Com. v. Jackson, T. ( 2023 )

J-S45038-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
TYREEK JACKSON :
:
Appellant : No. 200 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 15, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at CP-51-CR-0000245-2020
BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 16, 2023
Tyreek Jackson (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed after the trial court found him guilty of robbery, burglary, persons
not to possess firearms, conspiracy, criminal trespass, firearms not to be
carried without a license, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property,
carrying firearms on the public streets of Philadelphia, unlawful restraint,
possessing an instrument of crime, terroristic threats, simple assault,
recklessly endangering another person (REAP), and false imprisonment.1 We
affirm.
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701(a)(1)(ii), 3502(a)(1)(i), 6105(a)(1), 903(c),
3503(a)(1)(ii), 6106(a)(1), 3921(a), 3925(a), 6108, 2902(a)(1), 907(a),
2706(a)(1), 2701(a), 2705, and 2903(a), respectively.
J-S45038-22
As the facts and procedural history of this case are fully set forth in the
trial court’s opinion, we do not restate them. See Trial Court Opinion,
4/28/22, at 1–9. We briefly note that, on August 16, 2018, Appellant,
accompanied by Brooklyn Bradley (Bradley), and Jaquil Watson (Watson),
invaded the home of 70-year-old Larry Feinberg (the Victim). N.T., 10/5/21,
at 12-16, 31-33. Appellant and Watson restrained the Victim with plastic ties,
pressed a gun to the Victim’s head, pushed him, and sprayed mace in the
Victim’s eye. Id. at 13-16, 35-36.
On October 5, 2021, the trial court convicted Appellant of the above
charges. On December 15, 2021, the trial court, with the benefit of a pre-
sentence investigation report, sentenced Appellant on the charges of robbery,
burglary, persons not to possess firearms, and conspiracy, to an aggregate 7
– 20 years in prison. The trial court did not sentence Appellant on the
remaining charges. Appellant timely appealed.2
Appellant raises two issues on appeal:
[1.] Is the evidence sufficient, as a matter of law, to convict
[Appellant] of the crimes of possessing a firearm without a license
and carrying a firearm in Philadelphia as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§§ 6106 and 6108 of the Crimes Code where the evidence of
record does not establish that the item allegedly used by
[Appellant] had a barrel length or overall length which satisfied
the definition of firearms as that term is defined in 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 6102?
[2.] Is the evidence sufficient, as a matter of law, to convict
[Appellant] of the crimes of [REAP] and unlawful restraint as set
____________________________________________
2 Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-2-
J-S45038-22
forth in 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2705 and 2902 of the Crimes Code where
the evidence of record does not establish that [Appellant] or his
accomplices placed [the Victim] at risk of suffering “serious bodily
injury” as that term is defined in 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301?
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
Our standard of review is well-settled:
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light
most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence
to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond
a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh
the evidence and substitute our judgment for [that of] the fact-
finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances
established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every
possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt
may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak
and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may
be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth
may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial
evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record
must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be
considered. Finally, the trier of fact while passing upon the
credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced,
is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Leaner, 202 A.3d 749, 768 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation
omitted).
Appellant argues his convictions under 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6106 and 61083
were not supported by sufficient evidence because:
Both offenses require possession of a “firearm.” “Firearm” is
defined in § 6102 of the Crimes Code as “[a]ny pistol or revolver
with a barrel length less than 15 inches, any shotgun with
a barrel length less than 18 inches or any rifle with a barrel
____________________________________________
3 As noted, the trial court did not impose a sentence on these charges.
-3-
J-S45038-22
length less than 16 inches, or any pistol, revolver, rifle or
shotgun with an overall length of less than 26 inches.” 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 6102 (emphasis supplied). With respect to the “gun”
allegedly possessed by [Appellant], the only description offered
into evidence at trial was that the weapon was a gun that looks
like a “relatively small or medium sized automatic pistol” without
any description by the witness of the size of the weapon.
[Bradley], who was a coconspirator in the robbery at issue,
testified that the gun was fake.
Appellant’s Brief at 17 (emphasis in original). Appellant further asserts the
evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions for REAP and unlawful
restraint:4
Both crimes require that [Appellant] expose the victim to the risk
of suffering serious bodily injury. The [Victim] here did not suffer
an injury meeting the definition of serious bodily injury, namely
“injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes
serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or
impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.”
Id. at 18.
The record belies Appellant’s arguments. Upon review, we conclude that
the evidence presented at trial, viewed in a light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, supports the trial court’s verdicts. Furthermore, the
Honorable Charles A. Ehrlich, sitting as the trial court, has authored a
comprehensive opinion, which we adopt in its entirety and incorporate in this
decision. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/28/22, at 14, 17 (concluding evidence
was sufficient to sustain convictions under 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6106 and 6108
where the Commonwealth’s evidence showed Appellant “wielded” a gun
____________________________________________
4 Again, the trial court did not impose a sentence on these charges.
-4-
J-S45038-22
during the home invasion and had a criminal record making him ineligible to
carry a firearm; the evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant’s convictions
for REAP and unlawful restraint where evidence showed Appellant used plastic
ties to restrain the Victim, held a gun to his head throughout the robbery, and
sprayed mace in the Victim’s eye, thereby exposing him to the risk of serious
bodily injury).
Consistent with the foregoing, we adopt Judge Ehrlich’s opinion as our
own.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/16/2023
-5-
Circulated 01/27/2023 11:32 AM