J-S47008-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
KEVIN WILSON
Appellant No. 59 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 16, 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012880-2010
BEFORE: MUNDY, J., OLSON, J., and WECHT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 22, 2014
Appellant, Kevin Wilson, appeals from the November 16, 2012
attempt murder of the first degree, aggravated assault, robbery,
possession of a firearm without a license, carrying a firearm without a
license, and possession of an instrument of a crime (PIC).1 After careful
review, we affirm.
The trial court has set forth the relevant facts and procedural history
as follows.
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a) (to commit 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a)), 2702(a),
3701(a)(ii), 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), and 907(a), respectively.
J-S47008-14
At 12:30 a.m. on July 12, 2008, the
side seat of his motor vehicle and conversed with a
friend through the open front passenger window.
After a s
friend left. Approximately ten seconds later, []
leaned in the open window, and held a black gun
told the Complain
chain, watch, and one thousand dollars. [] Appellant
then told the Complainant his name. The
name was Scar Face Kev and if I wanted any trouble,
shot the Complainant in the stomach, and walked
away.
While the robbery was occurring, Kendall
McGill was approximately 40 feet away playing dice
with other males. McGill saw [] Appellant at the
McGill heard a gunshot and saw [] Appellant quickly
gun in his left waistband with his right hand. []
Appellant then walked past McGill and around the
corner.
After [] Appellant walked around the corner,
the Complainant started driving to Temple University
Hospital. While driving, the Complainant called his
mother and told her that he had been shot. When
the Complainant arrived at the emergency room,
doctors performed surgery.
After approximately four days, the
Complainant left the hospital without permission
because he feared for his safety. After leaving the
hospital, the Complainant went home. However, the
Complainant still did not tell the police that []
Appellant had shot him because he feared for his life
and did not want to be labeled a rat. However, while
the Complainant was home recovering, he informed
-2-
J-S47008-14
his mother and friends that [] Appellant had shot
him. Three months later, the Complainant finally
told the police who had shot him.
In March 2010, detectives attempted to arrest
Appellant but they could not locate him. On April 9,
2010, the Commonwealth learned that [] Appellant
was in custody at State Correctional Institution (SCI)
Greene. In April 2010, Officer Timothy Simpson of
the East Division Warrant Unit faxed a writ to SCI
Green[e] to bring [] Appellant to court. However, []
Appellant was not brought down. Although the
Commonwealth faxed additional requests on May 4,
2010, May 21, 2010[,] and June 2, 2010, []
Appellant was still not brought down. Finally, the
Commonwealth paid approximately $2[,]000[.00] to
extradite [] Appellant to Philadelphia. On June 8,
Trial Court Opinion, 9/25/13, at 2-4 (footnotes omitted).
On June 29, 2011, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(G).2
court appointed new counsel to represent him. New counsel filed a renewed
Rule 600(G) motion on June 29, 2012. The trial commenced with jury
selection on August 22, 2012. On August 28, 2012, following its charge to
day the jury convicted Appellant of the previously mentioned charges. On
November 16, 2012, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate
____________________________________________
2
Rule 600, as applicable in this case, was rescinded on October 1, 2012,
effective July 1, 2013, and replaced by the new Rule 600 on July 1, 2013.
Under the new version of Rule 600, the paragraphs have been reorganized.
However, for purposes of our review, we apply and cite to the version of
pursuant to Rule 600 was denied.
-3-
J-S47008-14
3
term of 20 to 40 y On
December 10, 2012, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.4
On appeal, Appellant raises the following three issues for our review.
1. [Whether] the jury verdict was against the
weight and sufficiency of the evidence[?]
2. [Whether] the trial judge erred by denying the
trial, and abused his discretion in making this
ruling that the Commonwealth was duly
diligent in bringing this case to trial in a timely
manner[?]
3. [Whether] the trial judge erred by allowing a
Commonwealth witness, the mother of the
victim to testify in the case about statements
she overheard on a telephone or told someone
on the phone about who was in fact the one
who robbed [her] son[?]
to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Id. at 9. Before we address
the merits of this issue, we must first determine if Appellant has preserved it
for appellate review.
____________________________________________
3
Specifically, Appellant was sentenced at count 1, criminal attempt
probation consecutive to count 1; count 4, possession of a firearm, five
carried without a license and count 9, PIC, no further penalty was imposed.
Sentencing Order, 11/16/12.
4
Appellant and the trial court have timely complied with Pennsylvania Rule
of Appellate Procedure 1925.
