Commonwealth v. Marshall

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JULIO MARSHALL Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JULIO MARSHALL Appellant

Nos. 487 EDA 2024, 488 EDA 2024

J-S41015-24

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

December 5, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 24, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-000406-2023, CP-39-CR-000407-2023

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., KING, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM

MURRAY, J.

In these consolidated appeals, Julio Marshall (Appellant) appeals from the judgments of sentence entered following his convictions by a jury of (a) one count of false identification to law enforcement at docket number CP-39-CR-0000406-2023 (No. 406); and (b) two counts each of robbery, simple assault, and theft by unlawful taking; and one count of aggravated assault at docket number CP-39-CR-0000407-2023 (No. 407).^[1] We affirm.

On March 13, 2023, the Commonwealth filed a criminal information charging Appellant with, inter alia, the above offenses. Following pretrial litigation irrelevant to the instant appeal, the matter proceeded to a jury trial on August 22 2023. The trial court summarized the evidence adduced at trial:

On September 12, 2022, the victim, Lauren Shoor [Ms. Shoor)], was in Allentown[, Pennsylvania,] for a job interview with a local employer. On that evening, she checked into the Americus Hotel, which is located at 6th and Hamilton Streets in Allentown. Sometime between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., [Ms. Shoor] decided to venture out of the hotel to a nearby 7-11 for coffee. … [Ms. Shoor] noticed a man [(later identified as Appellant)] standing on the corner both before and after she went into the 7-11. When [Ms. Shoor] left the 7-11, she headed back to the Americus, but noticed that her movements were being shadowed by [Appellant].

[Ms. Shoor] entered the main entrance of the Americus, and [Appellant] grabbed [her] from behind …. [Appellant] demanded money, but [Ms. Shoor] resisted. [Ms. Shoor] was either pushed or lost her balance, and found herself on her back. [Appellant] then [got] on top of [Ms. Shoor], threatening her and brandishing a "very long flathead screwdriver." [Ms. Shoor] tried to fight [Appellant], and was screaming for help. [Appellant] reached into [Ms. Shoor's] pockets, but [found] nothing of value …. However, attached to [Ms. Shoor's] front belt loop was her Alcoholics Anonymous [(AA)] sobriety coin, which [Appellant] ripped off. It was a purple and gold coin with purple glitter. … The coin became significant because [A]ppellant, when arrested, had possession of that coin.

As Ms. Shoor was fighting and screaming, two hotel employees[, Matthew Bishwaty (Mr. Bishwaty) and Nicolette Torres (Ms. Torres),] came to assist her. [Appellant] … turned his attention to the hotel employees. He chased them into the area where the hotel register was located. The surveillance video from the Americus captured the attack on Ms. Shoor, and the attack … on the hotel employees. Photographs were also utilized to corroborate Ms. Shoor's testimony.

… [Mr.] Bishwaty[] testified that he was at the front desk at the time Ms. Shoor was attacked. When the attack unfolded, both Mr. Bishwaty and [Ms.] Torres … made their way to assist Ms. Shoor. Ms. Torres hit [Appellant] with one of the "valet carts," and Mr. Bishwaty dialed 9-1-1. [Appellant] then made his way to the front desk and pointed the flathead screwdriver, threatening Mr. Bishwaty. [Appellant] also demanded the money in the desk drawers. Mr. Bishwaty opened the drawer, and [Appellant] took cash and cash-drop envelopes, and ran out. … The total amount of the theft was between $400 and $500.

Detective Samson Wega [(Detective Wega)] … was alerted to a robbery at the Americus Hotel, which was approximately two blocks away [from his location at the Detectives Bureau, and was provided Appellant's description]. … As [Detective Wega] stepped outside and began walking to [the Americus Hotel], he noticed an individual … who matched the description of the robbery suspect. The initial dispatch was a "male wearing a red hooded sweatshirt and a black baseball cap." Detective Wega yelled "hey," and [Appellant] "immediately started to run away[."] … Detective Wega yelled "police … stop running …" without success, and a foot chase ensued. As the chase [progressed], Detective Wega observed "money coming out of [Appellant's] pockets, and as [Appellant] was running, [Detective Wega] could see more money in the center of the street." Detective Wega continued to gain on the suspect, and when [A]ppellant reached the Linden Street [B]ridge, [Appellant] jumped off the bridge and landed 25 to 30 feet below in the woods next to the Jordan Creek. [A]ppellant then tried to conceal himself, but Detective Wega, from various vantage points, could see [A]ppellant and his red hood[ed sweatshirt]. [A]ppellant, during this pursuit, attempted to change his appearance by discarding the red [hooded sweatshirt]. The red [hooded sweatshirt] and black baseball cap were recovered in the wooded area off the Linden Street [B]ridge.

