Com. v. Robison, J. ( 2023 )

J-A29044-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JAKWARIS ROBISON :
:
Appellant : No. 741 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 23, 2021,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0000716-2020.
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 15, 2023
Jakwaris Robison appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence imposed
following his convictions of second-degree murder, robbery, conspiracy, and
flight to avoid apprehension.1
Robison’s convictions arose from his activities on January 19, 2020,
when he conspired with co-defendant, Marshawn Williams and co-conspirators
Melissa Seaman and Michael Toles, to arrange and consummate a drug
transaction with, and robbery of, Devin Way outside Way’s residence in Erie.
During the robbery, Way was shot and killed.
The trial court detailed the pertinent facts and trial testimony regarding
the shooting incident as follows:
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(b), 3701(a)(1), 903, and 5126(a), respectively.
J-A29044-22
Earlier on January 19, 2020, Seaman, Toles, and Robison
were riding as passengers in a grey, four-door Honda operated by
Williams. While the group was driving around, Seaman messaged
various third parties on her cell phone in an attempt to “see if
anyone ha[d] any drugs or money that would be a possible lick.”
(In their vernacular, a lick is a robbery victim). After a potential
target, Cohen Heath, failed to respond, Seaman continued to
reach out to others on her cell phone until she successfully made
contact with [Devin Way]. Way agreed to sell two (2) ounces of
marijuana in exchange for $400.00.
The four co-conspirators proceeded to the Dollar Tree store
located in the Liberty Plaza. [Robison], co-defendant Williams
Robison, and Toles exited the vehicle and obtained items from the
store, some or all of which were not paid for. [Robison’s] main
purpose in going to the store was to obtain gloves to eliminate the
possibility of fingerprints being left behind “in case things went
bad.” Before the three-some returned to the car, Toles heard
[Robison] and Williams discuss harming Seaman “if things went
bad” to prevent Seaman from saying something.
Meantime, while Seaman waited inside the car, for the three
of them to return, she obtained from Way his address. When the
three returned, Seaman announced “she felt like [Way] was going
to be an easy person to get at.”
At trial, Toles described the foursome’s plan to rob Way:
That I was going to be in the back seat and Robison
would still be in the back seat and [Seaman] would get
in the [front] passenger seat. And our plan was to get
out of the car and let [Way] in the middle and he was
going to produce a gun and tell Way to get out.
With co-defendant Williams behind the wheel, the four
proceeded to Way’s residence. Way exited his home and
approached the Honda. As planned, [Robison] exited the back
seat and instructed Way to get in the middle, next to Toles. Way
refused to get in the middle, so [Robison] re-entered the back
seat, took the middle position, and Way got in the car after him.
Way closed the door and Williams drove off.
Way directed Williams to turn from Southgate Drive onto
Usonia Avenue. Way produced and passed around for “inspection”
the marijuana for sale. However, as testified to by Seaman, no
one in the vehicle actually had money on them to make the
-2-
J-A29044-22
purchase. The sham inspection continued, with Seaman passing
the marijuana to Williams who stated he “was good” with the
marijuana.
Following a brief period of awkward silence, the drug
transaction morphed into the planned robbery of Way. According
to the testimony of co-conspirator Toles, Toles pulled out a gun,
reached around Robison, pointed the gun at Way, and instructed
Way to get out of the car. Way refused and grabbed the gun. A
struggle ensued between Toles and Way for the gun. Williams,
from the driver’s seat, called out for Robison to assist Toles.
In response, [Robison] squeezed out from between Way and
Toles and exited the car though the driver’s side rear door.
[Robison] ran to the other side of the car to the rear passenger
door, opened the door, raised his gun and started shooting at
Way.
Toles testified [Robison], the sole shooter in this incident,
fired the gun four (4) to six (6) times in quick succession.
According to Toles, Way was shot in the back. Seaman testified
she heard approximately (4) gunshots; she heard Toles yell that
he was shot, too; and when she turned around, she saw blood on
Toles’ leg. Seaman testified she did not see or hear from Way
again.
Toles, from his position behind Williams, observed Way turn
toward [Robison], and that [Robison] continued to shoot. It is
apparent from Toles’ testimony that after [Robison] stopped
firing, either Way fell out of the vehicle through the rear passenger
door where [Robison] was standing, or [Robison] pulled Way out
of the car. Regardless, Toles heard Way scream during the
process. Way landed on the ground, face done in the snow.
