J-S47021-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ANDRE CHANEY,
Appellant No. 2201 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of June 28, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012656-2011
BEFORE: MUNDY, OLSON AND WECHT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 22, 2014
Appellant, Andre Chaney, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on June 28, 2013. We affirm.
The trial court has ably summarized the underlying facts of this case.
As the trial court explained:
On September 26, 2011, at approximately 12:10 a.m.,
the door of his [Philadelphia] apartment [building]. . . .
Upon opening the door, three individuals Appellant,
-defendant Mustafa Hil
and an unidentified male wearing a ski mask pushed
through into the entrance of the apartment building and
closed the door behind them. [The victim] knew [Appellant]
and Hill because they regularly bought loose cigarettes from
hi
pushed him back toward the doorway of his apartment
[Appellant and the victim] struggled in the apartment
vestibule and after Hill had blocked [the victim] from
getting to his door, Hill stood at the front door of the
J-S47021-14
apartment building as a lookout. The unidentified male,
apartment, as [Appellant] continued to restrain [the victim]
in the hallway by squeezing his neck. After a few minutes,
building. [The victim] went inside [his apartment] and
found his apartment disheveled with $800[.00] missing
from the drawer of his nightstand.
[Philadelphia Police] Officer [Michael] Gwynn was the first to
respond to the radio call for a robbery in progress and, after
speaking with [the victim], the officer gave out a flash
description of the males to the officers in the area.
[Philadelphia Police] Detective [Frank] Mullen and
[Philadelphia Police] Officer [Anthony] Coward arrived at the
apartment building and[,] shortly thereafter[, the victim]
indicated that he saw the males and pointed to [] two men
[walking] northbound up 60th Street. The officers began to
cross the street toward the males and, upon seeing the
officers, the males ran into a set of houses, located at 1211
and 1213 North 60th Street. The officers knocked on the
door of 1211 North 60th Street and were permitted inside,
but the search provided negative results. The officers then
knocked on the door of 1213 North 60th Street, where the
second floor resident informed them that the first floor
resident was unknown, but that a girl lived on the third
floor. The officers proceeded to the third floor and
[Appellant] opened the door and informed the officers that
he was in his apartment with his girlfriend and another
friend. [Appellant] was brought outside and [the victim]
identified him as one of the males who had [robbed him].
The officers returned upstairs and found Hill lying [on] the
[floor] of a closet[. The officers brought Hill] outside, and
[the victim] identified [Hill] as [the second of the three
males who had robbed him].
Trial Court Opinion, 12/5/13, at 3-4.
conspiracy, burglary, criminal trespass, carrying a firearm without a license,
-2-
J-S47021-14
carrying a firearm in public in Philadelphia, and possessing instruments of
crime.1 The trial court then found Appellant guilty of possession of a firearm
by a prohibited person.2 On November 20, 2012, the trial court sentenced
Appellant to serve an aggregate term of six-and-a-half to 20 years in prison
for the above convictions.
Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion and claimed that his
convictions were against the weight of the evidence and that his sentence
was manifestly excessive. The trial court held -
o
reconsider the sentence. On June 28, 2013, the trial court resentenced
Appellant to serve an aggregate term of five-and-a-half to 20 years in
prison.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from his judgment of
sentence. Appellant now raises the following claim to this Court:
Did not the trial court err and abuse its discretion in denying
testimony and prior statements to [the] police were
inconsistent, contradictory, and totally unreliable,
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701(a)(1)(ii), 903, 3502(a), 3503(a)(1)(i), 6106(a)(1),
6108, and 907(a), respectively.
2
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1).
-3-
J-S47021-14
particularly concerning the critical issue of his identification
of Appellant?
Our Supreme Court has held:
a verdict is against the weight of the evidence only when
the
the evidence claim is addressed to the discretion of the trial
court. 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. Rather,
the role of the trial court is to determine that
notwithstanding all the evidence, certain facts are so clearly
of greater weight that to ignore them, or to give them equal
weight with all the facts, is to deny justice. A motion for a
new trial on the grounds that the verdict is contrary to the
weight of the evidence concedes that there is sufficient
evidence to sustain the verdict; thus the trial court is under
no obligation to view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict winner.
Significantly, in a challenge to the weight of the evidence,
the function of an appellate court on appeal is to review the
the record, rather than to consider de novo the underlying
question of the weight of the evidence. In determining
whether this standard has been met, appellate review is
exercised, and relief will only be granted where the facts
and inferences of record disclose a palpable abuse of
a motion for a new trial based on a weight of the evidence
claim is the least assailable of its rulings.
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211, 1225 (Pa. 2009) (internal
q 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
-4-
J-S47021-14
bias, prejudice, ill-wil
Commonwealth v. Serrano, 61 A.3d 279, 290 (Pa. Super. 2013) (internal
quotations and citations omitted).
-sentence motion, Appellant claimed that the
he weight of the evidence because: 1) during
trial, the victim testified that, at the time of the robbery, he was familiar
with the names and voices of Appellant and Hill however, the victim did
not testify to this fact at the preliminary hearing and the police report
contains no such statement; 2) during trial, the victim testified that he could
see the faces of the robbers however, the victim originally informed the
police that the robbers were all wearing masks; and, 3) during trial, the
victim testified that the robbers all carried firearms however, another
witness told the police that she did not see the robbers carrying firearms.
-Sentence Motion, 12/4/12, at 1-2. Appellant claimed that
the above discrepancies showed that the v
weight of the evidence. Id.
evidence claim.
enial of his
weight claim by reiterating the above contentions. However, it is clear that
of the evidence challenge. Certainly, the jury was well aware of the alleged
-5-
J-S47021-14
testimony was truthful and accurate with respect to the fact that, on
September 26, 2011, Appellant robbed the victim and that, during the
robbery, Appellant employed a firearm.
fact-finder. Moreover, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion when it concluded that
Rivera, 983 A.2d at 1225.
Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/22/2014
-6-
Com. v. Chaney, A.
Combined Opinion