In re J.K.

1

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.K., A MINOR APPEAL OF: J.K.

No. 854 WDA 2022

No. J-A22002-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

January 18, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Dated May 3, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Juvenile Division at No(s) CP-02-JV-0000074-2022

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM

BOWES J.

J.K. appeals from the dispositional order entered following his adjudication of delinquency for acts that would constitute robbery and two firearms offenses if committed by an adult.^[1] We affirm the adjudication of delinquency for robbery and reverse the adjudication of delinquency for the firearms offenses.

The certified record reveals the procedural history and relevant facts as follows. On May 1, 2021, the victim was selling beverages along the street in front of the Kingsley Center in the East Liberty neighborhood of Pittsburgh when he observed Appellant operating a vehicle that was idling at a red traffic light. The victim recognized Appellant through their participation in high school football, social media, and Appellant's reputation as a local barber. The victim approached Appellant and, failing in his attempts to sell Appellant a beverage, inquired whether Appellant was available to cut his hair. Appellant responded in the affirmative, and the two agreed to meet in the parking lot of a nearby Target department store. The pair met as agreed, the victim got into the back seat of Appellant's vehicle, and while the two were in route to Appellant's home, Appellant allegedly brandished a firearm and robbed the victim of approximately two hundred dollars, allowing the victim to retain his telephone and three dollars for bus fare home.

The Commonwealth initially charged Appellant with robbery and possession of firearm by a minor. However, prior to the adjudicatory hearing, the Commonwealth added an additional firearm offense, possessing a firearm without a valid license. See N.T., Adjudicatory Hearing, 4/19/22, at 4-5.

During the adjudicatory hearing, the victim confirmed that he knew the perpetrator from social media, athletic events at their respective schools, and through his familiarity with Appellant's ability to cut hair. Id. at 11-14. When questioned about the weapon that Appellant possessed during the robbery, the victim described "a black gun with a [green] beam on it". Id. at 21. Critically, this testimony was the only evidence that the Commonwealth presented about the firearm. It did not introduce the firearm or any report describing the weapon.

The victim's testimony describing Appellant's vehicle was inconsistent. He initially stated that he could not remember any damage to the vehicle, which he described as a four-door vehicle with a trunk. Id. at 26, 32. Regarding Appellant's identity, the victim testified that he did not actually know Appellant's name at the time of the incident, nor had the victim ever spoken to Appellant in person until the incident. Id. at 32-34. Despite this, the victim noted on redirect examination that he recognized Appellant's face from their snapchat interactions. Id. at 40. As for the vehicle, the victim demonstrated that he had a basic ability to distinguish cars from SUVs. Id. at 41-42. The victim then read the police report detailing his initial interaction with police after the incident, and thereafter maintained that the vehicle operated by Appellant was a black SUV with a broken taillight. Id. at 44-45. Re-cross revealed that the victim initially stated the taillight was not damaged, and his testimony from the preliminary hearing revealed he previously asserted that the vehicle was a black car with two doors and a trunk, rather than an SUV. Id. at 46-49.

The Commonwealth then presented Detective Jeffrey Wingard, who testified that upon reading the responding police officer's report and interviewing the victim and Appellant, he took a photograph of a black SUV with a broken taillight. Id. at 54. Detective Wingard further testified that the photograph of the vehicle was consistent with the description provided by the responding officer. Id. at 55. Appellant's mother also testified at the adjudicatory hearing, stating that on the date of the incident, Appellant would have been operating a black Lincoln Aviator SUV. Id. at 64. The vehicle had a "hatch" rather than a trunk, and one of its taillights was damaged. Id.

Additionally, Appellant's mother agreed that the vehicle depicted in a photo taken by a detective was indeed the vehicle that Appellant would have been driving the night of the robbery. Id. at 65.

Upon the conclusion of testimony and argument, the juvenile court judge issued several findings. First, the judge noted that he did not believe there was an issue with the victim's apparent confusion regarding vehicle types. Id. at 73. Second, the victim was deemed to be credible, and the judge determined that he was truthful in his testimony. Id. Pursuant to the juvenile court, this credibility determination was further bolstered by the testimony of Appellant's mother. Id. After determining that the Commonwealth proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, Appellant was adjudicated delinquent on all counts. Id. at 74. Appellant was detained until his disposition hearing, which was deferred to a later date. Id. at 75.

The juvenile court conducted Appellant's dispositional hearing on May 3, 2022. During the hearing, Appellant presented testimony from his grandmother, mother, and a teacher that indicated his positive characteristics and hard-working nature. Despite this, while noting Appellant's need for treatment, the juvenile court emphasized the issue of juveniles carrying firearms and directed that Appellant be supervised at an out-of-home placement facility.

Appellant filed a post-dispositional motion challenging the sufficiency and weight of the evidence for Appellant's adjudication of delinquency, which was denied. See Post-Dispositional Motion, 5/11/22, at ¶¶ 9-15; Juvenile Court Order, 6/28/22. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The juvenile court did not direct Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant presents the following questions for our review:

1) Whether the evidence was insufficient to adjudicate [Appellant] delinquent of Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License and Possession of a Firearm by Minor, where the Commonwealth failed to prove that the object he possessed was a firearm?

2) Whether the Juvenile Court abused its discretion in denying [Appellant's] post-disposition motion for a new adjudication hearing where the weight of the evidence overwhelmingly showed that [Appellant] was misidentified as the perpetrator, and therefore, his adjudications for Robbery, Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License, and Possession of a Firearm by Minor shocked the judicial conscience?

Appellant's brief at 6.

Appellant's first issue challenges the juvenile court's determination that the Commonwealth offered sufficient evidence to establish that his conduct met all the elements of the crimes of Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License and Possession of a Firearm by a Minor. See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6110.1(a); 6106(a)(1). We therefore begin with our standard of review for sufficiency of evidence challenges, which are reviewed under the following standard:

We must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Where there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crime has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, the sufficiency of the evidence claim must fail.

The evidence established at trial need not preclude every possibility of innocence and the fact-finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented. It is not within the province of this Court to re-weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. The Commonwealth's burden may be met by wholly circumstantial evidence and 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.

Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 141 A.3d 523, 525 (Pa.Super. 2016) (cleaned up). Additionally, "evidentiary sufficiency is a question of law," thus "our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary." Commonwealth v. Diamond, 83 A.3d 119, 126 (Pa. 2013).

Appellant asserts that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the weapon allegedly used by Appellant was indeed a firearm. See Appellant's brief at 20. The Commonwealth concedes that, due to a lack of circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish the barrel or length of the alleged firearm, Appellant's adjudications for Carrying a Firearm Without a License and Possession of a Firearm by a Minor should be reversed. See Commonwealth's brief at 20-21. We agree.

Section 6110.1(a) of the Crimes Code governs possession of a firearm by a minor and reads, in pertinent part: "a person under 18 years of age shall not possess or transport a firearm anywhere in this Commonwealth." 18 Pa.C.S. § 6110.1(a). In order for the juvenile court to adjudicate Appellant delinquent under Section 6110.1(a), the Commonwealth was required to prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the weapon was indeed a firearm as provided by statute; (2) appellant was in possession of the firearm; and (3) appellant...