The foot chase on land became a water pursuit when [A]ppellant entered the Jordan Creek with multiple officers in pursuit. [Detective Wega testified,] "[Appellant] kind of crawled his way into the Jordan Creek and started to try to swim and conceal himself, but I could see him the whole time. So he swims a little north. He starts swimming south." Officer Jarrod Bulger, who responded and maintained the radio communications, entered the Jordan Creek, and … took [A]ppellant into custody in the creek. …

[A]ppellant, after his apprehension, used the fictitious name Samuel Santiago-Delgado.

Trial Court Opinion, 3/8/24, at 3-6 (footnotes omitted).

On August 23, 2023, a jury convicted Appellant of the above-described offenses. The trial court deferred sentencing for the preparation of a presentence investigation report. On October 19, 2023, Appellant, pro se, filed a petition requesting removal of counsel based on Appellant's intention to file a lawsuit against the Lehigh County Public Defender's Office.^[2] See Petition for Removal of Counsel, 10/19/23, at 1 (unpaginated). On October 24, 2023, the trial court denied Appellant's motion. That same date, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate twenty to forty years in prison.

On November 2, 2023,^[3] Appellant filed a counseled post-sentence motion challenging, inter alia, the weight and sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. See Post-Sentence Motion, 11/2/23, at 4-5. The trial court held a hearing on Appellant's post-sentence motion on January 24, 2024.^[4] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied Appellant's motion. Appellant timely appealed, and timely filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. On March 8, 2024, the trial court filed its 1925(a) opinion.

Appellant raises the following issues:

A. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain [Appellant's] convictions if the Commonwealth failed to present proof of [Appellant] being the perpetrator of the criminal offenses?

B. Was the verdict against the weight of all the evidence in regards to the proof of whether or not [Appellant] was the perpetrator of the criminal offenses?

Appellant's Brief at 4 (some capitalization modified).

In his first issue, Appellant argues the Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence to establish that Appellant was the perpetrator of the crimes charged. See Appellant's Brief at 11. Specifically, Appellant argues:

[W]hile accepting that there may be some circumstantial proof that would tend to implicate [Appellant] in the[] robbery[,] … the evidence, taken as a whole, does not accurately and properly identify [Appellant] as the perpetrator. [Ms. Shoor] failed to identify [Appellant] as the perpetrator and other evidence pertinent to the alleged robbery, namely the screwdriver, was never recovered nor discovered on the person of [Appellant]. [Appellant] believes that the evidence, taken as a whole, simply does not prove his involvement ….

Id.

Initially, we consider whether Appellant has preserved his sufficiency challenge for our review. To preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, "an appellant's [Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(b) statement must state with specificity the element or elements upon which the appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient." Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted). "Such specificity is of particular importance in cases where, as here, the appellant was convicted of multiple crimes each of which contains numerous elements that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted). If an appellant fails to specify such elements, the sufficiency claim is deemed waived. See id.; see also Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (courts may not act as counsel for a party).

In his Rule 1925(b) statement, Appellant baldly alleged, "[t]he trial court erred in denying [Appellant's] motion for judgment of acquittal as the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the convictions." Concise Statement, 2/21/24, ¶ 15 (some capitalization modified). As Appellant failed to comply with the above precedent, his sufficiency claim is waived. See Garland, 63 A.3d at 344.

Even if Appellant had preserved his sufficiency claim, we would conclude it lacks merit. The standard of review for sufficiency challenges is well settled:

[A]n appellate court should determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the

...