[Robison] jumped back into the car through the door from which
Way fell.
Trial Court Opinion, 12/13/21, at 2-4 (citations to record omitted).
The trial court also summarized the events that occurred after the
shooting, as well as the eventual apprehension of Williams and Robison:
With Williams behind the wheel, the four attempted to drive
away. Co-defendant Williams stopped the vehicle briefly and
switched seats with Seaman so she could drive. Seaman, in a
-3-
J-A29044-22
panic, drove the Honda into a snowbank where it became
temporarily stuck. At this juncture, [Robison] and Williams exited
the car and started to run away.
Toles called out for [Robison] to return and get [Robison’s]
gun, Robison complied and Toles handed him Toles’ gun as well.
[Robison and Williams] then ran off again in the snow through
someone’s back yard.
Seaman managed to get the car unstuck and drove back
past the shooting scene. Seaman, with Toles bleeding in the back
seat, drove to a nearby Taco Bell on Peach Street where the Honda
was pulled over by the police.
[Robison] and co-defendant Williams left the Erie area and
each was missing for quite some time.
The police identified [Robison] as a suspect from
surveillance video from the Dollar Tree Store in the Liberty Plaza.
On January 22, 2021, a warrant was issued for [Robison’s] arrest.
The police learned [Robison] was on state parole and contacted
his parole supervisor, Michelle Contis. Contis positively identified
[Robison] from Dollar Tree surveillance video. Contis provided the
police with [Robison’s] cell phone number, which through
investigation revealed he was hiding in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
On January 24, 2021, [Robison] was apprehended in
Pittsburgh, where he no longer was wearing the beard he had at
the time of the murder. At trial, as the result of the [trial court’s
] ruling on a motion in limine by [Robison’s] counsel, no reference
was made to Contis’ job title, her role as [Robison’s] parole
supervisor, or to [Robison’s] status as a parolee at the time of the
murder.
With regard to co-defendant Williams, the evening of the
shooting a warrant was issued for his arrest. Wanted billboards
were posted by the U.S. Marshalls Fugitive Task Force in
Cleveland, Buffalo, and surrounding areas. In July of 2020,
approximately seven (7) months after Way’s murder, the police
located co-defendant Williams at a friend’s residence in the 400
block of East 22nd Street in the City of Erie. Williams attempted
to remain hidden inside the residence by eventually surrendered
to the police.
Trial Court Opinion, 12/13/21, at 4-6 (citations to record omitted).
-4-
J-A29044-22
Following a five-day jury trial, Robison was convicted of the above-
enumerated offenses.2 On April 23, 2021, the trial court sentenced Robison
to life without parole followed by an aggregate term of 12-24 years of
imprisonment. On April 28, 2021, Williams filed a post-sentence motion,
which the trial court denied. Robison filed a pro se notice of appeal, followed
by a notice of appeal filed by trial counsel. Thereafter, trial counsel filed a
motion to withdraw, which the trial court granted, and appellate counsel was
appointed. After being granted a time extension, Robison filed a Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) concise statement of matters complained of on appeal on August 30,
2021.
In response to an application for special relief, filed by appellate counsel,
this Court, on October 8, 2021, remanded the case to the trial court for a
Grazier3 hearing. On November 8, 2021, the trial court held the Grazier
hearing and determined that Robison’s waiver of counsel was knowing,
voluntary and intelligent. Thus, Robison was permitted to proceed pro se, and
the trial court directed Robison to file an amended Rule 1925(b) statement.
Robison complied, and in his statement raised sixteen claims. The trial court
responded to each claim in its Rule 1925(a) opinion filed on February 3, 2022.
____________________________________________
2 The jury convicted Williams of the same charges. His appeal is pending
before this Court at No. 630 WDA 2021.
3 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
-5-
J-A29044-22
Robison raises the same sixteen issues on appeal. In its Rule 1925(a)
opinion, the trial court summarized, consolidated, and reordered these claims
as follows:
1. Whether the Commonwealth committed Brady violations in a)
withholding alleged “cooperation agreements” between the
Commonwealth and [Toles and Seaman]; and b) withholding
unspecified “exculpatory/impeachable evidence” regarding
[Toles’] cooperation in another homicide case/investigation.