-4-
J-S47008-14
The plain text of Rule 1925(b)
identify each ruling or error that the appellant intends to
in the Statement will be deemed to include every subsidiary issue contained
Id. at 1925(b)(4)(v). Finally,
any issues not raised in accordance with Rule 1925(b)(4) will be deemed
waived. Id. at 1925(b)(4)(vii). Our Supreme Court has held that Rule
1925(b) is a bright-line rule.
Our jurisprudence is clear and well-settled, and
firmly establishes that: Rule 1925(b) sets out a
simple bright-line rule, which obligates an appellant
to file and serve a Rule 1925(b) statement, when so
ordered; any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b)
statement will be deemed waived; the courts lack
the authority to countenance deviations from the
ad hoc exceptions or selective enforcement;
appellants and their counsel are responsible for
violations may be raised by the appellate court sua
sponte, and the Rule applies notwithstanding an
1925 is not clear as to what is required of an
appellant, on-the-record actions taken by the
appellant aimed at compliance may satisfy the Rule.
We yet again repeat the principle first stated in
[Commonwealth v.] Lord, [719 A.2d 306 (Pa.
1998)] er to
preserve their claims for appellate review,
[a]ppellants must comply whenever the trial court
orders them to file a Statement of Matters
Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Any issues not raised in a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement will b Id.] at 309.
-5-
J-S47008-14
Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011) (footnote omitted).
and th
mother. See
1925(b) statement does not include any claim addressing the sufficiency of
ring that the verdict was against the
weight of the evidence. See id.
instructions in Hill
for failure to include it in his Rule 1925(b) statement.
In his
court erred in not attributing to the Commonwealth the time from March 5,
2010, when an arrest warrant for Appellant had been issued, to June 8,
2010, when Appellant was located at SCI Greene and arrested. Id.
8, 2010 and the Commonwealth knew or should have known that[,] thereby
attributing these 95 days to the Commonwealth. Faxing a bring down
Id.
usion that only 363 days
were attributable to the Commonwealth is incorrect, and that the 95 days
-6-
J-S47008-14
between March 5 and June 8, 2010 should be attributed to the
Commonwealth. Id. at 11-12.5
a
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012).
Judicial discretion requires action in conformity
with law, upon facts and circumstances judicially
before the court, after [a] hearing and due
consideration. An abuse of discretion is not merely
an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion
the law is overridden or misapplied or the judgment
exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of
partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, as shown by the
evidence or the record, discretion is abused.
evidence on the record of the Rule 600 evidentiary
hearing, and the findings of the trial court. An
appellate court must view the facts in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party.
So long as there has been no misconduct on
the part of the Commonwealth in an effort to evade
the fundamental speedy trial rights of an accused,
Rule 600 must be construed in a manner consistent
factor into the ultimate equation not only the
____________________________________________
5
We note that Appellant has failed to cite any legal authority in support of
his claim, and that this Court has long recognized that we will not consider
issues where Appellant fails to cite to any legal authority or otherwise
develop the issue. Commonwealth v. McLaurin, 45 A.3d 1131, 1139 (Pa.
Super. 2012), appeal denied, 65 A.3d 413 (Pa. 2013); Pa.R.A.P. 2119.
claim, we decline to find waiver on this basis.
-7-
J-S47008-14
prerogatives of the individual accused, but the
collective right of the community to vigorous law
enforcement as well.
Commonwealth v. Peterson, 19 A.3d 1131, 1134 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en
banc), affirmed, 44 A.3d 655 (Pa. 2012) (citations omitted).
Relative to his sub-
ruling on his Rule 600 motion, Appellant claims the trial court erred in
waiting to make a determination only after the charge to the jury was
brought under the Rule. See generally Pa.R.Crim.P. 600. We also note
that Appellant makes no averment that he was in any way prejudiced by the
court notes in its Rule 1925(a) opinion that the timing of its ruling was
occasioned by the late submissions made to it by the parties, containing
their respective claims of excludable and includable time in the Rule 600
calculation, and by the need for judicial efficiency. Trial Court Opinion,
9/25/13, at 8-9, n.45. Accordingly, we discern no abuse of discretion by the
Rule 600 motion, we recognize that the courts of this Commonwealth
employ a three-step analysis to determine whether Rule 600 requires
dismissal of the charges against a defendant.
