Commonwealth v. Renkins
| Docket Number | 1465 EDA 2022,J-S30007-23 |
| Decision Date | 22 November 2023 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KEON RENKINS Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
1
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
KEON RENKINS Appellant
No. 1465 EDA 2022
No. J-S30007-23
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
November 22, 2023
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 11, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000861-2017
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM
BENDER, P.J.E.
Appellant, Keon Renkins, appeals nunc pro tunc from the August 11, 2020 judgment of sentence of an aggregate term of 16 to 32 years' incarceration, imposed after a jury convicted him of robbery (threat of immediate serious bodily injury), robbery of a motor vehicle, theft by unlawful taking, fleeing or attempting to elude an officer, possessing an instrument of crime, and simple assault. After careful review, we affirm.
The trial court summarized the pertinent facts and procedural history of this case, which we adopt herein. See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 12/5/22, at 1-3. Briefly, Appellant was convicted of the above-stated offenses based on evidence that he robbed a car salesman of a Cadillac Escalade truck during a test drive of the vehicle. Appellant's jury trial was conducted in January of
2020, and he was convicted of the above-stated offenses.[1] After a presentence report was prepared and a mental health evaluation was conducted, the court sentenced Appellant on August 11, 2020, to the term set forth supra.
Appellant did not file a timely appeal, but he was subsequently granted the reinstatement of his post-sentence motion and appellate rights via the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. He thereafter filed a post-sentence motion, which was denied, and then a nunc pro tunc appeal. Appellant also complied with the court's order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. The court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on December 5, 2022. Herein, Appellant states three issues for our review:
I. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence
II. Whether Appellant's sentence was unduly harsh and excessive
III. Whether the court erred in granting the Commonwealth's motion to introduce four prior bad acts from previous allegations of theft as the prejudicial value outweighed the probative value
Appellant's Brief at 8 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
In assessing Appellant's issues, we have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law. Additionally, we have examined the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Anne Marie B. Coyle of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. We conclude
that Judge Coyle's comprehensive opinion accurately disposes of the issues presented by Appellant. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Coyle's opinion as our own and affirm Appellant's judgment of sentence for the reasons set forth therein.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
KEON RENKINS[1]
CP-51-CR-0000861-2017
SUPERIOR COURT NO. 1465 EDA 2022
DECEMBER 5, 2022
OPINION
COYLE, J.
Keon Renkins, the above-named Appellant and Defendant, seeks review of the Order and Judgment of Sentence imposed on August 11, 2020, by the Honorable Anne Marie B. Coyle, Judge of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, hereinafter referenced as "this Court." In his Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal filed pursuant to Pa. R. P. 1925(b), Appellant contends that the jury verdicts had been entered against the weight of the evidence. He further avers that the trial court had erred by granting the Commonwealth's Motion to Admit Other Acts Evidence and claims that the imposed sentences were excessive.
Review of the record, however, demonstrated that sufficient evidence had supported the convictions and that the Order and Judgment of Sentence had been reasonably imposed after a full and fair sentencing hearing had been conducted. The record also reflected that the decision to admit other acts evidence had constituted a reasonable exercise of trial court discretion.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 16, 2016, Appellant Keon Rankins was arrested and charged with inter alia Robbery; Robbery of a Motor Vehicle; Theft by Unlawful Taking; Fleeing or Attempting to Elude an Officer; Possession of an Instrument of Crime; and Simple Assault for events that had occurred on January 16, 2016, at approximately 3:00 p.m., at or near Best Buy Imports, around the intersection of Torresdale and Frankford Avenues in the City and County of Philadelphia. Appellant entered the car lot premises and was permitted by the Best Buy Import sales manager to test drive a black Cadillac Escalade truck, despite not producing a driver's license or insurance. During the test drive, Appellant brandished a firearm and robbed the assigned salesman, complainant Emanuel Connor. Appellant later led the pursuing police officer on a dangerous high-speed chase on the Interstate 95 highway.
A jury trial was conducted before this Court on January 28, 2020. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of Robbery - Threat of Immediate Serious Injury; Robbery of a Motor Vehicle; Theft by Unlawful Taking - Movable Property; Fleeing or Attempting to Elude an Officer; Possessing an Instrument of Crime; and Simple Assault.[2] The jury was hung on the charge of Violation of the Uniform Firearms Act- Possession of a Firearm Prohibited. Sentencing was deferred pending completion of pre-sentence report and mental health evaluation.
On August 11, 2020, this Court imposed consecutive sentences often (10) years to twenty (20) years of state supervised confinement on each first-degree felony conviction for Robbery -Threat of Immediate Serious Injury and Robbery of a Motor Vehicle and not less than three and
one-half (31/2) years nor more than seven (7) years of confinement for the felony of the third-degree conviction of Fleeing or Attempting to Elude an Officer. For the first-degree misdemeanor conviction of Possessing an Instrument of Crime, a sentence of not less than two and one-half (21/2) years to nor more than five (5) years of incarceration was imposed. The convictions for Theft by Unlawful Taking - Movable Property and Simple Assault merged for purposes of sentencing. Thus, the aggregate sentence of sixteen (16) years to thirty-two (32) years of state supervised confinement resulted. Max Kramer, Esquire, represented Appellant at trial and during sentencing. Post-sentence motions were not filed. No appeal was filed.
On June 15, 2021, Appellant filed a pro se petition for Post-Conviction Relief. Peter A. Levin, Esquire was appointed as counsel and filed an Amended Petition alleging trial counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to file a post-sentence motion or direct appeal. On January 14, 2022, this Court granted Appellant's Petition for Nunc Pro Tunc relief and reinstated Appellant's appellate rights. On January 13, 2022, Mr. Levin filed a post-sentence motion on behalf of Appellant which had been denied by operation of law on May 16, 2022. Notice of Appeal in the Superior Court was filed on May 24, 2022. A Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. Rule 1925 (b) was ordered by this Court on June 3, 2022. This Statement was filed on June 14, 2022.
II. ISSUES ON APPEAL
In his Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, Appellant cited the weight of the evidence, the admission of other acts evidence, and the excessiveness of the sentence.
III. DISCUSSION
Prior Bad Acts Evidence
Appellant challenged the trial court's decision to grant the Commonwealth's pretrial
Motion to Admit Other Acts Evidence related to multiple similar carjacking and automobile thefts that had been committed by Appellant during August and September of 2007. The record however reflects that this decision had constituted a sound exercise of trial court discretion and that the proffered evidence had been properly admitted pursuant to the reasonable interpretation and application of Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b). Pa.R.E. 404 (b), provides:
(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. In a criminal case this evidence is admissible only if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.
(3) Notice in a Criminal Case. In a criminal case the prosecutor must provide reasonable written notice in advance of trial so that the. defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.
Pa.R.E. 404(b).
In Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 603 Pa. 92, 982 A.2d 483 (2009), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court set forth the general principles regarding the admissibility of prior bad acts at trial as follows:
Generally, evidence of prior bad acts or unrelated criminal activity is inadmissible to show that a defendant acted in conformity with those past acts or to show criminal propensity. Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1). However, evidence of prior bad acts may be admissible when offered to prove some other relevant fact, such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, and absence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial