J-S55005-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
BENDERICK STERNS,
Appellant No. 1688 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 22, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006419-2012
BEFORE: BOWES, SHOGAN, and OTT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 15, 2014
Benderick Sterns appeals from the judgment of sentence of life
imprisonment that the trial court imposed after he was convicted of first-
degree murder, conspiracy, possession of an unlicensed firearm, possession
of a firearm on public property in Philadelphia, and possession of an
instrument of crime. We reject his position that the convictions were against
the weight of the evidence and affirm.
Appellant and his co-defendant, Kahhim Odom, were convicted based
upon the testimony of three eyewitnesses to the November 27, 2011
shooting death of Rymeek Horton. Additionally, Appellant admitted to killing
the victim to another Commonwealth witness. The trial court aptly
delineated the evidence adduced at trial:
J-S55005-14
decedent") was killed, he, Amir Jones ("Amir"), Amir's brother
Omar Jones ("Omar"), and Ramil Andrews were hanging out,
smoking marijuana in front of Amir's and Omar's grandmother's
house on Malcom Street, a few houses down from Frazier Street
in Philadelphia. Amir testified that they shared one bag of
marijuana, and then Omar and the decedent decided to go down
Frazier Street, in the direction away from Whitby Avenue, to get
some more. The decedent turned back and began to walk back
toward his aunt and uncle's house on Malcom Street to tell his
uncle to leave the door unlocked.
Two men then started running down Frazier Street, from
the direction of Whitby Avenue, firing guns at the decedent. One
of them was wearing a gray hoodie, the other had on a dark
hoodie. Amir and Omar both identified the man in the gray
hoodie as [Appellant] and the man in the dark hoodie as the
defendant's co-
, but he cleared the jam and continued
around, and saw the decedent lying on the ground.
When the first shots rang out, Vance Bradley ("Bradley")
was in his house at 5628 Malcom Street. Bradley heard four
shots and then a pause, and then he went to look out his door.
The decedent was lying just in front of his house, about three
feet from the sidewalk, in the street. Bradley testified that he
saw [Appellant] and Odom walk toward the decedent
[Appellant] was wearing a gray hoodie, and Odom was wearing a
dark-colored hoodie, but Bradley could see both their faces.
[Appellant] stood over the decedent, Odom just a few feet
behind him, and fired four more shots at the decedent's head.
Bradley then saw both the defendant and Odom run back up
Frazier Street toward Whitby Avenue.
....
first arrived, Odom handed him a cell phone. [Appellant] was on
the phone, and he asked Brandon what happened to the
decedent. Brandon told the defendant he did not know, and
-2-
J-S55005-14
a cool person. Why you do that? Now his family is gonna think
that . . . I did it because we went through something in the
Id
Id
gonna come to the l Id.] Odom then jumped up, grabbed
a pistol, called Brandon a [profane racial slur] and left the house.
Trial Court Opinion, 11/21/13, at 2-4 (footnotes and extraneous citations to
record omitted). The Commonwealth established that the victim died from
multiple gunshot wounds, including three to the head. Appellant countered
this proof by presenting two alibi witnesses with whom he purportedly was
playing cards.
This appeal followed imposition of judgment of sentence and denial of
-sentence motion, which contained a claim that the verdict
was against the weight of the evidence. Appellant raises a single claim on
st The
Our standard of review in
this context is extremely limited and well-ensconced:
A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict
is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the
discretion of the trial court. [Commonwealth v.] Widmer,
744 A.2d [745,] 751 52 [Pa. 2000]; Commonwealth v.
Brown, 538 Pa. 410, 648 A.2d 1177, 1189 (1994). A new trial
should not be granted because of a mere conflict in the
testimony or because the judge on the same facts would have
arrived at a different conclusion. Widmer, 744 A.2d at 752.
thstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of
greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight
Id. at 320, 744 A.2d at
awarded when the jury's verdict is so contrary to the evidence as
to shock one's sense of justice and the award of a new trial is
-3-
J-S55005-14
imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to
Brown, 648 A.2d at 1189.
An appellate court's standard of review when presented
with a weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard
of review applied by the trial court:
Appellate review of a weight claim is a review
of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying
question of whether the verdict is against the weight
of the evidence. Brown, 648 A.2d at 1189.
Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to
hear and see the evidence presented, an appellate
court will give the gravest consideration to the
findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge
when reviewing a trial court's determination that the
verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 467 Pa. 50, 354
A.2d 545 (1976). One of the least assailable reasons
for granting or denying a new trial is the lower
court's conviction that the verdict was or was not
against the weight of the evidence.
Widmer, 744 A.2d at 753.
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 758 (Pa.Super. 2014)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1054 55 (Pa. 2013)).
Herein, we ha
and we affirm on the basis of its November 21, 2013 opinion. We also
observe that the jury was free to credit testimony linking Appellant to the
Commonwealth v.
Page
Commonwealth v.
Blackham, 909 A.2
-4-
J-S55005-14
evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact, which is free to believe all, part,
or none of the evidence, and to assess the credibility of the witnesses. . . .
It is not for this Court to overturn the credibility determinations of the fact-
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/15/2014
-5-
Circulated 08/28/2014 11:33 AM
Circulated 08/28/2014 11:33 AM
Circulated 08/28/2014 11:33 AM
Circulated 08/28/2014 11:33 AM
Circulated 08/28/2014 11:33 AM
Circulated 08/28/2014 11:33 AM
Circulated 08/28/2014 11:33 AM
Circulated 08/28/2014 11:33 AM
Com. v. Sterns, B.
Combined Opinion