-8-
J-S47008-14
The first step in determining whether a
to
run date is the date by which trial must commence
under the relevant procedural rule. [T]he
mechanical run date is ascertained by counting the
number of days from the triggering event - e.g., the
da - to
the date on which trial must commence under Rule
[600]. Pa.R.Crim.P. [600(A)(3)].
Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1, 11 (Pa. Super. 2006) (internal
citations omitted), appeal denied, 916 A.2d 632 (Pa. 2007). In the second
Commonwealth v. Ramos, 936 A.2d 1097, 1103 (Pa.
Super. 2007), appeal denied, 948 A.2d 803 (Pa. 2008). Then, in the third
nt of excludable time, if any, to the mechanical run
Id.
It is well settled that any delay occasioned by a defendant is
excludable time in the calculation of the adjusted run date. Pa.R.Crim.P.
600(C)(2), (3); Preston, supra. Furthermore, delays not attributable to a
defendant but where the Commonwealth is found to have acted with due
diligence in attempting to commence a timely trial but was prevented by
circumstances beyond its control, is also considered excludable time.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(G); accord Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 989 A.2d 883,
899 (Pa. 2010), cert. denied, Wholaver v. Pennsylvania, 131 S. Ct. 332
(2010). Any time prior to trial, a defendant may move the trial court for
-9-
J-S47008-14
dismissal of the charges if the Commonwealth has violated the Rule.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(G).
Applying the foregoing analysis to the facts of this case, we note that
the criminal complaint was filed on March 5, 2010, establishing March 5,
2011 as the mechanical run date under Rule 600 for the commencement of
Commonwealth and Appellant, the parties agreed that two periods, totaling
179 days were excludable as delays requested by Appellant. 6 See Trial
Court Opinion, 9/25/13, at 8, n.45, Appendix B. The trial court ruled that
two more disputed periods totaling 262 days were excludable as being
respectively.7 Id. at 6-7, n.42. Appellant has not challenged those aspects
their calculation sheets, trial was scheduled to commence on August 20,
one-day continuances, to review the status of a possible plea, on August 20
and 21 respectively. Consequently, these two days are excludable and the
____________________________________________
6
These periods included defense-requested continuances for November 17,
2010, to December 1, 2010, and for March 8, 2012, to August 20, 2012.
Trial Court Opinion, 9/25/13, Appendix B.
7
These periods included a Commonwealth request for a continuance due to
the unavailability of a witness in federal custody for August 17, 2010, to
September 21, 2010, and a continuance ordered by the trial court due to its
own unavailability for July 25, 2011 to March 8, 2012. Trial Court Opinion,
9/25/13, Appendix B.
- 10 -
J-S47008-14
adjusted run date based only on these now uncontested exclusions would be
May 21, 2012. Relevant to this appeal, the trial court also excluded a period
of 95 days, being the time between the filing of the criminal complaint and
Accordingly, if the trial court was correct to exclude the 95 days preceding
Appe
within the requirements of Rule 600. See Ramos, supra.
of the period between March 5, 2010, when the criminal complaint was filed
Relative to the period between the filing of a criminal complaint and the
arrest of a defendant, Rule 600 provides as follows.
Rule 600. Prompt Trial
(C) In determining the period for commencement
of trial, there shall be excluded therefrom:
(1) the period of time between the filing of the
provided that the defendant could not be
apprehended because his or her whereabouts were
unknown and could not be determined by due
diligence;
Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(C)(1).
- 11 -
J-S47008-14
contended that from March 5 to June 8, 2010 the Commonwealth should
have known where Appellant was, and therefore that period of 95 days
should be counted against the Commonwealth. N.T., 8/27/12, at 82. The
Commonwealth acknowledged that the criminal complaint was filed on March
5, 2010, but proceeded to place into evidence documentation supporting its
due diligence in locating and procuring Appellant during the period leading
up to June 8, 2010, when Appellant was finally arrested. Id. at 84-96. The
trial court aptly summa
opinion, as follows.
First, the Commonwealth attempted to arrest
[] Appellant in March 2010 by sending officers to
various locations Appellant frequented. Second, the
Commonwealth conducted a custody check and
discovered that Appellant was in State Prison at SCI
Greene. Third, after locating [] Appellant, the
Commonwealth faxed a bring down request and a
at SCI Greene. Fourth, when the prison failed to
respond, the Commonwealth made additional
requests on May 4, 2010, May 21, 2010, and June 2,
2010. Finally, the Commonwealth paid
approximately $2[,]000[.00] to have private
contractors transport Appellant to Philadelphia. On
June 8, 2010, [] Appellant arrived in Philadelphia.
