Com. v. Bazemore, W. ( 2016 )

J-A12021-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
WAYNE BAZEMORE
Appellant No. 1155 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 16, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0010767-2014
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED OCTOBER 20, 2016
Appellant, Wayne Bazemore, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered after the trial court convicted him of burglary and criminal mischief.
Bazemore contends that the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence
to support the trial court’s finding that Bazemore entered the victims’ home
with the intent to commit a crime therein. We affirm.
Testimony at the bench trial established that Bazemore entered a
residence at about 8:20 p.m. on August 14, 2014. Inside, a family was
sitting and talking when Bazemore walked in. No one in the family knew
Bazemore and no family member claimed to have given Bazemore
permission to enter.
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A12021-16
Once inside, Bazemore walked over to a ten-year-old boy and said, “I
want you.” He then walked through the dining room into the kitchen, where
he grabbed a pot lid and a steak knife. These he proceeded to bang together
over his head. Disturbed by this behavior, the family quickly fled the
building.
As they left their residence, Bazemore picked up a cane and began
swinging it at the walls and furniture. Once the family gathered outside, they
could hear glass cracking, furniture being turned over, and other assorted
noised coming from inside. One family member called the police from
outside the home.
Police quickly arrived and interviewed the family, who were “very
scared and terrified.” Upon entering the home, Officer William Bengochea
observed Bazemore walking from the kitchen to the living room with a knife
in his hand. Officer Bengochea ordered Bazemore to drop the knife three
times before Bazemore complied.
After dropping the knife, Bazemore walked back into the kitchen,
where he continued to destroy the family’s belongings. After police de-
escalated the situation, Bazemore sat down and complied with the officers’
orders. The officers arrested Bazemore without further incident. It was later
determined that Bazemore had caused over $30,000 of damage to the
victim’s belongings and home.
-2-
J-A12021-16
After a bench trial, the trial court found Bazemore guilty of first degree
burglary and criminal mischief. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced
Bazemore to a term of imprisonment of three to six years, to be followed by
three years of probation. This timely appeal followed.
On appeal, Bazemore raises a single issue for our review. He contends
that the evidence presented at trial cannot sustain a finding that he entered
the residence with the intent to commit a crime. Specifically, he contends
that the evidence indicates that he entered the house due to an “utterly
spontaneous impulse, rather than a previously formed criminal intent.”
Appellant’s Brief, at 11.
We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by
determining whether, when viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict
winner, the evidence at trial and all reasonable inferences therefrom is
sufficient for the trier of fact to find that each element of the crimes charged
is established beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Dale,
836 A.2d 150, 152 (Pa. Super. 2003). The Commonwealth may sustain its
burden of proving every element beyond a reasonable doubt by means of
wholly circumstantial evidence. See Commonwealth v. Bruce, 916 A.2d
657, 661 (Pa. Super. 2007).
The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need
not preclude every possibility of innocence. See id. Any doubt raised as to
the accused’s guilt is to be resolved by the fact-finder. See id. As an
-3-
J-A12021-16
appellate court, we do not assess credibility nor do we assign weight to any
of the testimony of record. See Commonwealth v. Kinney, 863 A.2d 581,
584 (Pa. Super. 2004). Therefore, we will not disturb the verdict “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.” Bruce, 916 A.2d
at 662 (citation omitted).
Bazemore argues that pursuant to Commonwealth v. Crowson, 405
A.2d 1295, 1296-1297 (Pa. Super. 1979), the mere fact that he committed a
crime while inside the residence is insufficient to establish that he intended
to commit a crime when he entered. However, as Bazemore concedes, the
test for sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of intent is the
totality of the attendant circumstances. See Appellant’s Brief, at 10; see
also Commonwealth v. Eck, 654 A.2d 1104, 1108-1109 (Pa. Super.
1995). Furthermore, the Commonwealth need not prove, or even allege,
which specific crime the defendant intended to commit; it must merely prove
a general criminal intent. See Commonwealth v. Alston, 651 A.2d 1092,
1095 (Pa. 1994).
Here, we have no difficulty in determining that the Commonwealth
carried this burden at trial. One family member testified that, after
Bazemore entered the home, she asked him, “Who are you? You’ve got the
wrong house. Who are you looking for?” N.T., Trial, 2/3/15, at 15. Bazemore
did not respond to these questions, nor did he leave the house. Thus, there
-4-
J-A12021-16
was evidence that Bazemore’s entry was not unknowing or the result of a
mistake. Furthermore, there was testimony that, once he had scared the
family out of the house, Bazemore proceeded to vandalize the home. See
id., at 19. As a result, the trial court, sitting as fact-finder, was entitled to
infer that Bazemore intended to commit a crime when he entered the home.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/20/2016
-5-