2. Whether abuse of discretion occurred in allowing evidence of
unspecified “texting/telephonic messages between [Robison]
and an unknown subject pertaining to an unrelated matter the
prior day.”
3. Whether abuse of discretion occurred in “not provid[ing] the
jury with a cautionary instruction regarding the (sic) Pa.R.E.
404(b) after the [trial court] determined that the probative
value of “the evidence” did not outweigh its potential for unfair
prejudice.”
4. Whether counsel was ineffective in failing to move for mistrial
“after the [trial court] determined . . . the probative value of
the evidence involving texting/telephonic messages between
[Robison] and an unknown subject pertaining to an unrelated
matter the prior day, did not outweigh its potential for unfair
prejudice[.]”
5. Whether abuse of discretion occurred in “allowing” the
Commonwealth to refence texting/telephonic messages during
closing argument “even after . . . the trial court ruled that the
texting/telephonic messages between [Robison] and an
unknown subject pertaining to an unrelated matter the prior
day was prejudicial to [Robison].”
6. Whether abuse of discretion occurred “by giving improper jury
instructions”.
7. Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict as to each
conviction.
[8]. Whether abuse of discretion occurred in “allowing’ the
Commonwealth to: a) “Vouch or Bolster for witnesses”, b)
-6-
J-A29044-22
“Comment on [Robison’s] silence”, and c) “misstate and misuse
evidence and facts throughout [Robison’s] trial.
[9]. Whether abuse of discretion occurred in denying the post-
sentence motion claim that the verdict was against the weight of
the evidence.
Trial Court Opinion, 2/3/22, at 8-9 (citations omitted).
In his Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial judge first noted that Williams’
statement of the errors complained of on appeal was too vague and should be
considered waived. According to Judge Brabender, Williams’ Rule 1925(b)
statement was “woefully inadequate” in that it failed “to specify which element
or elements of any of the crimes” that “the Commonwealth failed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt. Trial Court Opinion, 12/13/21, at 7-9. Regarding
the second claim in his Rule 1925 statement, Judge Brabender concluded that
Williams “broadly avers evidentiary error occurred in admitting evidence” of
“unspecified text messages.” Id. at 15.
After careful review, and mindful of our standards of review, we
conclude that the Honorable Daniel J. Brabender, Jr., has authored a thorough
and well-reasoned opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a) which addressed the
issues raised by Robison in this appeal and found them to be without merit.
Judge Brabender has correctly cited the applicable case law and we discern no
legal errors or abuse of discretion in his analysis.
As such, we adopt Judge Brabender’s Rule 1925(a) opinion as our own
in affirming Robison’s judgment of sentence. See Trial Court Opinion,
12/13/2, at 10-11 (concluding that Robison’s Brady claim was not preserved
-7-
J-A29044-22
below and is otherwise without merit; both co-conspirators “credibly testified
there were no deals, promises, or implication of deals for their testimony” and
the Commonwealth reiterated that no promises were made during its closing);
at 11-16 (finding claim regarding text messages waived for vagueness or
otherwise without merit; given the other overwhelming evidence of guilt, the
prejudice to Robison was de minimus and, if error occurred, it was harmless);
at 16-17 (concluding claim regarding failure to give cautionary instruction was
without merit; trial counsel agreed that such an instruction would emphasize
the evidence); at 17-18 (explaining that a claim of trial counsel’s
ineffectiveness generally must await post-conviction review; alternatively trial
counsel had no basis to move for mistrial); at 18-19 (rejecting claim involving
Commonwealth’s closing argument because the Commonwealth did not
specifically reference the challenged text message); at 19 (concluding claim
involving improper jury instructions waived for vagueness; Robison did not
identify any specific instruction in his Rule 1925(b) statement and trial counsel
did not object to any part of the trial court’s jury instructions); at 19-28
(finding ample evidence to reject Robison’s sufficiency challenge as to each
conviction); at 28-29 (explaining that generic assertions of Commonwealth’s
misconduct in the presentation of evidence is waived for vagueness or
otherwise refuted by the record); and at 29-30 (concluding Robison’s
-8-
J-A29044-22
challenge to the weight of the evidence was either waived for vagueness or
without merit; the jury’s guilty verdicts did not shock one’s sense of justice).4
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/15/2023
____________________________________________
4 The parties are directed to attach Judge Brabender’s February 3, 2022,
opinion to this memorandum in any future appeal.
-9-