Upon his arrival, the Commonwealth immediately
arrested [] Appellant and held him for trial.
Trial Court Opinion, 9/25/13, at 7 (footnotes omitted); see also N.T.,
8/27/12, at 92-96.
- 12 -
J-S47008-14
This Court has held that the Commonwealth
by utilizing the traditional w Commonwealth v. Jefferson, 741
A.2d 222, 224 (Pa. Super. 1999), appeal denied, 758 A.2d 1196 (Pa. 2000).
The Jefferson Court further held that the circumstances in Jefferson were
beyond the control of the Commonwealth because in Commonwealth v.
Nellom we stated clearly that a delay
resulting from a failure to bring down a defendant despite a writ was not
Jefferson, supra. In the instant
arrest warrant and the writ signed by the Honorable Rayford Means to bring
Appellant down to be arrested. N.T., 8/27/12, at 91-92. These exhibits
support the tri
diligence in locating and securing Appellant for arrest, but was prevented
red. See Pa.R.Crim.P.
600(C)(1), and (G).
excludable time under Rule 600, and Appellant was brought to trial before
the adjusted run date. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not
abuse its . See
Bradford, supra.
Finally, in his third issue, Appellant argues the trial court erred in
- 13 -
J-S47008-14
ents she overheard the [C]omplainant
8
admitted into the trial and that by doing so was more prejudicial than
Id.
to the prohibition against hearsay as relied on by the trial court. Id.
Accordingly, Appellant asserts the trial court abused its discretion
Id.
In considering this issue, we are guided by the following principles.
rulings is narrow. The admissibility of evidence is
solely within the discretion of the trial court and will
be reversed only if the trial court has abused its
discretion. An abuse of discretion is not merely an
error of judgment, but is rather the overriding or
misapplication of the law, or the exercise of
judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, or the
result of bias, prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as
shown by the evidence of record.
Commonwealth v. Mendez, 74 A.3d 256, 260 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation
omitted), appeal denied, 87 A.3d 319 (Pa. 2014). In order to be entitled to
____________________________________________
8
We again note with disfavor that Appellant has failed to adequately develop
this claim in his appellate brief, and therefore a finding of waiver would not
be improper. McLaurin, supra; Pa.R.A.P. 2119. Notwithstanding, as with
- 14 -
J-S47008-14
relief based on a showing of a clear abuse of discretion in an evidentiary
ruling, actual resulting prejudice must be established. Commonwealth v.
, 897 A.2d 1234, 1240 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
The subject testimony, elicited on direct examination of Dennison by
the Commonwealth, is as follows.
Q. And [] when people were looking for
[Complainant], how much time had passed between
the time he had been shot and the people were
coming around looking for him?
A. I would say about a month and a half.
Q. Okay.
Now at any point when [Complainant] got
home and was staying with you did you hear him
talking about the circumstances of getting shot?
A. Yes.
I asked [Complainant], while he was in the
hospital, who shot him. And he said, I d
So I said, Okay.
But in the process after he came home, I
overheard his conversation, and he said that the guy
--
[Defense Counsel]: Objection.
Move to strike.
[The Commonwealth]: Your Honor, if we
may see you at sidebar, briefly.
The Court: Okay.
---
- 15 -
J-S47008-14
(There was a brief sidebar discussion held off
the record).
---
[The Commonwealth]: May I proceed?
The Court: Yes.
Q. Ms. Dennison, when you were talking about a
conversation you heard, can you please tell the
ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you heard?
A. Well, what I heard, I also questioned him
about it.
Q. Start off with what you heard.
A. I heard him tell someone over the phone that
when the bull came to his car, he asked him for his
jewelry.
The Court: Did he have a statement of
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Just indicate what he said.
The Witness: He said that the person told
him my name is Scar Face Kev, and shot him.
Q. And you said you questioned him about it.
Did you have a conversation about what you
had heard?
A. Yeah, I asked him about it.
I said, I overheard you talking about this
person. I said, who is that?
--
- 16 -
J-S47008-14
[Defense Counsel]: Objection. Move to
strike.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Okay.
But did you discuss with him what he had said
about Scar Face Kev?
[Defense Counsel]: Objection.
Asked and answered.
The Court:
Q. Did you then have a conversation with
[Appellant], your son, about Scar Face Kev shooting
him?
