Commonwealth v. Walters
| Decision Date | 24 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | J-A06029-15,No. 1377 EDA 2014,1377 EDA 2014 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN KEITH WALTERS Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Brian Keith Walters appeals the judgment of sentence entered December 18, 2013, in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 10 to 20 years' imprisonment following Walters' jury conviction of robbery, burglary, and persons not to possess firearms.1 On appeal, Walters challenges the weight of the evidence supporting his convictions and the discretionary aspects of his sentence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
The testimony presented at Walters' jury trial was aptly summarized by the trial court in its Opinion dated June 10, 2014 at pages 1-7, and we need not repeat it here.
On February 7, 2013, a jury found Walters guilty of robbery, burglary and persons not to possess firearms. On December 18, 2013, Walters was sentenced to a term of five to 10 years' imprisonment for robbery, four to eight years' imprisonment for burglary, and one to two years' imprisonment for persons not to possess firearms.2 The trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutively to one other, for an aggregate prison term of 10 to 20 years' incarceration. Walters filed a timely post sentence motion, which the trial court subsequently denied. This timely appeal followed.3
In his first issue on appeal, Walters challenges the weight of the evidence supporting his convictions.4 He argues the Commonwealth's identification testimony was unreliable and the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate he had the motive or opportunity to commit the crime. Walters also emphasizes the lack of physical evidence linking him to the home invasion. Lastly, he claims he presented credible alibi evidence proving that he was not one of the perpetrators.
Appellate review of a weight of the evidence claim is well-established:
A weight of the evidence claim concedes that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, but seeks a new trial on the ground that the evidence was so one-sided or so weighted in favor of acquittal that a guilty verdict shocks one's sense of justice. Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 318-20, 744 A.2d 745, 751-52 (2000); Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 443-44, 832 A.2d 403, 408-09 (2003). On review, an appellate court does not substitute its judgment for the finder of fact and consider the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, but, rather, determines only whether the trial court abused its discretion in making its determination. Widmer, 560 Pa. at 321-22, 744 A.2d at 753; Champney, 574 Pa. at 444, 832 A.2d at 408.
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053, 1067 (Pa. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 1792 (U.S. 2014).
In the present case, the trial court found the verdict did not shock its sense of justice. Rather, the court concluded "[t]he jurors were fully entitledto credit the evidence presented by the Commonwealth." Trial Court Opinion, 6/10/2014, at 15. We find no reason to disagree.
Commonwealth v. Jones, 954 A.2d 1194, 1197 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations omitted and emphasis supplied), appeal denied, 962 A.2d 1196 (Pa. 2008). See also In re K.A.T., Jr., 69 A.3d 691, 696 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 81 A.3d 78 (Pa. 2013).
Walters contends that Rebecca Holland's identification of his voice was suspect since she "had very few opportunities to hear [his] voice, and she certainly did not hear it [in] a variety of contexts to allow meaningful comparison." Walters' Brief at 18. Rather, he argues she spoke to him, "in total, between six and eight times though only one instance lasted longer than twenty minutes, and most were shorter." Id. Walters also emphasizes that Ed Holland, who spoke with him at length, was unable to idenitify either of the intruders.
The trial court explained, however, that Rebecca Holland "testified definitely that she recognized [Walters'] voice both when he spoke to her and when he addressed her husband." Trial Court Opinion, 6/10/2014, at 12. The jurors were aware of the number of encounters Rebecca Hollandhad with Walters, and the opportunities she had to become familiar with his voice. The court concluded:
Stated directly, it was for the jurors to determine whether these encounters gave Ms. Holland sufficient familiarity with [Walters] in order to be able to recognize his voice, and there is nothing shocking to this court's sense of justice in their determination that she did recognize [him].
Id. at 13. Walters has not demonstrated that the trial court's ruling was an abuse of discretion.
Walters also challenges Rebecca Holland's identification of his eyes, when: (1) Rebecca Holland was under the stress of being attacked at the time she made the identification; (2) she never mentioned Walters' distinctive eyes to the police; (3) she testified it was too dark to see if the intruders were wearing gloves; and (3) Ed Holland testified it was "pitch black" in the hallway. Walters' Brief at 19-20.
However, a review of the record reveals Rebecca Holland testified she did not mention Walters' eyes to the police because she told them, definitively, that Walters was the intruder. N.T., 2/5/2013, at 108. Moreover, although the hallway was dark, Rebecca Holland stated that she left a light on in the bathroom, located off the bedroom and right next to the dresser. Id. at 58. She recognized Walters' eyes after he entered her room and was "[i]nches" away from her face, pushing her into the dresser. Id. at 59. Accordingly, it was within the discretion of the jury to determinewhether Rebecca Holland could identify the intruder's eyes under those circumstances.5
Walters also challenges the Commonwealth's evidence demonstrating he had the opportunity to familiarize himself with the Hollands' home and "learned things about the family that would lead him to believe that they had items of value in their home." Walters' Brief at 20. Walters contends that, when offered, he refused to take the code to the Hollands' home security system, and that Ed Holland testified he never revealed to Walters that he had two safes in his bedroom. Moreover, Walters claims, "it is quite clear that many other people had access to the home" including contractors and the teenaged children's friends. Id. at 21. Therefore, he asserts "the Commonwealth's argument[s] surrounding motive and opportunity are highly flawed and unsustainable." Id.
We disagree. As the trial court explained, "[t]he jurors heard evidence from which they could readily determine that at least one of the perpetratorsof the home invasion had a prior familiarity with the Holland residence." Trial Court Opinion, 6/10/2014, at 13. Ed Holland testified that, after he retrieved his gun, the perpetrators fled the residence "like lightning" and then "navigat[ed]" the first floor of the home as if "they definitely knew the format of the house." N.T., 2/5/2013, at 150. The robbers also left the home through the only door not connected to the home security system. Further, the trial court noted the jurors "also heard testimony from which they could infer that that perpetrators were specifically targeting the Hollands' bedroom on the second floor" as if they knew where the valuables were stored. Trial Court Opinion, 6/10/2014, at 14. At least one of the armed gunmen knew Ed Holland by name, and stated "Ed, don't get it" when he went to the closet to retrieve his gun. N.T., 2/5/2013, at 64. Furthermore, the jurors heard testimony from Ed Holland's brother, who claimed that the day before the home invasion, Walters was on the second floor of the home, by himself, for approximately 15 minutes. Id. at 181. Accordingly, despite the fact that other people may have had access to the Hollands' residence, the jurors were presented with sufficient circumstantial evidence that Walters, whom Rebecca Holland specifically identified, had the opportunity to familiarize himself with the layout of the home, and the valuables secreted in the second floor master bedroom.
With regard to Walters' challenge to the lack of physical evidence connecting him to the crime, he argues the Commonwealth presented no fingerprint or DNA evidence, and that he and his wife denied ever receivingthe Eagles pillowcase from the Hollands. However, the Commonwealth is not obligated to provide fingerprint or DNA evidence to secure a conviction. See Commonwealth v. Diamond, 83 A.3d 119, 126 (Pa. 2013) (), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 145, (U.S. 2014). Furthermore, the jury was entitled to credit the testimony of both Rebecca and Ed Holland who stated they gave an Eagles pillowcase to Walters a few days before the crime. They also identified the pillowcase recovered after the home invasion as the same one they had given to Walters. See Commonwealth v. Barker, 70 A.3d 849, 855 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (), appeal denied, 87 A.3d 814 (Pa. 2014). Accordingly, Walters' claim regarding the lack of physical evidence is unavailing.
Lastly, Walters argues the verdict was against the weight of the evidence because he...
To continue reading
Request your trial