioned by the coronavirus Covid-19 pandemic." Trial Court Opinion, 7/26/21, at 14; see In re Statewide Judicial Emergency , 658 Pa. 426, 228 A.3d 1281 (2020) (per curiam order). "As a result, the [trial c]ourt advised counsel that[,] pursuant to safety protocols then in effect, all persons in the courtroom would be required to wear a mask covering their nose and mouth." Trial Court Opinion, 7/26/21, at 14-15; see N.T. 4/13/21 at 10-12.

After the Commonwealth rested its case-in-chief, Dixon's counsel presented an oral motion for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied. On April 15, 2021, the jury convicted Dixon of the above-mentioned offenses (victim: Tianna Valentine-Eatman).⁵ At a separate docket number, CP-51-CR-0001421-2020, Dixon was also convicted of attempted murder, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901(a), conspiracy to commit murder, and robbery, (victim: Bruce Hall).⁶ The trial court imposed the mandatory sentence of life in prison for second-degree murder. The court imposed no further penalty on the robbery and conspiracy to commit murder charges.⁷

On April 26, 2021, Dixon filed a post-sentence miscellaneous motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for judgment against the weight of the evidence. On April 30, 2021, the motion was denied by the trial court.

Dixon filed a timely notice of appeal, followed by a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Dixon raises the following claims for our review:

1. Did the trial court err as a matter of law when it denied the motion for a judgment of acquittal on all charges filed by defense counsel, prior to trial, on November 4, 2020?

2. Did the trial court err when it denied the motion for directed verdict on the murder and/or conspiracy charges verbally requested by defense counsel?

3. Did the trial court err as a matter of law when it denied all post[-]sentence motions including the weight of the evidence at trial being insufficient to render a conviction and as to the evidence of the remaining charges relating to a judgment non obstante veredicto ?

4. Did the trial court err as a matter of law when it denied [Dixon's] pre[-]trial motion to allow counsel and the witness who[ ] is currently testifying to lower their mask while giving testimony and[,] thus[,] limited the jury in assessing credibility and truthfulness to the which directly resulted in unfair prejudice suffered against [Dixon] within the mean[ing] of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution?

Brief of Appellant, at 6.

Dixon first claims that, at the preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth failed to make out a prima facie case as to the charges against him, and, therefore, the trial court erred as a matter of law when it denied his motion to quash all charges prior to the trial commencing. Brief for Appellant, at 12. Dixon is entitled to no relief.

"[I]t is well settled that when, at trial, the Commonwealth proves the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, any defects at a preliminary hearing regarding the sufficiency of the evidence are considered harmless." Commonwealth v. Wilson , 172 A.3d 605, 610 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "Indeed, once a defendant has gone to trial and has been found guilty of the crime or crimes charged, any defect in the preliminary hearing is rendered immaterial." Commonwealth v. Sanchez , 623 Pa. 253, 82 A.3d 943, 984 (2013).

Because Dixon was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt—convictions which we affirm—he cannot now challenge the trial court's pre-trial denial of his claim that the Commonwealth had failed to present a prima facie case. Wilson, supra .

In his second issue on appeal, Dixon claims that the trial court erred in denying his oral motion for a directed verdict on the murder and conspiracy charges because the Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Brief for Appellant, at 12. We agree with the trial court's decision to deny Dixon's motion for directed verdict.

The standard of review in assessing whether sufficient evidence was presented to sustain an appellant's conviction 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 element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying [this] 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

...