A. Yes.
N.T., 8/24/12, at 10-13.9
The Commonwealth sought the foregoing testimony as evidence of a
prior consistent statement made by Complainant about the identity of the
person who shot him. Trial Court Opinion, 9/25/13, at 10. The trial court
permitted Den
____________________________________________
9
Our Rules of Evidence provide that a claim of trial court error cannot be
predicated on admission of evidence, absent a timely objection or motion
asserting specific grounds for inadmissibility unless that ground is apparent
from the context. Pa.R.E. 103(a)(1)(A), (B). As the sidebar following
he record, the specific grounds for the
objection have not been stated. Nevertheless, we conclude the hearsay
light of the later discussion between defense counsel and the trial court
about its cautionary charge respecting the testimony. Accordingly, we
appeal.
- 17 -
J-S47008-14
provide a cautionary instruction to the jury regarding the limited purpose for
which the jury could consider the testimony.
The Court:
The only other issue that will be outstanding is
during the lunch break you have to make a decision
on how you want to handle the hearsay objection.
[Defense Counsel]: I think a curative
instruction is appropriate.
The Court:
you what I have. And if you wish edit [sic] it or
tweak it, we can reach a mutual agreement.
[Defense Counsel]: Fine.
N.T., 8/27/12, at 61.
Accordingly, the trial court gave the jury the following special
The next charge
instruction, and I want you to pay attention to it very
carefully.
Under the doctrine of limited admissibility[,]
evidence can be permissible for one purpose but
inadmissible for another purpose. You heard
testimony from th
mother, Ruth Anne Dennison, in which she testified
that she overheard her son Terrence Savage,
speaking to an unknown individual on the phone.
She further testified that she overheard her son say
on the phone that Scar Face Kev shot him, meaning
Terrence. You are to totally disregard this portion of
- 18 -
J-S47008-14
Savage, her son, told Ms. Dennison directly after this
phone conversation that Scar Face Kev shot me.
Now this testimony was offered by the
Commonwealth, not for the truth of the [sic] Ms.
Terrence Savage, the son, said to Ms. Dennison
about who shot him. Rather, this portion of Ms.
Terrence Savage allegedly identified [Appellant] as
the shooter before Terrence Savage himself was
involved with the feds or was federally indicted for
his own criminal cases.
N.T., 8/27/12, at 125-126.
Our Rules of Evidence outline the set of circumstances that are a
prerequisite to the admissibility of prior consistent statements.
Rule 613. Prior statements of witnesses
(c) Evidence of prior consistent statement of
witness. Evidence of a prior consistent statement
by a witness is admissible for rehabilitation purposes
if the opposing party is given an opportunity to
cross-examine the witness about the statement, and
the statement is offered to rebut an express or
implied charge of:
(1) fabrication, bias, improper influence or
motive, or faulty memory and the statement was
made before that which has been charged existed or
arose; []
Pa.R.E. 613(c), a prior consistent statement is always received for
- 19 -
J-S47008-14
Commonwealth v. Handfield, 34 A.3d 187, 208 (Pa. Super. 2011)
(citation omitted), appeal denied, 54 A.3d 347 (Pa.
consistent statement is admissible only if it is made before the declarant has
Id. (citations omitted).
The trial court explained the circumstances pertaining to the admission
At trial, the Complainant testified that the
Appellant robbed and shot him. During cross-
information that the Complainant (Savage) was
federally indicted and was "cooperating with federal
officials by identifying the Appellant as the person
who had shot him. Counsel also brought out on
cross-examination that the Complainant was facing a
federal sentence of 37 years to life, and that if he
testified favorably for the government, the
Complainant could receive a mitigated federal
sentence. Hence, it was through cross-examination
identification. In fairness to the Commonwealth, the
blish that
the Complainant had made a prior consistent
statement identifying the Appellant prior to his being
federally indicted.
Trial Court Opinion, 9/25/13, at 11 (citation to record omitted).
gs. Thus, the
Commonwealth was permitted to support the credibility of Complainant from
Appellant as being motivated to gain favor from federal authorities, with
onsistent identification made before Complainant faced
- 20 -
J-S47008-14
federal indictment. See Pa.R.E. 613(c)(1); Handfield, supra. Additionally,
Appellant was afforded full opportunity to cross-examine Dennison and the
trial court gave a pertinent special instruction to the jury, defining the
limited relevance of the testimony, to which Appellant offered no objection.
In light of these circumstances, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial
consistent statements identifying Appellant as his assailant. Thus,
waived or devoid of merit. Accordingly, we affirm the November 16, 2012
judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/22/2014
- 21 -