Commonwealth v. Rankin

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. QUINTELLE RANKIN, Appellant

J-A13023-15

No. 468 WDA 2014

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUNE 24, 2015

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 18, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0011400-2012

BEFORE: PANELLA, SHOGAN, and OTT, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.:

Appellant, Quintelle Rankin, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on November 18, 2013, following his conviction by a jury on August 19, 2013, of second-degree murder; robbery, serious bodily injury; conspiracy; and carrying a firearm without a license. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the facts of the crime as follows:

The convictions in this case are based heavily on the testimony of Cory Estes. Mr. Estes is the nephew of [Appellant,] and he is related to the co-defendant, Eugene McCarthy,¹ by marriage. At the time of trial, Mr. Estes was 19 years old. At trial, Mr. Estes testified that on August 7, 2012, he was at the Brinton Manor Apartments. He met [Appellant] and Mr. McCarthy around noon that day. They then left that areatogether in Mr. McCarthy's car and proceeded to the Hill District area of Pittsburgh attempting to locate someone from whom they could purchase marijuana. Having been unsuccessful in their efforts to obtain marijuana, they then left that area and drove to McKeesport, Pennsylvania, to continue their efforts to purchase marijuana. At approximately 4:00 p.m., they returned to the Brinton Manor Apartments because they were unsuccessful in reaching their goal to obtain marijuana. While they were still in the car, Mr. McCarthy stated aloud that it appeared as though there were some "licks" in the area. Mr. Estes testified that the term "licks" referred to persons who were potential robbery targets. Mr. McCarthy parked the car and the three men began to walk around the area. They soon encountered two other men and asked those men if they could get them marijuana. One of the other men, Brandon Johns, directed Mr. Estes, [Appellant] and Mr. McCarthy to follow him into a building. All four men entered the building. Mr. Estes testified that Brandon Johns then sat down on steps and pulled out a scale and large bag of marijuana and discussed cost. The scale and marijuana were recovered from the scene. At that point, Mr. McCarthy attempted to steal the marijuana by grabbing the bag of marijuana and telling Brandon Johns that "you might as well give me all the shit." A few seconds later, [Appellant] pulled out a gun. Brandon Johns then stated "you can have it all." He then reached with both hands into his pockets and he pulled out a black handgun. Mr. Estes testified that Mr. McCarthy and Brandon Johns began to "tussle" over the black handgun. Mr. Estes ran up the steps of the building and, as he was running, he heard a gunshot. He testified that he did not know who fired it. Mr. Estes heard another shot and he observed his uncle, [Appellant], slump over as though he had been shot. [Appellant] then fired his weapon at Brandon Johns. Mr. Estes believed he heard three or four gunshots. A nearby witness, who was outside of the building, testified that he heard approximately six gunshots. In total, eight spent cartridges were found at the scene. Six .40 caliber Smith & Wesson cartridges were found at the scene and two .380 caliber cartridges were found. [Appellant] admitted at trial that he possessed a .40 caliber handgun during the incident and he did shoot Brandon Johns. Mr. Estes testified that immediately after the shooting, the three men left the scene and Mr. McCarthy drove [Appellant] to the hospital. Mr. McCarthy and [Appellant] were subsequently arrested. . . .

Trial testimony also established that Brandon Johns died from multiple gunshot wounds to his neck and chest. He was shot seven times. He was shot twice in the neck. One wound was in the back of the neck and one was in the front of the neck. Because of the gunpowder stippling on the skin, trial testimony indicated that these shots had been fired within four inches of the skin. He was also shot in the right shoulder, the right upper back, the right lower chest, the left posterior shoulder and the right anterior thigh.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/19/14, at 1-3 (emphasis added).

On November 18, 2013, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of life imprisonment for murder, a consecutive term of five to ten years of imprisonment for conspiracy, and a consecutive term of imprisonment of three and one-half to seven years for the firearms charge. No further penalty was imposed for robbery. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion on November 27, 2013, and on December 4, 2013, the trial court granted a thirty-day extension beyond the filing date of the notes of testimony to permit the filing of a supplemental motion, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(b). Appellant filed a supplemental post-sentence motion on February 25, 2014. The trial court denied both motions on March 14, 2014. Appellant then filed a timely notice of appeal on March 24, 2014. Both the trial court and Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

I. Was Quintelle Rankin erroneously convicted of second degree murder violating his rights under the U.S. Const. Amend. XIV and PA. Const. Art. 1, § 9, insofar as the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense and in defense of others?

II. Was Quintelle Rankin erroneously convicted of second degree murder, robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery violating his rights under the U.S. Const. Amend. XIV and PA. Const. Art. 1, § 9, insofar as the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed or attempted to commit a robbery, or was an accomplice in the commission of a robbery, or that he agreed to commit a robbery or to aid in the commission of a robbery?

Appellant's Brief at 5 (full capitalization omitted).

Both of Appellant's issues challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, were sufficient to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Diamond, 83 A.3d 119 (Pa. 2013). It is within the province of the fact-finder to determine the weight to be accorded to each witness's testimony and to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. Commonwealth v. James, 46 A.3d 776 (Pa. Super. 2012). The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Vogelsong, 90 A.3d 717 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, 102 A.3d 985 (Pa. 2014). Moreover, as an appellate court, we may not re-weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007).

In his first issue, Appellant avers that the Commonwealth failed to disprove his theory of self-defense. A claim of self-defense requires evidence establishing the following three elements:

"(a) that the defendant reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury and that it was necessary to use deadly force against the victim to prevent such harm; (b) that the defendant was free from fault in provoking the difficulty which culminated in the slaying; and (c) that the defendant did not violate any duty to retreat." Commonwealth v. Samuel,527 Pa. 298, 590 A.2d 1245, 1247-48 (1991). See also Commonwealth v. Harris, 550 Pa. 92, 703 A.2d 441, 449 (1997); 18 Pa.C.S. § 505.2. Although the defendant has no burden to prove self-defense, . . . before the defense is properly in issue, "there must be some evidence, from whatever source, to justify such a finding." Once the question is properly raised, "the burden is upon the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defense." Commonwealth v. Black, 474 Pa. 47, 376 A.2d 627, 630 (1977). The Commonwealth sustains that burden of negation "if it proves any of the following: that the slayer was not free from fault in provoking or continuing the difficulty which resulted in the slaying; that the slayer did not reasonably believe that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that it was necessary to kill in order to save himself therefrom; or that the slayer violated a duty to retreat or avoid the danger." Commonwealth v. Burns, 490 Pa. 352, 416 A.2d 506, 507 (1980).

Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 738, 740-741 (Pa. 2012).

The Pennsylvania Crimes Code governs self-defense and provides, in relevant part, as follows:

§ 505. Use of force in self-protection

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.—

The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.—

* * *

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:

(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating. . . .

18 Pa.C.S. § 505(a)-(b); Commonwealth v. Smith, 97 A.3d 782, 786 (Pa. Super. 2014).

Appellant asserts that he believed he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that it was necessary to use deadly force against Brandon Johns...