Commonwealth v. Wilson

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. NICHOLAS ANTHONY WILSON Appellant

No. 1589 EDA 2022

No. J-S07044-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

August 28, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 18, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0004629-2020

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM

KING J.

Appellant Nicholas Anthony Wilson, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed by the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas following his jury trial convictions for burglary, criminal trespass, criminal attempt to commit a theft by unlawful taking of movable property, and criminal attempt to receive stolen property.^[1] We affirm.

The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history in this matter as follows:

On March 18, 2020, Warminster Township Police Department responded to a report of a burglary in progress. (N.T. Trial, 8/9/21, at 59). Victim reported that she had left her house to go grocery shopping for about thirty (30) minutes. (Id. at 18). Victim had left her seventeen (17) year old son home. (Id. at 16, 18). When she returned home from grocery shopping her front door was open. (Id. at 21). She entered her home and found Appellant, a man who she did not know and had never seen before, inside her house. (Id. at 21-22). Appellant was holding a yoga mat, hoverboard, and a pair of UGGs in a box, which belonged to the Victim and her family. (Id. at 22). Victim told Appellant to leave her home and she followed him out. (Id. at 26). She then called 911. (Id. at 27). Appellant proceeded to leave the residence before police officers arrived. (Id. at 86-87). Victim's son was in the home throughout the entire ordeal. (Id. at 62).

* * *

Prior to Appellant's jury trial, Appellant was offered a negotiated guilty plea by the Commonwealth. Before the start of the jury trial, this [c]ourt ensured Appellant was aware that if he was found guilty by a jury, he would be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence. Appellant, after knowingly and intelligently acknowledging the mandatory minimum, refused the negotiated guilty plea and proceeded to trial.

On August 9, 2021, Appellant's jury trial began. On August 10, 2021, the jury found him guilty as to burglary of overnight accommodations with a person present, criminal trespass by entering a structure, criminal attempt to commit a theft by unlawful taking of movable property, and criminal attempt to receive stolen property. Sentencing was deferred at the request of Appellant.

On August 11, 2021, the Commonwealth filed notice of mandatory minimum sentence, which stated:

1. In the event of conviction of the crime of burglary (F1), 18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(1)(ii) as charged in the above-captioned criminal case, the court is required by law to sentence [Appellant], who has been previously convicted of a crime of violence (aggravated assault, (F1), 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1)), in accordance with Section 9714 of Title 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, (Sentences for second and subsequent offenses), which requires the imposition of a minimum sentence of at least ten (10) years' incarceration. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(a)(1).

Sentencing was originally scheduled for November 22, 2021, this was continued at the request of Appellant. On January 18, 2022, Appellant requested another continuance of sentencing. [The trial] court denied that request and sentencing proceeded on that day. Appellant was then sentenced to a period of ten to twenty years' imprisonment at a state correctional institution on the charge of burglary, all other charges merged with the burglary charge. Appella[nt] was given credit for time-served between March 18, 2020 (his initial date of incarceration) through July 9, 2020 (the date he received bail), as well as credit for time-served between May 20, 2021 (his date of re-incarceration after violating the terms of his bail) through January 18, 2022 (the date of this sentencing).

On January 26, 2022, Appellant filed a motion to modify and/or reconsider sentence and a motion to bar application of mandatory minimum sentencing statute. [The trial] court held a hearing for reconsideration of sentence on May 20, 2022. On that day, [the trial] court denied Appellant's motions. Subsequently, Appellant filed notice of this appeal on June 17, 2022. On June 21, 2022, [the trial] court filed an order for a concise statement. Appellant filed his concise statement of errors complained [of] on appeal on November 1, 2022.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 11/21/22, at 1-3) (record citation formatting provided; footnotes and unnecessary capitalization omitted).

Appellant raises the following four issues on appeal:

A. Was the verdict of guilty of burglary supported by sufficient evidence?

B. Did the trial court err in precluding Appellant from presenting evidence regarding a large monetary judgment he received on the day of the incident?

C. Did the trial court err in admitting the testimony of Detective Bunda regarding DNA evidence?

D. Did the trial court err in imposing a mandatory minimum sentence in violation of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions' prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment?

(Appellant's Brief at 8) (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

In his first issue, Appellant contends that the evidence presented by the Commonwealth at trial was insufficient to establish his guilt of burglary. Appellant asserts that the Commonwealth failed to prove the requisite mens rea, namely, that he entered the house with the intent to commit a crime therein. Appellant insists that his actions at the time of the incident do not support an inference that he had the intent to commit a crime inside the home. Specifically, Appellant maintains that he entered the home because the door was unlocked and there was a "for sale" sign on the property. Appellant emphasizes that he did not attempt to conceal his identity, and he left the premises when Victim asked him to do so. Appellant concludes the evidence was insufficient to support his burglary conviction, and this Court must grant relief. We disagree.

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our well-settled standard of review is as follows:

As a general matter, our standard of review of sufficiency claims requires that we evaluate the record in the light most favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. 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. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty. Any doubt about the defendant's guilt is to be resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.

The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, [t]he fact that the evidence establishing a defendant's participation in a crime is circumstantial does not preclude a conviction where the evidence coupled with the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom overcomes the presumption of innocence. Significantly, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder; thus, so long as the evidence adduced, accepted in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, demonstrates the respective elements of a defendant's crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant's convictions will be upheld.

Commonwealth v. Sebolka, 205 A.3d 329, 336-37 (Pa.Super. 2019) (quoting Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719, 722-23 (Pa.Super. 2013)).

The version of Section 3502 of the Crimes Code that was in effect at the time of Appellant's offenses defined burglary, in relevant part, as follows:

§ 3502. Burglary

(a) Offense defined.-A person commits the offense of burglary if, with the intent to commit a crime therein, the person:

(1)(i) enters a building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof, that is adapted for overnight accommodations in which at the time of the offense any person is present and the person commits, attempts or threatens to commit a bodily injury crime therein;

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a)(1)(i) (effective Jan. 3, 2017 to Sept. 8, 2022).

The Commonwealth is not required to specify what crime a defendant is intending to commit and it need not prove the underlying crime in order to sustain a conviction. Commonwealth v. Brown, 886 A.2d 256, 260 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 588 Pa. 743, 902 A.2d 969 (2006). Rather, "[t]he intent to commit a crime after entry may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the incident." Commonwealth v. Lambert, 795 A.2d 1010, 1022 (Pa.Super. 2002), appeal denied, 569 Pa. 701, 805 A.2d 521 (2002) (citation omitted). "While this intent may be inferred from actions as well as words, the actions must bear a reasonable relation to the commission of a crime. Once one has entered a private residence by criminal means, we can infer that the person intended a criminal purpose based upon the totality of the circumstances." Id. (citations omitted).

Instantly Appellant entered the house of a stranger and gathered several items-a yoga mat, a hoverboard, and a pair of UGG boots-all without permission. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, it was reasonable for the jury to infer that under the totality of the circumstances, Appellant intended to commit a crime in the home. See Sebolka, supra; Lambert, supra. Accordingly, Appellant's first issue is...